ISKKHJENTS FROM MALTING AND BREWING*

By Peter C. G. Isaac and G. K. Anderson

(Department of Civil Engineering. Division of Public Health Engineering. University of
Newcastle upon Tyne)

Received 18fA October, 1072

Following a general discussion of the effects of different types of industrial waste

on the waters receiving these wastes, and a survey of methods available for assessing
the polluting strength of effluents (e.g. Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Chemical
Oxygen Demand) analyses are given of the occurrence and nature of specified malting
and brewery effluents. Methods of treatment, including the use of bacteria beds
"and of activated sludge are descri bed and evaluated and estimates of costs of treatment
and disposal are suggested.

Key words: brewery, costing, effluent,
mailing, pollution.
Industry in England and Wales uses for
process purposes some 3-4000 million m3 of
water per year. Some of this leaves the
factory as part of the product, e.g. in beer,
but the greater part leaves industry in a
dirtier state than it entered, and much of
this is discharged to surface waters, where
the substances it contains may cause pollu
tion.
chromium from plating, anodizing or tanning,
pesticides used in agriculture, disinfectants
used in bottle washing, and radioactive
materials from laboratories and hospitals.
Measurable quantities of this kind of pollu
tion are likely to make the water unfit for
use as a water supply, as well as destroying
the plant and animal life in the stream.
2. Those which contribute to the oxygen
depletion of the receiving water.—In turn, it is
convenient to subdivide these into three
groups:

(i) Chemical reducing agents such as

Effects of Wastes on Receiving Waters
sulphide (e.g. from tanning); these,
It is clear that almost any substance can even if they are themselves not toxic
get into waste water—and many do. (Group 1) will exert an immediate
Although, therefore, the effects of these oxygen demand.
wastes on the receiving waters are extra
(ii) Biologically labile substances, for
ordinarily varied and occasionally disastrous,
whose biochemical stabilization oxy
it is convenient to consider the effects of
gen is essential, and which will there
polluting subtances in three groups:
fore draw on the small supply of dis
1. Those which are themselves toxic or solved oxygen in the water. The
harmful.—As examples we may consider commonest example here is sewage and
• Paper read to the Yorkshire & North-Eastern Section ol the Institute of Brewing on 6th October, 1072.
Vol. 79, 1973] ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
others are wastes from the soft-drinks
industry, breweries, distilleries, malt-
ings, beet-sugar factories, etc.
(iii) Surface-active agents, which interfere
with the solution of oxygen at the air-
water interface, by which means re-
aeration normally takes place. A
layer of grease or oil could act in this
way, but the commonest materials of
this type are the anionic synthetic
detergents in wide use in the home and
for bottle-washing, etc.
3. Those which are indirectly toxic.—
Suspended solids will be deposited and may
so blanket the stream bed as to destroy plant
and invertebrate life, and thus "sterilize"
the stream as effectively as a Group-1 poison.
Examples of this kind of pollution are waters
from the washing of coal or gravel. Dis
solved salts may render the water unsuitable
for some purposes: an example is oilwell
brine.
Group (2.ii) substances are so important
(and it is into this group that malting and
brewing wastes fall) that we must take a
further look at the significance of dissolved
oxygen in streams and other surface waters.
Dissolved Oxygen and Metabolism
All natural organic substances (and many
synthetic organic materials, even those so
unlikely as phenol) decay and break down in
nature as the result of the action of bacteria
and other micro-organisms. This decay is
the result of two concurrent sets of reactions:
oxidation (or catabolism), in which the organic
matter is taken to relatively simple end-
products with the emission of energy, and
synthesis (or anabolism), in which the micro
organisms use the energy released by catabol
ism to increase and multiply.
In this aerobic metabolism the maximum
amount of energy is released by the catabol
ism and the end-products are harmless and
odourless. Aerobic breakdown is highly
desirable, therefore, but demands a supply of
oxygen large enough to meet all the needs of
the micro-organisms. In sewage-treatment
processes we ensure this by careful design
and operation; in receiving waters we can
ensure it only by limiting the organic load on
the stream to what it can carry.
Oxygen is always necessary for catabolism,
but it does not have to come from the air:
155
certain micro-organisms can get the oxygen
that they need from oxygen-containing sub
stances such as sulphates and nitrates. In
these circumstances the metabolism is anaero
bic (or septic) and the oxygen-donors will be
reduced, usually with the production of
odorous substances (e.g. H2S from the reduc
tion of sulphate).
In treatment processes we can very largely
control whether the breakdown is aerobic or
anaerobic, and we can, within limits, govern
the relative proportions of oxidation and
synthesis. In a stream, however, we have
little or no control over the self-purification
which occurs.
Self-purification of Receiving Waters
All bodies of water can safely receive, and
can assimilate without nuisance, a sub
stantial amount of polluting matter. The
various means by which the waters reduce
the pollution are collectively called self-
purification; they include the following:
1. Sedimentation (which may be assisted
by mechanical or biological flocculation).—
This may not be an unmixed blessing;
sludge banks may interfere with navigation
and river flow, and organic deposits may
ferment anaerobically and so release a high
oxygen demand to the supernatant water.
2. Chemical oxidation of reducing agents
may take place. The oxygen demand, how
ever, is very rapid so that such reducing
agents should not normally be permitted to
reach surface waters in any measurable
concentrations.
3. Bacterial decay.—The classical work of
Alexander Houston showed (in connection
with the storage reservoirs of the Metropolitan
Water Board) that most enteric and other
pathogens died away in fresh water quite
rapidly, indeed more rapidly than the indicator
organism, Escherichia coli. This bacterial
decay is probably due to a number of factors
including (i) dilute substrate, (ii) reduced
salinity [compared with body fluids], (iii)
antibiotic substances produced by plant and
animal life in the water, (iv) lower tempera
ture, and (v) interspecific competition with
normal 'water' bacteria.
4. Biochemical oxidation is perhaps the
most important of the factors contributing to
self-purification. It occurs as the result of
156 ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
the action of bacteria and other micro
organisms.
The living organisms in a stream—bacteria,
plants, protozoa and higher animals—form a
complex and balanced community. The
plants build themselves up by photosyn
thesis, using carbon dioxide and nutrient
salts which are to be found in the water; in
some circumstances these plants may make
a substantial oxygen contribution to the
water especially where there is bright sun
shine. When this community is efficiently
operating—i.e. when the dynamic ecological
'balance' is in a happy state—the various
organisms carry out a continuous purification
of the water. The presence of a sufficient
concentration of dissolved oxygen in the
water is absolutely essential to this condition
of healthy balance. If the dissolved oxygen
concentration falls sufficiently, the higher
organisms will be eliminated and the whole
character of the water will be changed;
organic substances may now be broken
down anaerobically with consequent odour
nuisance. The atmosphere is the chief
source of oxygen and re-aeration is assisted
by turbulent conditions of flow.
Oxygen Balance in Streams
We are clearly concerned with the dis
solved oxygen (DO) concentration in the
water; this is affected by:
(a) temperature;
(b) BOD (biochemical oxygen demand—
to be discussed later);
(c) re-aeration; and
(d) salinity of the water.
At any time the oxygen concentration is the
resultant of the rate of oxidation (oxygen
uptake) and the rate of reoxygenation. As
oxygen uptake commences, due to self-
purification, the oxygen deficit so caused
starts re-aeration; this produces the well-
known 'sag*. At normal temperatures in
Britain the saturation concentration of oxy
gen in fresh water is 10 mg/litre or less, so
that even if the water is initially saturated
with oxygen the cumulative oxygen uptake
can at no stage exceed the cumulative
reoxygenation by more than about 10 mg/
litre if septic conditions are to be avoided.
Indeed, the Royal Commission on Sewage
Disposal (in the Appendix to its Eighth Report)
has suggested that a river is on the verge
[J. Inst. Brew.
of becoming unpleasant where the dissolved
oxygen concentration falls below 5-7 mg/
litre.
Warm water, of pure quality, may well
fall into Group 2 pollution. Biological
stabilization, like most biochemical and
chemical reactions, takes place more rapidly
as temperature rises. For this reason heated
effluents will increase the rate of oxygen
uptake. At the same time the saturation
concentration of oxygen falls with increase of
temperature. Raised temperatures, there
fore, place a double burden on the oxygen
concentration of surface waters. Very warm
effluents, indeed, may produce dramatic
fish-kills, both by accentuating the action of
poisons and by reducing oxygen concentra
tion.
Strength of Effluents
The polluting strength of a malting or
brewery effluent is best defined in terms of
the organic substances which will affect the
dissolved oxygen content of the receiving
water. It is not usual to analyse for indivi
dual organic compounds, but to measure the
overall oxygen demand of these substances.
This demand may be assessed in a number of
ways.
Biochemical oxygen demand.—The bio
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) is usually
defined as the amount of oxygen required to
stabilize organic matter under aerobic condi
tions. It is used to determine the polluting
strength of waste materials in terms of the
oxygen they will require if they are discharged
into natural watercourses in which aerobic
conditions prevail. Since the BOD test
involves the measurement of oxygen con
sumed by living organisms while these are
using the organic matter present in waste,
the conditions under which the the test is
run must be controlled very closely, including
incubation at a temperature of 20° C for five
days. It is important that the environ
mental conditions of the test should be suit
able for the organisms to function at all
times. This means that toxic materials
must not be present and that all nutrients
needed for bacterial growth should be present
in the waste; if they are not, they should be
added.
The biological breakdown of organic matter
will not be complete during the five-day
incubation of this test. However, longer
periods of incubation are generally not
Vol. 79, 1973] ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
practicable, and may give rise to serious
error, due, for example, to nitrification.
When considering domestic sewage and some
industrial wastes it has been found that the
five-day BOD value is about 70-80% of the
total BOD, but with certain organic industrial
wastes the proportion of BOD exerted in five
days can be markedly different from this.
BOD data are used to design biological
treatment units, to control the quality of
effluents discharged into receiving bodies of
water, and to fix charges made by Local
Authorities for the reception of industrial
effluents.
Chemical oxygen-demand tests.—For some
time now organic wastes have been analysed
for their oxygen-consuming power by oxidiz
ing them chemically with measured amounts
of oxidizing reagents. These methods are
superior to the BOD tests in that they can be
completed in a very short time, but their
value is reduced since they do not differentiate
between biologically oxidizable and biologic
ally inert organic matter. At the same time,
they do not provide any data on the rate at
which biologically active material can be
stabilized under conditions that exist in
receiving bodies of water. When the charac
teristics and organic content of the waste
remain reasonably constant it is sometimes
possible to obtain a fixed relationship be
tween chemical oxygen-demand tests and the
biochemical oxygen-demand test. However,
frequent correlations between the BOD and
COD tests should be made. It is general
practice to use COD data for plant control
and not for design work; such data are still
frequently used by municipalities as the basis
for charging for the reception and treatment
of industrial wastes.
The oldest COD test is that which employs
acid potassium permanganate and the result
obtained, known as the permanganate value
(PV), is the amount of oxygen absorbed from
acid potassium permanganate in four hours
at 27° C. Sometimes a modification of this
test is used to detect rapidly oxidizable
material during a three-minute contact.
The dichromate test is the most recent
COD determination, and measures the oxygen
consumed from boiling acid potassium di
chromate. This test has the advantage over
the permanganate method in that the solu
tion is boiled, so that no thermostatically-
controlled incubator is required.
Some estimate of the ease with which the
JU ■ UAli.
157
organic pollution will break down may be
obtained from the ratio of the COD (di
chromate value) to BOD. The COD: BOD
ratio for domestic sewage is about 2:1. A
higher ratio indicates that the substance is
less easily degraded than sewage.
It is also important to measure the amount
of suspended solids in an effluent, since such
solids can cause pollution on discharge to a
surface water and since they will add to the
sludge problem at the treatment works. It
is usual to differentiate between total sus
pended solids and volatile suspended solids
(i.e. those lost on heating to redness), the
latter being taken as organic matter.
Control of Pollution
It will readily be appreciated from the
analyses given later in this paper that
malting and brewing effluents would cause
serious pollution if they were discharged to a
river, and therefore they must be subject to
control. Indeed most discharges of effluent
are subject to control as follows:
1. To non-tidal surface waters.—All such
discharges require the consent of the River
Authority under the Rivers (Prevention
of Pollution) Acts, 1951 and 1901.
2. To ground waters.—All discharges to
underground strata made by means of a pipe,
borehole or well require similar consent from
the River Authority.
3. To sewers.—All such discharges re
quire the consent of the Local Authority or,
if they were made before 3rd March, 1937,
they may be subject to the Authority's
direction. Charges may be made by the
Local Authority for the reception and
treatment of such effluents.
4. To tidal estuaries.—All discharges made
after 29th September, 1960, are subject to an
exactly similar consent procedure of the
River Authority.
5. To the sea.—Such discharges may
require the consent of the Sea Fisheries
Committee under the Sea Fisheries Regula
tion Acts.
The consequence of such statutory control
is that malting and brewing wastes will often
require to be pretreated before discharge.
Occurrence and Nature of Malting Effluents
The only normal waste from malting is the
steep liquor. This is a strong, deeply
158 ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS [J. Inst. Brew.

TABLE I
Analyses of Malting Steep Liquors"

C» D E F

Contact 6-day Waste 5-day Waste 6-day Waste 5-day

time BOD volume BOD volume BOD volume BOD
Makings (h) mg/litre gal mg/litre gal mg/litre gal mg/litre

1st steep 24 060 14.000 1100 10.000 750 14.000 1900

2nd ,. 12 020 10.000 900 10.000 850 14,000 1630
Srd 12 185 10.000 700 10.000 400 14,000 1890
4th 16 254 5000 140 8000 50 14,000 450
termination water 50
Composite sample .. 300 30.000 825 38,000 540 56,000 1470

Water use
(gal/bushel) 63 20-4 300 13
BOD load
(lb/bushel) 0-25 022 0-21 0-19

• See also Ruf ct al.°

coloured, readily putrescible liquid, which using Scottish, English and Canadian barley.
may contain much suspended solids if the The figures given represent the production
grain is dirty. The steep liquor may give over one week. During this week the total
rise to nuisance from excessive frothing.
The nature and quantity of the steep liquors TABLE II
vary widely but, as will be seen from the Analyses of Maltinos (G) Steep Liquors"
analyses given below, the total BOD load
per bushel of barley malted is much more 5-day HOD Organic N NII.-N
consistent from one maltings to another. (mg/litrc) (mg/Utrc) (mg/litre) BOD:N*

Typical analyses given by Simpson10 are let sleep 2800 132 32 29

2nd „ 2250 75 17 42
conflated in Tables I and II; these are for Srd „ 1900 64 10 40
4th „ 490 12 2 61
maltings in US and Britain. The consider Composite
able variation in strength is further illustrated sampio 1800 71 17 36

by the analyses given in Table III. These

Water use—13 gal/bushel. BOD load—024 lb/bushel.
values were measured at a British maltings • llatio of BOD to Bum of (lulf organic N + N1I.-N).

TABLE III
Steep Liquors from a British Malting

1st Steep 2nd Steep 3rd Steep 4th Steep

Batch Volume BOD Volume BOD Volume BOD Volume BOD

Malting H (gal) (mg/litre) (gal) {mg/litre) (gal) (mg/litre) (gal) (mg/litre)

1 14.000 2750 14.000 1300 14,000 1800 14,000 870

2 14.000 1600 14.000 1300 14.000 2000 14,000 390
3 14.000 1600 14,000 1000 14,000 1600 14.000 210
4 14,000 1000 14.000 1000 14,000 14.000 325
5 14.000 1200 14.000 1250 14,000 1630 14.000 400
0 14,000 1450 14,000 1700 14,000 1600 14.000 350
7 14,000 2800 14,000 2000 14,000 3000 14.000 560
8 14.000 2800 14,000 2250 14,000 1900 14.000 490
9 8000 4000 8000 315
10 8000 2000 8000 2400 8000 635
11 8000 2350 8000 3050 8000 720
12 8000 2700 8000 3200 8000 720
13 8000 2050 8000 2860 8000 550
Vol. 79, 1973] Isaac and anderson: brewery effluents 169

quantity of effluent discharged was 434,000
gal with a total BOD load of 7060 lb; the
daily discharge varied from 38,000 to 73,000
gal with a corresponding daily BOD load
varying from 623 to 1191 lb.
variation in polluting load is one of the
problems of which account must be taken in
the design of treatment plant. More de-
tailed analyses made in the authors' labora-
tory are given in Table IV. Further
analyses of malting effluents may be found in
Beeckmans et al* and in Briscoe4.
This wide Occurrence and Nature of Brewery Effluents
There are two stages of operation following
malting: brewing and fermentation, and cask
or bottle filling. Each of these stages contri-
butes more or less liquid waste, which varies

TABLE IV
Analyses of Malting Effluents Made in the Authors' Laboratory

Volume Total Total

(gal) BOD COD* PV§ SSf TSJ pH N P

Maltings K
(Dressed Zephyr barley, 12 hr steep, about 10} qr barley per tank)
1st steep 1400 4360 66 4950 6-8 138 60
2nd 1700 3360 31 2790 60 82 33
3rd 2300 3520 24 1790 5-8 50 16
Steep water used : 104 gal/qr (13 gal/bushel)
BOD load: 1-87 lb/qr (0-23 lb/bushel)

Maltings L
(Barley varieties: 1st steep Proctor, 2nd Ymer, 3rd1 Golden Promise)
1st steep .. 14,000 470 830 180 87 1408 00 303 10
2nd .. 14,000 570 750 148 41 998 0-9 11-2 6
3rd .. 14,000 360 450 68 23 634 7-0 7-8 0
Steep water used : 175 gal/qr (23 gal/bushel)
BOD load: 0-32 lb/qr (010 lb/bushel)
(Samples settled 5-10 min to lremove gross solids)

Maltings M
(125 qr per tank, malt for export grade lager: 1st steep 8 h + 12 h rest, 2nd Oh + 10 h rest, 3rd 4h +
10 h rcst^

1st steep .. 8000 1060 1020 303 104 2642 6-2 50-5 36
2nd .. 8000 260 400 120 30 750 00 00 7
3rd .. 8000 470 000 125 52 644 6-9 0-7 35
Steep water used : 102 gal/qr (24 gal/bushel)
BOD load: 1-15 lb/qr (014 lb/bushel)
(Samples settled 5-10 min to iremove gross solids)

Maltings N
(Norfolk Proctor barley, 1st steep 12 h. 2nd 21 h + 24 h dry. 3rd 36 h + 24 h dry—30 qr barley)
1st steep .. 1500 80 188 33 29 498 71 0-7 11
2nd .. 1300 1320 2360 226 44 1464 61 49-4 27-5
3rd .. 1200 1200 1700 240 79 1220 6-2 33-5 25
Steep water used: 133 gal/qr (17 gal/bushel)
BOD load: 118 lb/qr (015 lb/bushcl)
(Samples settled 5-10 min to remove gross solids)

• Dichromate value. { Total solids. (All analyses except pH in mg/litre). § Permanganate value (4 h).
f Suspended solids.
160 ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS [J. Inst. Brew.

in strength from the beer-tank "bottoms" to
almost pure cooling water.
The main waste during brewing is the wash-
water from the fermentation vessels. This
may be fairly strong and may contain viable
yeast cells, which can be troublesome in
normal sewage treatment. Varying quanti
ties of pollution may be contributed by
spillage during mashing and fermenting.
The greatest volume of waste from the
filling of casks or bottles will be the water for
washing the casks and bottles. The volume
of these wash-waters is likely to be very much
greater than that of the other effluent, and
the waste is likely to be weaker. Bottle
washing may also contribute detergent and
alkali, as well as suspended solids from the
labels removed. Spillage while filling (e.g.
from bottles breaking on the filling machine)
will also contribute pollution to the floor-
washing waters.
In addition, substantial quantities of un
polluted cooling water may be discharged to
waste. In the present climate of opinion,
such water ought to be re-used where
possible. There will also be such normal
'factory' discharges as boiler blowdown,
wash water from water filters, brine from
zeolite softeners, lime sludge from lime
softeners, etc. None of these is likely to be
large in volume or to contribute significant
organic pollution.
Analyses of samples of effluent from three
North-eastern breweries, submitted by the
courtesy of the brewers, to whom we extend
our thanks, are shown in Table V. If they
may be taken as typical, it will be seen that
the overall waste is likely to be about
neutral, with a significant BOD value and
some suspended solids. For comparison it
may be said that a normal British domestic
sewage will have a BOD of about 300 mg/litre
and suspended solids of about 400 ing/litre
and may contain 10 or more mg/litre of
synthetic detergent.
Waste Control
The total volume of wastes may be mini
mized by careful plant housekeeping, and in
particular by the recirculation of cooling
water. When making comparisons of costs
of the refrigeration of recirculated cooling
water and of once-through use, it must be
kept in mind that to the cost of water (today
probably 15 to 30p per 1000 gal)—must be
added the trade-waste charges levied by the
Local Authority.
The importance of avoiding spillage need
hardly be emphasized. Spillage and the
flushing to waste of spoilt batches of material
in production can make a considerable contri
bution to the overall polluting strength of an
effluent. In addition to the normal recovery

TABLE V
Analyses of Brewery Effluents

Suspended Total Fhcnolphthalcin

Permanganate BOD Total solids ncldlty alkalinity
value. (4 h> 5-day solids (glass fibre) (mg/Illrc (mg.'litru
BREWERY A pll (mg/lltre) (mg/litrc) (mg/lltre) (mg/lltre) as CaCO,) as CnCO,)

Fennenting-vcisw] washings (I'M) 177 880 2070 1080 47

Cagk-woKliine 0 40 an 460 1000 168 21 —

Bottle-washing (beer) 1070 30 210 1930 460 —

350
Bottle-washing (mineral) (1-40 30 100 1230 450 —
CO
Steep liquor ex waitings 0-35 250 050 2910 218 87
~
BREWERY B

Steep liquor lnt drain 51M) 451 2350 3090 145 284
Steep liquor llnnl drain 5-llS 404 40SO 3070 112 508
Ex cask washer (1110 32 110 690 96 26
Ex bottle washer 00 19 105 1140 438 34
~
BllEWERY C

Steep liquor composite sample

from one hntrh of barley .. 0-40 30-7 170 408 27-5 26 —

Steep liquor lot drain fi-ns 13-0 80 341 16-0 14 —

Cask-washing 505 49-2 700 727 53-0 87 —

Fcrmcntlng-veracl washing .. .VI5 2230 1340 1080 111-5 212

Bottle-washing (prcrinse) .. 6-00 201 140 406 340 12 —

Draught beer: Exhibition .. :mo 2046 63000 38585 315 1607 .—

Draught beer: I.P.A. 3-00 1924 50000 24038 235 1528

Vol. 79, 1973] ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
of yeast, it is desirable to do as much as is
feasible to remove yeast from the wash-water
from the brewery fermentation vessels.
Cleanliness of equipment, cask and bottle
is so important to the product and its storage
life that re-use of wash-water must be very
limited. Economy can, however, be effected
by countercurrent washing of bottles; this
also economizes in heat, detergent and alkali.
Effluent Treatment
After all measures have been taken to
minimize the quantity and strength of the
effluent there will still be a substantial volume
of very polluting liquid waste requiring
disposal. Estimated quantities of the vari
ous waste waters discharged from the three
North-eastern breweries are shown in Table
VI and volumes of effluent from makings are
given in Tables I, III and IV. These waste
waters contain so much organic material that
they cannot be discharged to surface waters
without causing nuisance. Treatment is
therefore necessary before final discharge.
TABLE VI
Brewery Effluent Volumes
Brewery A
Settling-vessel washing
Fermenting-vessel washing
Cask-washing effluent
Steep liquor from maltings
Bottle-washing effluent (beer)
(inc. cooling water and blowdown)
Bottle-washing effluent (mineral)
(inc. cooling water from chilling plant
Brewery B
Maltings
Brewery
Bottling
Brewery C
Steep liquor from maltings
Fermenting vessel washing
Cask-washing
Bottle-washing (beer)
161
Since these effluents are not very different
from domestic sewage, the normal methods
of biological treatment may be used, namely,
biological filters (more properly known as
bacteria beds) and activated sludge.
It has been found that for effective and
rapid biological oxidation of organic matter
there is an optimum ratio of BOD: nitrogen:
phosphorus which is about 100:6:1. In
particular, if the BOD: N ratio is substantially
greater than 17 the treatment will be less
complete and slower. Malting and brewing
wastes are, on the whole, low in nitrogen as
may be seen from Tables II and VII, which
give analyses of nitrogen in the effluent
samples from makings of Brewery C.
Domestic sewage, on the other hand, has a
BOD:N ratio much less than 17. The most
economical way of treating brewery and
malting effluent is, therefore, to treat them
in admixture with domestic sewage. For
makings and breweries situated in large
towns this implies the discharge of the waste
waters to the municipal sewers for treatment
at the town's sewage works. Even in this
Average 4S0 gat/h
Average 300 gal/h
2500 gal/h when washer is running
2100 gal discharged over 1 h at 10 times in the
week
5300 gal/h with all units operating
1800 gal/h at max. operation
16,000 gal/day, of which 8000 gal is steep liquor;
most of remainder is pure cooling water
200,000 gal/day, of which 30,000 gal is from cask
washer; rest from numerous sources, very
variable in quality
150,000 gal/day, of which 40,000 gal is from bottle-
washer; rest variable in quality
3000 gal discharged in one day's operation
Average 2500 gal/day
Average 63,000 gal/day
Average 17,000 gal/day
162 ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS [J. Inst. Brew.

TABLE VII
Nitrogen in Brewery Wastes
(Brewery C)

Waste NH,-N* Organic-N* Available N* BOD: N ratio

Steep liquor 0 25-2 12-6 13-4 : 1

Fermenting—vessel washing .. 0 1050 52-6 25-6 : 1
Cask-washing 0 13-4 6-7 104-4 : 1
Bottle washing (prerinsc) 0 0 0

Draught beer:
Exhibition 0 52-7 26-4 2400 : 1
I.P.A 0 6-1-3 32-2 1556 : 1

' Analyses in mg/litre.

case, it is desirable, indeed probably neces
sary, to provide a minimum of pretreatment
at the brewery, e.g. settlement to remove
large solids such as label residues, and
effective removal of yeast. Some balancing
of flow from maltings may be desirable, but
this must usually be fairly short, since the
strong, organic steep liquors tend to go
septic quite readily.
Where a maltings or a brewery is in a
country district it may be necessary to treat
the liquid wastes at the source, before dis
charge to a river. Full treatment will be
required, and either bacteria beds or activ
ated sludge may be used for the biological
stage. In view of the waste's high BOD: N
ratio we are inclined to think that bacteria
beds are likely to give the most consistent
results. The effectiveness of these beds may
be increased by deepening them so that they
may be insulated. In this way any waste
heat in the brewery may be used to keep the
wastes at a temperature above the surround
ings, thus increasing the rate of the bio
chemical treatment reactions, and so increas
ing the treatment rate. Normal sewage beds
are designed for a rate of BOD removal of
0-2 lb/yd3 day; at temperatures of about
30° C it should be possible to double this rate,
and so to halve the bed volume.
If a malting effluent contains much sus
pended matter primary settling may be
necessary. If possible this should be avoided
by the use of dry cleaning methods for dirty
barley and by excluding rootlets from the
liquid stream. If, for any reason, the
exclusion of rootlets is not possible, they may
readily be removed from the effluent by the
use of a fine screen.
The Use of Bacteria Beds for Treating
Mailing Effluent
In bacteria beds, or percolating (trickling)
filters, the micro-organisms form a zoogloeal
slime on a solid medium (broken rock, gravel
or specially constructed plastic) which is
retained in a bed. For domestic sewage the
bed is usually 6 ft deep, but much greater
depths have been used, especially with
plastic medium and in situations where
climate demands that the filter be enclosed
(e.g. distilleries in the North of Scotland).
The medium is of such a size (usually 1£ in
and upwards for gravel or broken rock or
blast furnace slag) or configuration that the
interstices are not blocked by film growth;
in this way the free movement of air through
the bed is permitted. The effluent is usually
fed to the bed intermittently.
Malting effluents are several times stronger
(in terms of BOD concentration) than domes
tic sewage, and it may therefore be necessary
to dilute the waste before it is dosed to the
bacteria bed. This may most readily be
done by recirculating a portion of the treated
effluent. For full treatment of the waste the
usual BOD load will be of the order of 0-2 lb
BOD per yd3 of medium per day. Even
higher loads may be achieved by alternating
double filtration.
Ruf et al9 report the results of tests on
malting effluents (malting C in Table I).
The pilot bacteria bed, which was filled with
1-2-in crushed limestone, was 8 ft deep.
Grain and rootlets were removed by a fine
screen, which required frequent cleaning.
A number of runs were made with wastes of
various BOD strengths, the removal varying
between 61 and 97% as shown in Table VIII.
Vol. 79, 1973] ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
TABLE VIII
Biological Filtration of Malting Wastes*
Waste Effluent BOD
HOD BOD* removal
(mg/Uttc) (ms/lltrc) <%)
490 100 61
250 35 86
340 10 91
300 8 97
* After final settling.
The tests were carried out in summer and
winter, and the authors found that, irrespec
tive of the ambient air temperature, which
varied from —7 to 16° C, the raw malting
waste remained at about 14° C, and lost only
4° C in passing through the filter at the lowest
ambient temperatures.
It will be seen from these results that the
'critical' loading for a 'Royal Commission'
effluent (BOD 20 mg/litre, suspended solids
30 mg/litre) is about 0-5 lb BOD/yd3 day.
The authors found that fungi tended to
proliferate on the filter medium.
Alternating double filtration was originally
developed especially for the control of exces
sive surface growths on bacteria beds, and
such treatment might have been expected to
have given even better results on the Wiscon
sin effluents. Recirculation, also, is advan
tageous and was adopted in pilot tests at a
British malting. A 3:1 recirculation ratio
was adopted and the bacteria bed was dosed
at 1 lb BOD/yd3 day. The BOD of the raw
waste varied from 1350 to 2600 mg/litre, the
corresponding values for the treated effluents
being 70-550 mg/litre; the corresponding
BOD removals were 61-96%. While the
effluents were not good enough to be dis
charged to a surface water, the treatment
process was a most economical method of
reducing the BOD strength and hence the
trade-waste charge, before discharge to a
Local Authority sewer. Oliver & Walker8
describe the treatment by an experimental
percolating filter at Salisbury.
The Use of Activated Sludge for Malting
Effluent
In activated sludge the stabilizing micro
organisms are suspended in the liquid being
treated, and the necessary air is blown in
through diffusers or is dissolved by mechani
cal agitation of the surface. In order to
maintain a sufficient concentration of the
micro-organisms in the aeration tank, part
163
of the secondary sludge is returned to the
aeration tank. The authors have been
unable to find any reference in the literature
BOD to the use of the standard activated-sludge
load
lb/yd'/day process for the treatment of malting effluents.
31 While there is no fundamental reason for this,
1-2 there are two practical reasons; the bacteria
0-41
0-28 bed is inherently better able to withstand the
variations of load which are inevitable with
a batch process, such as malting, and activated
sludge tends, in normal sewage practice, to
be used only for the larger works for popula
tions over, say, 20-30,000: a makings may be
taken as representing a population equivalent
of around 5-10,000.
On the other hand, the Pasveer ditch, a
modification of the activated-sludge process
developed in the Netherlands, is very suitable,
especially where the malting is situated in a
rural area. Briscoe4 describes a Pasveer
ditch which was used to treat the effluent
from the Crisp Maltings at Great Ryburgh,
near Fakenham, Norfolk. A Pasveer ditch
consists essentially of an elliptical ditch of
trapezoidal cross section, and with a liquid
depth of about 1 m. The mixture is oxygen
ated and kept moving by means of an aera
tion rotor, partially submerged in the surface
of the liquid. Final settling may be carried
out either in the ditch itself or in a separate
tank.
The ditch described by Briscoe was later
extended by the construction of a further two
ditches, to give a total capacity of 534,000 gal
for the treatment of 150,000 gal/day of
effluent.1 The BOD load to be treated is
1725 lb (equivalent to a population of over
14,000); the BOD concentration varies from
just under 1000 to over 1600 mg/litre, and
the suspended-solids concentration averages
over 300 mg/litre. The effluent from a sump
in the maltings is pumped, through a fine
screen, to a balancing tank on the centre
island in one of the Pasveer ditches. The
mixed liquor is drawn continuously from the
ditches and taken to the final settling tanks.
Surplus sludge is stored in a holding tank and
periodically removed for disposal on farmland.
Some tests of the performance of the earlier
ditch were made by the Water Pollution
Research Laboratory in 1965, and the results
were given by Briscoe; average results are
shown in Table IX.
The total cost of the treatment plant was
about £35,000 (or about £2-50 per head of
equivalent population). The running costs
164 ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS [J. Inst. Brew.

TABLE IX lower capital costs than those given in the

Performance of Pasveer Ditch on Malting Table, and it will usually be felt more appro
Effluent*
priate, where possible, to discharge the wastes
(Maltings J) to a Local Authority sewer. The Local
Authority will make a charge under the
Screened Final
effluent elllucnt Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises)
to l'asveer to Removal
ditch stream (%)
Act, 1937, or under Part V of the Public
Health Act, 1961. Such charges are normally
Suspended solids S13 18 94
nob 1140 12 90 calculated on three elements:
Dichromatc value 1501 100 OS
Permanganate- value 1. Volume of effluent, which governs size
3 mill at 27° 0 S3 10 81
4 h at 27" C .. 304 30 00 of sewers, pumps, primary settling
Total nitrogen .. 30 0-7 81
tanks, etc;
Ammonincal nitrogen* 0-4 0-2 _

Oxidized nitrogen* 0-1 0-1 —

All analyses (except tliosc marked*) are average values over
nl>out three days and arc given In me/litre.
total about £2800 per year (about 20p per
year per head of equivalent population).
Costs of Treatment and Disposal
No figures for the cost of the treatment and
disposal of malting or brewing effluents have
been given in the literature, except those
quoted above for the Pasveer ditch. "Guesti-
mates" of these costs for brewery and malting
wastes have been made by Isaac6*7 based on
a survey of the capital and operating costs
for the treatment of domestic sewage
(Bradley & Isaac3). These 'guestimates' are
brought up to date in Table X.
Full treatment of malting and brewing
effluents is unlikely to have substantially
2. BOD which governs the size of the bio
logical stage of treatment; and
3. Suspended solids, which govern the cost
of the troublesome treatment and
disposal of sludge.
Estimates are, therefore, given in Table X
of the probable charges that might be made
for the reception and treatment of these
wastes by some typical large Local Authori
ties.
Acknowledgements.—This paper is largely a
rewriting of two papers by one of the authors
(Isaac6-7). The analyses for the original
papers were carried out by Mr. B. Yoxall,
formerly a technician in the Division of
Public Health Engineering of the Department
of Civil Engineering and now Manager of
Blyth Corporation Sewage Works. The
original cost estimates were made by Dr.

TABLE X
Approximate Costs for the Treatment and Acceptance of Brewing and Malting Wastes

Cost* for full treat ment Annual sewer charges'

County Upper
Total Annual Total Borough of Tame* Main
capital operating annual Burton on Drainage
Volume Total BOD Total SS Population cost1 cost* cost* Trent Authority*
(gal/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) equivalent' £ £ £ £ £

Brrwkrv
A 43,800 145-0 160-7 1120 47,000 1410 5150 705 1770
B 78,000 331-0 213-!) 2550 89,000 2670 0740 1350 3160
V 85,000 503-4 42-8 3850 123,000 3690 13,450 1465 3450

M.U.TINGS
K 6720 120 020 40,000 1200 4380 100 438
1. 50,500 206 20 2040 75,000 2250 8210 075 1370
M 140,700 HSfi 6420 186,000 5570 20,370 2420 4000
X 30,500 370 20 2840 06,000 2880 10,510 706 1510

Notes: All costs are for 1971.

1. Based on 0-13 lb BOD/licad day.
2. Knsed on the costs for domestic scn-agc.
3. Taken as 3% of total capital cost.
4. Sum of operating cost and debt charges based on an annual repayment rate of 8%.
5. Based on 310 working days per year.
II. Since CO1) not normally to exceed 600 mg/litrc, nor 8S 400 mg/litre the Upper Tame Main Drainage Authority formula
for sewrr rliarges would give a theoretical maximum effluent charge of 13.11p/lOOO gal. It should lie noted here that the
wastes in the above Tahlc would therefore not be acceptable on an estimated COD basis.
X. 11. These cost estimates are approximate and reflect to some extent the wide variation In effluent analyses.
Vol. 79, 1973] ISAAC AND ANDERSON: BREWERY EFFLUENTS
R. M. Bradley, at that time with Babtie
Shaw and Morton, consulting civil engineers
of Glasgow and now with D. Balfour and
Sons, consulting engineers of London and
Newcastle upon Tyne. The revised estimates
have been made with the assistance of Mr.
J. Wadley of Babtie Shaw and Morton.
Finally, the authors' thanks are due to the
malts.ters and brewers who provided the
samples for the analyses given in Tables IV
and V and who helped in many other ways.
References
1. Anonymous, Water Waste Treatment, 15167, 11.
42S.
165
!2 Bccckmans. I.. Dcvlaminch, I1"., Lejour, M.,and
Leclcrc. K., Ihilletin Centre Beige d'Etudc rt
tie Documentation des lSati.v, li)54, 26. 216.
a. Bradley, K. M., & Isaac, P. C. G., University
of Newcastle upon Tyne Department of Civil
Engineering 1909. Bulletin Number 40.
4. Briscoc. l£. K. E.. Journal of the Institute of
Public Health Engineers, 1006. 65. 148.
5. Institute of Water Pollution Control. Water
Pollution Control. 1987, 66, 193.
6. Isaac. P. C. G., Hrcwers Guild Journal, 1060. 52,
441.
7. Isaac. P. C. G., Effluent and Water Treatment
[ournal, 1969, 9, 597.
8. Oliver, J. H.. & Walker, ]. I'., Brewers Guild
Journal. 1961, 47, 81.
0. Ruf, H. W.. Warrick. L. P.. & Nichols. M. S..
Sewage Works Journal. 1935, 7, 564.
10. Simpson. J. R., Brewers Journal. 1967. 103,
August p. 33. September p. 32.