WASTE WATER IN THE

VEHICLE INDUSTRY
A pre-study on Volvo GTO waste
water treatment plant and its
future conditions
Johan Svensson

Examensarbete i miljö- och hälsoskydd, 15 hp

Vt 2019
Abstract

This thesis aims to investigate and assess the future conditions for Volvo GTO Umeå
after the installation of a new pre-treatment facility. The treatment method used is
physical-chemical precipitation. Its function is to precipitate contaminants such as
nickel, zinc and phosphorus, make them flocculate by adding a coagulant and separate
the flocs by sedimentation. An investigation was carried out at the Volvo plant to locate
the major inflow of waste water. These major inflows was analyzed and future scenarios
was predicted by estimating a lower pre-treatment flow volume. The future scenarios
showed that the volume and content will be greatly lowered. This will change many of
the treatment plants performance factors, such as residence time, metal ion
concentration and how much chemicals needed to treat the contaminants. Volvos
physical-chemical precipitation plant was compared to the best available technique
document drawn up in the framework of the implementation of the Industrial Emission
Directive (2010/75/EU). The findings in the comparison showed that the Volvo plant
works at a desirable degree and that the plant itself is considered best available
technique when treating the current and future contaminants. Thus the physical-
chemical precipitation technique can be used to treat the future waste water flows if the
treatment plants performance factors are adjusted for.
Table of contents

1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose..........................................................................................................................1
2 Background ...............................................................................................................1
2.1 Flow sources ...............................................................................................................1
2.2 Waste water content .............................................................................................. 2
2.2.1. Complex binders ................................................................................................. 2
2.2.2 Total phosphorus ................................................................................................ 2
2.2.3 Metals ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.4 Hydrocarbons ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2.5 Chemical and biological oxygen demand ...................................................... 3
2.3 Physical-chemical purification .......................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Removal of metal complexes ............................................................................ 3
2.3.2 Precipitation ......................................................................................................... 3
2.3.3 Coagulation and flocculation ........................................................................... 3
2.3.4 Sedimentation ...................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Best available techniques..................................................................................... 4
2.5 Change of conditions ............................................................................................. 4
3. Method ........................................................................................................................ 4
4. Results ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Flow source chart .................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Flow volumes ............................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Flow content .............................................................................................................. 7
4.4 BAT-reference comparison ................................................................................. 8
5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 9
5.1 Flow map ..................................................................................................................... 9
5.2 Flow volumes and content ................................................................................... 9
5.3 BAT-reference comparison ................................................................................ 11
5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................12
6. References ..............................................................................................................12

Appendix 1: Raw data

Appendix 2: Major waste water contaminants and their respective treatment
techniques
1 Introduction
Volvo Group Truck Operations (GTO) Umeå is a truck cabin manufacturer who deliver
both individual parts and pre-built cabins to other Volvo factories for assembly. A very
common way to protect the cabins from corrosion is a surface treatment using a
phosphating process where the cabin is submerged into a bath containing a phosphorus
solution (General recommendation 97:5). An electrophoretic painting process can also
be applied, where the cabin is immersed into an electrolyte bath and a current is used
to make the free metal ions stick at the cabins surface (General recommendation 97:5).
Both of these processes are used at Volvo and are referred to in this study as the pre-
treatment.

Accompanying these processes are several other steps such as degreasing or washing
the parts before painting, repairing parts from defects or keeping the production sites
clean from dust and dirt. Historically these processes has produced a lot of pollutants.
Due to the environmental impact of these pollutants, sharpened regulations have been
forcing industries to add an end-of-pipe solution. In almost all cases precipitation has
been used to purify the waste water in the vehicle industries (Nordic council of
ministers 1993).

To clean the water to a higher degree than what the regulations require is often
expensive and has no short term benefit for the company. Swedish environmental
regulation is quite strict in relation to other countries. It’s therefore common to work
towards upholding the regulation values (Urban Henriksson oral. ref.).

As of 2018 Volvo has introduced a new pre-treatment process which lowers the
volumes of waste water reaching the treatment plant. A future implementation of a new
power wash is also planned for. Both these changes result in a change of condition for
how to treat the new volumes.

1.1 Purpose
This thesis aims to investigate the future of the treatment plant. How the future waste
water can be handled and problems that might occur due to the implementation of the
closed loop.

Issues:
 What flows of waste water are reaching treatment today and what is their volume
and content?
 How will the implementation of the closed loop affect the waste water treatment
process?
 How will a new power wash affect the waste water treatment?
 How are the new waste water flows dealt with?
 How does the current treatment process corresponds to the best available
techniques?

2 Background
2.1 Flow sources
The Volvo Umeå factory consists of a dozen different steps towards creating finished
parts and cabins. In many of these steps water is used. The majority of waste water
being treated in the Umeå factory originate from three different sources (see figure 1).

1
The first being the power wash which clean the plastic parts of the cabin before
painting, using citric acid at 5-10% concentration.

The second flow originates from the painting process. This process is already somewhat
closed. The water being sent to the treatment-plant is mostly water from condensation
occurring in the process. The lesser part consist out of flows occurring while the robots
are being cleaned or when the process waters needs to be dumped.

The third and by far the largest flow occurs from the pre-treatment process where
about 90% of the water being treated originates. The water which reaches the waste
water treatment consists of mostly rinse water and therefore it has the same content as
the content of the bath but at lower concentration. Due to the new pre-treatment
process and its future use of evaporation this flow is expected to cease to exist.

2.2 Waste water content

The current emission permit involves nickel, zinc, total phosphorus (tot-P), nonpolar
aliphatic hydrocarbons and total extractable substances. These pollutants have an
individual limit value which Volvo is not allowed to exceed according to the Swedish
environmental regulation, Förordningen (1998:899) om miljöfarlig verksamhet och
hälsoskydd (see table 1).

Table 1. Current permit showing monthly mean limit and target value for each substance.
Limit (mg/l) Limit (kg/yr) target
Flows monthly mean value
Nickel 0,5 10,00
Zinc 0,5 5,00
Phosphorus, total 1
Nonpolar aliphatic hydrocarbons 3
Total extractable compounds 30

2.2.1. Complex binders

Complex-forming agents are used in the surface treatment industry to keep the metals
soluble (Kabdaslı et al. 2008). However these complex-forming agents produce strong
metal complexes which don’t precipitate (Nordic council of ministers 1993). The
complex-forming substances can in some cases form stable metal complexes in the lake
sediment and thereby increasing the metal content of the sediment (Nordic council of
ministers 1993).

2.2.2 Total phosphorus

The phosphorus content in the treated waste water has no immediate toxic effect on
organisms. The problem lies in the overfertilization that occurs. This affects both land
and water, and is especially a problem for the Baltic Sea where recipient ends
(Environmental Protection Agency 2018a).

2.2.3 Metals
Zinc is an essential metal, but is toxic to living organisms at high concentrations. It is
commonly used in corrosion coating (Environmental Protection Agency 2018b). Zinc is
proven to bioaccumulate in plankton and small fish (Memmert 1987).

Nickel is also a common corrosion coating agent and the production of galvanized steel
uses the largest amount of nickel of all industries. It exists naturally in the bedrock and
is in low concentration considered normal towards growth and development for certain
organisms (Environmental Protection Agency 2017). High concentrations of nickel in

2
soil are considered toxic and affect the microbial activity, growth and production
negatively (Ahmad and Ashraf 2011).

2.2.4 Hydrocarbons
While analyzing hydrocarbons it is commonly referred to as total extractable
compound, total extractable aromatic compound and nonpolar aliphatic hydrocarbons
(Westlin 2004).

Hydrocarbons are according to the international union of pure and applied chemistry
(IUPAC 1995) divided into two classes: aliphatic compounds, also known as non-
aromatic compounds and aromatic compounds. Polar compounds count e.g. humic
substances, mineral oils, surfactants, fats and organic solvents. Nonpolar aliphatic
hydrocarbons counts for petroleum based waxes, compounds contained in mineral oil
and organic solvents.

Common for both total extractable compounds and nonpolar aliphatic compounds is
that they are used in organic solvents. Organic solvents are commonly used in vehicle
industries which use coating processes via electrophoretic painting.

2.2.5 Chemical and biological oxygen demand

Chemical oxygen demand or COD is a common way to indirectly measure the amount
of organic compounds in the waste water. By measuring the total amount of oxygen
needed to convert the organic compound into carbon dioxide (Brinkmann et al 2016).

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), most of the time referred to as BOD7 or BOD5, is a
measurement on how much dissolved oxygen is required or consumed after 7 or 5 days
respectively by the microbiological oxidation process (Brinkmann et al 2016).

2.3 Physical-chemical purification

2.3.1 Removal of metal complexes
Conventional hydroxide precipitation can be inhibited by the presence of complex-
forming agents such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic (EDTA) and citric acid (Kabdaslı et
al. 2008). The complex-forming agents bind to the heavy metals and make an insoluble
complex unable to precipitate (Brinkmann et al. 2016). In some cases lowering the pH
to 2-3 can make the metals available for precipitation again (Freeman 1998).

2.3.2 Precipitation
Precipitation is commonly used to remove metals and other inorganic substances such
as phosphorus, phosphates, oils, fats, greases, and other various organic compounds
from waste water (Brinkmann et al. 2016). The precipitation of heavy metals can be
achieved at a high degree, but is highly dependent on the waste water content and
especially its pH (Brinkmann et al. 2016).

2.3.3 Coagulation and flocculation

Coagulation is the first step accompanied with flocculation to remove the precipitated
metals and other suspended materials in the waste water. By adding coagulation
chemicals with the opposite charge of the particles desired to be removed, the particles
and the coagulant stick together into larger particles (Brinkmann et al. 2016).

When neutralization of the particles in the waste water has been achieved flocculation
can occur by letting the waste water pass through a gentle mixing stage. By doing so the
particles bond together and form flocculants/chelates. For this to happen sufficient
contact time is needed ranging between 15-20 minutes (Brinkmann et al. 2016).

3
2.3.4 Sedimentation
By letting the flocculants/chelates slowly pass through a sedimentation bath,
gravitational forces either drag the flocculants/chelates towards the bottom of the bath
or let them float on the surface of the bath, thus making easy separation possible
(Brinkmann et al. 2016).

2.4 Best available techniques

In 1984 the term best available techniques (BAT) or best available technique not
entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) was first introduced with the European directive
84/360/EEC. This only applied to airborne emissions from large industries. In 1996
the directive was suspended by the introduction of the Integrated pollution prevention
and control directive (IPPC), 96/61/EC. With the IPPC, best available techniques also
applied to emissions through water and soil. In the IPPC directive (article 16), an
exchange of information regarding BAT between the member states and the affected
industries was required. In 2010 the Industrial Emission Directive, IED (2010/75/EU)
was introduced. In this new directive, through article 13, the commission now is obliged
to each third year, draw up, review and where necessary update BAT reference
documents also called BREFs.

The BAT reference documents (BREFs) are a part of the information exchange between
the member states, affected industries, commission and non-governmental
organization promoting environmental protection. It contains techniques considered
the best available at a reasonable price, used by the industries in the member states.
According to article 14 in the IED the BREFs shall be reference for setting the permit
conditions to installations covered by the directive.

2.5 Change of conditions

As of 2018 the Volvo factory has implemented a new pre-treatment process, which aim
is to make a closed loop. This new installation will change both the flow volumes and
the concentration of waste fractions in the water reaching treatment. Due to the new
pre-treatment process and its future use of evaporation, the pre-treatment flow to the
waste water treatment plant is expected to cease to exist.

There are plans to install a new power wash, this will contribute towards a new
situation at the waste water treatment plant. As both these processes change, the new
conditions needs to be evaluated to assure that the waste water treatment work under
suitable conditions.

3. Method
Major inflows of waste water reaching the treatment plant have been analyzed of their
content, results were given as concentration (mg/l or µg/l). The volume of these flows
are presented by Volvo (Urban Henriksson oral. ref.) as a yearly average (m3/yr).

To verify the flow sources an investigation was carried out. By interviewing employees
and analyzing process flow schemes a flow chart was constructed. The chart is limited
to waste water producing processes with a flow larger than 0.1% of the total flow
volume reaching treatment.

The concentration for each flow source in the chart is multiplied with its corresponding
flow proportions. Data used in these calculations can be found in appendix 1. By doing

4
so a concentration proportional to the total flow volume entering treatment is given. No
lab test on the inflow of waste water to the treatment plant has been done. The inflow to
the treatment plant is estimated by summarizing the proportional concentration for
each flow source. The degree of purification is estimated by comparing the lab-tested
outflow to the estimated inflow.

Three scenarios were made. The first scenario describes the flow volumes as of 2016
when the lab-tests were carried out. The second scenario was based on the first scenario
but with a pre-treatment flow volume set at 10% of the one in the first scenario. The
second scenario set to 10% because of the uncertainty of the future reduction in volume
and is used as a reference to the third scenario. And the third scenario, also based on
the first scenario but with a total reduction in flow volume from the pre-treatment and
with an addition of a new power wash. The flow volume in these scenarios was
multiplied with the corresponding concentrations to get future concentrations for each
scenario.

A literature study was conducted to better understand the function of the treatment
technique used at Volvo and how the treatment technique preform versus other similar
treatment plants. The treatment techniques function and performance is compared
with the BATNEEC described in the BREF document “Common waste water and waste
gas treatment/management systems in the chemical sector” published by the European
Commission (Brinkmann et al. 2016). A table showing best available technique
according to contaminant can be found in appendix 2.

4. Results
4.1 Flow source chart

Figure 1. All tested inflows of water sent to the waste water treatment plant.

Figure 1 is a model of all major inflows of waste water which have been tested of its
contents. Figure 1 does not represent the full map of inflow sources. Missing sources
are sumps with various waste waters with negligible and irregular flow volumes.

5
The fixture washing process flow volume is measured as a part of the pre-treatment
flow and is not included in the model. It should be seen as a part of the pre-treatment
flow.

4.2 Flow volumes

The first scenario being referred to as scenario 1, showing the flow volumes as of 2016.
The phosphating and electro coating (EC) process counts for 92% of the total flow
volume.
2025 m3/yr 135 m3/yr
900 m3/yr

450 m3/yr

38835 m3/yr

Phosphating EC Primer/top coat Power wash Floor cleaning device

Figure 2. Scenario 1 showing flow volumes (m3/yr) for each major inflow reaching treatment as of 2016.

The absolute majority of waste water originates from the pre-treatment (see figure 2).
Both the phosphating process and the EC process is a part of the closed loop project
and are both expected to cease to exist. Due to the evaporation step not being
implemented yet, no data on the reduction in flow exists.

135 m3/yr

2025 m3/yr

3884 m3/yr

900 m3/yr

45 m3/yr

Phosphating EC Primer/top coat Power wash Floor cleaning device

Figure 3. Scenario 2, based on the scenario 1 waste water flows but with an addition of an evaporation step
in the pre-treatment, calculated to reduce the pre-treatment flow by 90%.

6
Scenario 2 in figure 3 is based on scenario 1 in figure 2 with a reduced flow from the
phosphating and EC by 90%. This because of the implementation of an evaporation
step in the pre-treatment.

This shows that the majority of waste water still originates from the pre-treatment,
however not at the same extent as before.

0 m3/yr 0 m3/yr
135 m3/yr

900 m3/yr

3038 m3/yr

Phosphating EC Primer/top coat Power wash Floor cleaning device

Figure 4. Scenario 3, based on scenario 1 waste water flows with the implementation of the evaporation
step and an additional power wash. The evaporation step is calculated to give a total reduction in flow from
the pre-treatment.

Scenario 3 in figure 4 is the most likely scenario according to Volvo (Urban Henriksson
oral. ref.). The planned power wash is dimensioned to perform at 50% capacity of the
existing one, but is calculated to contribute with 225 m3/yr flow of waste water.
In figure 4 the maximum capacity is used as the purpose is to understand under what
conditions the waste water treatment plant have to perform. The total flow volume in
scenario 3 is approximately 10% of the current scenario and 75% of the total flow
volume can be attributed to the combined flow of the new and old power wash.

4.3 Flow content

Flow content for each individual process flow is obtained from laboratory tests and
results are given in concentration (µg/l and mg/l). By multiplying each process flow
with its respective flow volume proportion a final concentration is given. By adding
these, we receive a value representing the inflow of water to treatment (see table 2).

The same analysis method has been used for all tested flow sources (see appendix 1).
The summarized inflow values in table 2 therefore has the same measurement
uncertainty as the effluent.

By comparing the influent water to the effluent water a degree of purification is derived
(see table 2). Nickel, zinc and total phosphorus had a high degree of purification. In the
BREF the average degree of purification for nickel and zinc is 95 and 99% respectively.
Strontium is chemically similar to calcium and can be found in calcite, used to produce
lime (Gabitov and Watson 2006). The use of lime in the precipitation process could
explain the increase in concentration.

7
Table 2. Summarized influent and lab-tested effluent concentrations. The degree of purification and the
lab-tests methods measurement uncertainty. Negative numbers showing an increased concentrations after
treatment.
Substance Influent Effluent Unit Purification (%) Uncertainty (%)
Fluoride, F 29 15 mg/l 49 20
Total extr aliph substance 29 20 mg/l 31 25
Non-polar aliph
hydrocarbons 2 1 mg/l 37 25
Di-(2)etylhexylphtalate 0 0 µg/l -526 20
Boron, B 50 66 µg/l -32
Titan, Ti 0 0 mg/l 91 20-25
Manganese, Mn 9000 820 µg/l 91 25-30
Nickel, Ni 9188 420 µg/l 95 20-35
Strontium, Sr 67 160 µg/l -139 25-30
Zink, Zn 15934 40 µg/l 99 25-30
BOD7 217 340 mg/l -56 25
COD 1266 920 mg/l 27 10-20
Phosphorus tot, P 95 0 mg/l 99 20-55

In table 3, the waste water inflow and its concentrations for each scenario and contaminant is
listed. By comparing the concentrations in scenario 3 to the permit conditions in table 1 only
total phosphorus exceeds the permit value.
Table 3. Concentrations proportional to the flow volume of the new scenarios for each contaminant in the
untreated waste water.
Substance Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Unit
Fluoride, F 29 3 0 mg/l
Total extr aliph substance 29 5 2 mg/l
Non-polar aliph hydrocarbon 2 0,2 0 mg/l
Di-(2)etylhexylphtalate 0,1 0 0 mg/l
Boron, B 46 5 0 µg/l
Titan, Ti 0,1 0,1 0,1 mg/l
Manganese, Mn 8254 826 0 µg/l
Nickel, Ni 9188 929 16 µg/l
Strontium, Sr 61 6 0 µg/l
Zink, Zn 15934 1844 372 µg/l
BOD7 217 54 36 mg/l
COD 1266 238 131 mg/l
Phosphorus tot, P 94 21 19 mg/l

4.4 BAT-reference comparison

In the BAT-reference document, overviews are made on the treatment methods and its
influent/effluent concentration for a number of contaminants. The BREF overviews
include 95 waste water treatment plants, and figure 5 shows the number of plants using
precipitation/coagulation/flocculation (PCF) as a treatment method. Some of the
plants used both PCF and sedimentation as shown in figure 5.

8
 8
7
7

5
4 4 4
4
3
3
2 2
2
1
1

0
COD BOD Nickel Zinc

PCF PCF + sedimentation

Figure 5. Number of waste water treatment plants, based on data from Brinkmann et al, using
precipitation/coagulation/flocculation (PCF) as a treatment method and PCF + sedimentation as a
following step for COD, BOD, nickel and zinc.

The 4 BREF-plants treating COD all had <100 mg/l in their effluent flow. The effluent
flow at the Volvo plant showed 920 mg/l. The 2 BREF-plants treating BOD had <20
mg/l in their effluent flow. The effluent flow at Volvo plant showed 340 mg/l.

The 4 BREF-plants treating nickel all had values <50 µg/l in their effluent flow. The
effluent flow at Volvo showed 420 µg/l. The BREF-plants treating zinc showed 6 having
<100 µg/l and 2 having >100 µg/l in their effluent flow. The effluent flow at Volvo
showed 40 µg/l. Neither of the 2 BREF-plants showing >100 µg/l had sedimentation as
a following step.

There were 17 BREF-plants treating phosphorus with chemical phosphorus

precipitation. For 29 of the plants no information was given on what method was used
to treat the contaminant. Out of the 17 plants 9 were using sedimentation as a following
step. Seven plants had effluent values <0.5 mg/l, 6 plants ranged between 0.5-1 mg/l
and 4 plants had >1 mg/l in their effluent flow. The effluent flow at Volvo showed 0.25
mg/l. The 9 plants using sedimentation all had lower values than those not using
sedimentation as a following step.

5. Discussion
5.1 Flow map
The flow source chart shows that the flow sources tested do in fact represent the major
inflow of waste water. There are minor flows reaching treatment, but they make up less
than 0.1% of the total flow volume. During the investigation employees at the treatment
plant mentioned irregular flows reaching treatment, sometimes disturbing the
precipitation process.

5.2 Flow volumes and content

The scenario as of 2016 is presented in figure 2 and shows that the inflow of water to
the treatment plant is mostly pre-treatment rinse water (92%). Even if the
implementation of evaporation only contribute towards a 90% reduction from the pre-

9
treatment flow, as shown in scenario 2 (see figure 3), the pre-treatment would still be
the major inflow to the treatment plant (56%).

The waste water entering treatment can differ in both flow volume and content. This
partly due to abnormalities in production but also scheduled dumps of different process
waters. The liquid/solid separation performance in the precipitation step is dependent
on factors such as pH, mixing quality, temperature and residence time (Brinkmann et
al. 2016). The effectiveness is also dependent on the concentration of ionic metals, what
precipitant is used, reaction conditions and the presence of inhibiting substances
(Dahman 2017).

During 2016 the precipitation process handled a ~42000 m3/yr flow. The total flow
volume in scenario 2 and 3 are ~8000 and ~4100 m3/yr respectively. It is very likely
that this will change the mixing quality and the residence time in both the precipitation
and flocculation step due to the high difference in flow volume. Changing these
performance factors might result in a lower degree of purification (Dahman 2017)

Irregular flows are common in many industries due to operation failures, equipment
leakage and contamination of cooling water or other similar disturbances. As a counter
measure, buffer tanks are used to relive the treatment plant of a sudden overload of
waste water (Brinkmann et al. 2016). At Volvo, buffer tanks are used at some extent to
handle scheduled and unscheduled dump of process water. These tanks could be used
to produce suitable flow volumes to match the current continuous flow.

Another solution to the new flow volumes is of course to build a new treatment facility
or re-build the current one with a dimension that match the future flow volumes.
However in the case of operation failures at the evaporation step, a treatment facility
with the current capacity would be preferable to ensure that no stop in production
occurs.

When analyzing the content concentrations of the influent in table 2, one must take
into account that the tests are taken at different points in time during the day of the
tests. The amount of waste water and contaminants can differ due to the scale of the
production at the time of the test. Also the measurement uncertainty is quite high,
possibly being as much as 55% off for total phosphorous. Due to the uncertainty of the
results in table 2, the degree of purification also carries a high degree of uncertainty.

In table 2, the degree of purification for zinc, nickel and total phosphorous correspond
well to the theoretical degree of purification found by Brinkman et al. (2016). The
increased amount of strontium might be explained by its occurrence in lime (Gabitov
and Watson 2006), which is used in the treatment process. Boron and titan are no
longer being used in the new pre-treatment and should not appear any longer, however
further tests needs to be done to verify this. The effluent concentration of phthalates is
lower than the limit of detection. Calculating the degree of purification is thus not
possible and explains the increase shown in table 2.

Any complex forming agents originating from the pre-treatment should disappear with
the reduced flow of scenario 3. However citric acid found in the power wash flow also
act as an complex forming agent (European chemicals agency 2019) and the initial step
of lowering the pH should therefore still be used so that complex forming agents
doesn’t inhibit the precipitation process (Kabdaslı et al. 2008). According to the
European chemical agency (European chemicals agency 2019) on behalf of the
European parliament and commission’s ordinance (EG 1907/2006), emission of citric

10
acid to surface water through waste water treatment is acceptable. So as long as the
power wash flow passes the treatment plant it should be considered acceptable.

The concentrations in table 5 can be compared with the permit values in table 1.
Scenarios 2 and 3, the future scenarios, are the ones relevant for comparison. Scenario
2 shows much lower concentrations of all the contaminants listed in the permit. The
lower influent values will most likely leave lower effluent concentrations compared with
the effluent concentration in table 3. Scenario 3 shows that the influent water to
treatment only exceeds the permit value for one contaminant, that being total
phosphorous. As long as the permit values doesn’t get stricter, the only contaminant
required to treat is going to be total phosphorus. However this scenario depends on a
complete reduction in pre-treatment flow.

Another performance factor is what precipitant that is used (Dahman 2017). The
precipitant used today is performing well considered the degree of purification and how
well it corresponds to the findings by Brinkmann et al. (2016). A more suitable
precipitant might perform better when treating the future content in scenario 2 and 3.

5.3 BAT-reference comparison

The contaminants relevant for comparison with the BAT-reference document for waste
water treatment/management systems are COD, BOD, phosphorous, heavy metals,
fluoride and hydrocarbons. Boron, manganese and fluoride is no longer being used in
the new pre-treatment process and was therefore excluded from the comparison.

The treatment methods considered best available technique is summarized by

Brinkmann et al 2016, the table can be found in appendix 2. Chemical precipitation is a
BAT for treating heavy metals and phosphorus. Both chemical and biological oxygen
demand (COD and BOD) have sedimentation and coagulation/flocculation as BAT.
Sedimentation is also considered BAT for treating oils.

Precipitation is one of the lesser used treatment method used by the 95 treatment
plants in the BREF overview. The plants presented in the overview seems to have been
chosen by technical experts nominated by the forum members for information
exchange. Biological treatment counts for the majority of the methods used in the BAT
reference overview, thus experts lean towards promoting biological treatment rather
than precipitation.

In the comparison, the COD-effluent concentrations at Volvo were ca. 9 times higher
than the average and 17 times higher for BOD. COD and BOD does not by itself
constitute a contaminant, but is a measurement on how much chemical and biological
oxidation is taking place. The relative high COD and BOD values could be of interest in
future investigations. The BOD test method differ in the comparison due to Volvo using
a 7 day oxidation test (BOD7) whilst the BREF-plants reported values using a 5 day
oxidation test (BOD5). The European Environmental Agency (2019) uses a conversion
factor by 1.16 to convert BOD5 to BOD7. By doing so the effluent BOD value would
become ca. 15 times higher instead.

The effluent nickel concentrations from Volvo were ca. 8 times higher than the average
reported concentrations in the overview. The degree of purification in the earlier
calculation showed corresponding values to the literature. A lower influent
concentrations at the BREF-plants, compared to Volvo, could explain their lower
effluent values. Concentrations of both zinc and total phosphorus in the effluent water
at Volvo corresponded well to the BREF-plants using the same treatment method.

11
5.4 Conclusion
The waste water reaching treatment originate from three sources: the power wash, the
painting process and the pre-treatment. Data from 2016 shows that the pre-treatment
accounts for 92% of the influent flow volume to treatment and constitutes the major
source of zinc, nickel, total phosphorus, total extractable aliphatic hydrocarbon and
non-polar aliphatic hydrocarbon. The implementation of the closed loop will greatly
lower the pre-treatment flow volume and thus the concentrations of the contaminants
mentioned above. The planned power wash will have little to no effect on the future
scenario.

If predicted correctly, the future flow volumes will have a major impact on many of the
treatment plants performance factors. A solution would be to re-dimension the
treatment plant according to the new flow volumes. Another solution could be the use
of buffer tanks to produce a continuous flow during certain time periods. Due to the
change of content the amount of precipitant, lime and ferrous oxide needs to be re-
evaluated to be better suited for the new waste water flow and content, both in a
performance and an economical point of view.

The current treatment method is considered best available technique and could be used
in the future. However the waste water could be handled with different solutions with a
more contaminant-precise technique.

6. References
Ahmad, M.S.A. and Ashraf, M. 2012. Essential Roles and Hazardous Effects of Nickel in
Plants. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 214.
Allmänna råd 97:5. Naturvårdsverket allmänna råd om oorganisk ytbehandling.
Brinkmann, T., Santonja, G., Yükseler, G., Roudier, H., D Sancho, S.L. 2016. Best Available
Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Common Waste Water and Waste Gas
Treatment/Management Systems in the Chemical Sector. Joint research center for
policy report: JRC103096
Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Nickel.
https://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket.se/Amnen/Tungmataller/Nickel/ (accessed
2019-04-24)
Environmental Protection Agency. 2018a. Miljömålen. Årlig uppföljning av Sveriges
nationella miljömål 2018. ISBN 978-91-620-6833-2
Environmental Protection Agency. 2018b. Fakta om zink. Naturvårdsverket.
https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Manniska/Miljogifter/Metaller/Zink/
(accessed 2019-04-23)
Europaparlamentet och rådets direktiv EU 1907/2006 av den 18 december 2006 om
registrering, utvärdering, godkännande och begränsningar av kemikalier.
Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2010/75/EU av den 24 november 2010 om
industriutsläpp (samordnade åtgärder för att förebygga och begränsa föroreningar).
European chemicals agency. 2019. Citric acid. https://echa.europa.eu/sv/registration-
dossier/-/registered-dossier/15451/6/2/6 (accessed 17-05-2019)
European Environmental Agency. 2019. Biological oxygen demand (BOD) in rivers.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/explore-interactive-maps/wise-soe-bod-in-
rivers (accessed 2019-05-25)
Freeman, H.M. 1998. Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Water Treatment and
Disposial. 2. edition. New York: McGrawHill.
Gabitov R.I. and Watson E.vfB. 2016. Partitioning of strontium between calcite and fluid.
Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 7 (11). doi: 10.1029/2005GC001216.

12
Henriksson Urban; handledare, Volvo GTO Umeå. 2019. E-post.
Kabdaslı, I., Tülin, A., Tugba, Ö.H., Idil, A.A., Olcay, T. 2008. Complexing agent and heavy
metal removals from metal plating effluent by electrocoagulation with stainless steel
electrodes. Istanbul Technical University.
McNaught, A.D. and Wilkinson, A. 1997. Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed ”the
Gold Book”. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Memmert, U. 1987. Bioaccumulation of zinc in two freshwater organisms (Daphnia magna,
crustacea and Brachydanio, rerio, pisces). Water research 21 (1): 99-106.
Nordic council of ministers. 1993. Möjligheter att minska miljöbelastningen från
ytbehandlingsindustrin. Nordiske seminar- og arbejdsrapporter 1993:561. ISBN 92
9120 243 6
Rådets direktiv 84/360/EEC av den 28 juni 1984 om bekämpning av luftföroreningar från
industrianläggningar.
Rådets direktiv 96/61/EC av den 24 september 1996 om samordnande åtgärder för att
förebygga och begränsa föroreningar.
SFS 1998:899. Förordningen om miljöfarlig verksamhet och hälsoskydd.
Westlin, A. 2004. Dagvatten från Parkeringsytor. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Yaser. D. 2017. Nanopolymers. Nanotechnolegy and Functional Materials for Engineers.
doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-51256-5.00006-X

13
 Appendix 1: Raw data

Floor Substance Concentration Unit concentration Measurement Fraction of Flow volume

cleaning weighted to flow uncertainty total flow (m3/yr)
device (%) volume
Total extr aliph 26 mg/l 0,082890 25 0,002861 135
substance
Non-polar aliph 4,2 mg/l 0,013390 25 0,006052 Flow volume
hydrocarbon (%)
Nickel, Ni 250 µg/l 0,797024 20-35 8,67E-05 0,03

Zink, Zn 28000 µg/l 89,26673 25-30 0,005602

pH 9,9

Substance Concentration Unit Concentration Measurement Fraction of Flow volume

Powerwash- weighted to flow uncertainty total flow (m3/yr)
flow (%) volume
Total extr aliph 2,2 mg/l 0,105207 25 0,003632 2025
substance
Nickel, Ni 210 µg/l 10,04250 20-35 0,001093 Flow volume
(%)
Zink, Zn 3900 µg/l 186,5037 25-30 0,011704 0,4
BOD7 4 mg/l 0,191285 25 0,000879
COD 280 mg/l 13,39001 10-20 0,010577
Phosphorus 270 mg/l 12,91179 20-55 0,136549
tot, P
pH 3

Substance Concentration Unit Concentration Measurement Fraction of Flow volume

Primer/top
weighted to flow uncertainty total flow (m3/yr)
coat +
(%) volume
condensate
Total extr aliph 82 mg/l 1,74282678 25 0,04109202 900
substance
Di-(2)etylhexyl 1,5 µg/l 0,031880978 20 0,499226199 Flow volume
phtalate (%)
Titan, Ti 4,8 mg/l 0,102019129 20-25 0,917518876 2
Zink, Zn 130 µg/l 2,763018066 25-30 0,000173401
BOD7 1700 mg/l 36,13177471 25 0,078186465
COD 5200 mg/l 110,5207226 10-20 0,053726432

Pre- Substance Concentration Unit Concentration Measurement Fraction of Flow volume

treatment weighted to flow uncertainty total flow (m3/yr)
+ fixture (%) volume
wash
Fluoride, F 32 mg/l 29,34750266 20 0,997940231 38835
Total extr aliph 20,3 mg/l 18,617322 25 0,642756247 Flow volume
substance (%)
Non-polar aliph 2,2 mg/l 2,017640808 25 0,911955425 91
hydrocarbons
Boron, B 50 µg/l 45,8554729 0,917109458
Manganese, Mn 9000 µg/l 8253,985122 25-30 0,917109458
Nickel, Ni 10000 µg/l 9171,09458 20-35 1,019010509
 Strontium, Sr 67 µg/l 61,44633369 25-30 0,917109458
Zink, Zn 17007 µg/l 15597,28055 25-30 0,978851739
BOD7 143 mg/l 131,1466525 25 0,603057091
COD 770 mg/l 706,1742827 10-20 0,557839862
Phosphorus tot, 89 mg/l 81,62274176 20-55 0,863203677
P
Titan, Ti 0,01 mg/l 0,009171095 0,082481124

EC-flow Substance Concentration Unit Concentration Measurement Fraction of Flow volume

weighted to uncertainty total flow (m3/yr)
flow (%) volume
Fluoride, F 5,7 mg/l 0,060573858 20 0,002059769 450
Total extr aliph 790 mg/l 8,395324123 25 0,289845501 Flow volume
substance (%)
Non-polar aliph 17 mg/l 0,180658874 25 0,081656179 1
hydrocarbons
Di-(2)etylhexyl 3 µg/l 0,031880978 20 0,499226199
phtalate
Nickel, Ni 560 µg/l 5,951115834 20-35 0,000647713
Zink, Zn 5500 µg/l 58,44845909 25-30 0,003668099
BOD7 4700 mg/l 49,94686504 25 0,229672741
COD 41000 mg/l 435,706695 10-20 0,344184953
Phosphorus tot, 2,2 mg/l 0,023379384 20-55 0,000247249
P
pH 5,7 0,060573858
Appendix 2: Major waste water contaminants and their respective
treatment techniques Chapter 1

Table 1.1: M ajor waste water contaminants and their respective treatment techniques

BOD Section in
Refractory AOX N NH 4-N Heavy Acids,
Technique TSS COD PO4-P Sulphides Sulphate Phenols Oil this
COD/TOC EOX total (NH 3) metals alkalis
TOC document
Neutralisation (X) (X) X 3.3.2.3.2
Grit separation X 3.3.2.3.3.2
b, q b
Coagulation/flocculation X X( ) X X X( ) 3.3.2.3.3.3
Sedimentation X (X) (a) (X) (j) X ( n) 3.3.2.3.3.4
Flotation X X (b) (X) (j) X 3.3.2.3.3.5
Filtration X (X) (a) (X) (j) 3.3.2.3.3.6
Microfiltration (MF)/ c a, q
(X) ( ) (X) ( ) X X 3.3.2.3.3.7
Ultrafiltration (UF)
Oil-water separation X X X 3.3.2.3.3.8
Hydrocyclone X 3.3.2.3.3.9
Electrocoagulation X X X 3.3.2.3.3.10
Chemical precipitation X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.2
Crystallisation X X 3.3.2.3.4.3
Chemical oxidation (pre) X X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.4
Wet oxidation with hydrogen
X X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.4.2
peroxide (pre) (w)
Wet air oxidation (pre) (w) X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.4.3
Chemical reduction X (t) 3.3.2.3.4.5
Chemical hydrolysis X X 3.3.2.3.4.6
Nanofiltration (NF)/Reverse
X X X X X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.7
Osmosis (RO)
Electrodialysis X 3.3.2.3.4.8
Electrolysis 3.3.2.3.4.9
v
Adsorption X() X X X X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.10
Ion exchange (X) (d) X X 3.3.2.3.4.11
Extraction X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.12
Pertraction X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.13
Distillation/rectification X X X 3.3.2.3.4.14
Evaporation (w) (X) (e) X X X X X 3.3.2.3.4.15
Pervaporation X ( f) X ( f) X ( f) 3.3.2.3.4.16
Stripping (X) (f) X X X X X ( p) X 3.3.2.3.4.17
Waste water incineration (FT) g k
X X (X) ( ) X X (X) ( ) X X 3.3.2.3.4.18
(w)
Anaerobic treatment X (X) (h) (X) (h) X (l, m) X 3.3.2.3.5.2

Common Waste Water and Waste Gas Treatment/M anagement Systems in the Chemical Sector 29