Journal of Global Resources
Volume 6 (01)August 2019-January 2020
Page 25-30
UGC –CARE Listed Journal in Group D
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

04
CHARACTERIZATION OF EFFLUENT FROM TANNERY INDUSTRY IN WARANGAL
D. Seshi Kala, Vinugala Pavan Kumar and Ashok Gellu
Department of Environmental Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India
Email: dr.shashidsk@gmail.com
Abstract: Physicochemical parameters of ground water (inside the industrial premises) anduntreated effluent, such as PH, Turbidity, Total Solids, Total Suspended Solids, Total Dissolved
Solids, BOD, COD, Chromium (VI) were analysed by following ISO pocedures and expressedin mg/L except PH. This was repeated for every alternate month for 1 year. TDS (192.6 + 63.1
to 410.6 + 18.4); COD (256 + 274 to 410.6 + 50.8 mg/L); Total hardness (83.3 + 11.9 to 164.3+ 5.1 mg/L). Chromium (VI) (0.1 + 0 to 0.2 + 0.1) were recorded in groundwater. The
Untreated tannery effluent has following ranges in respective parameters BOD (5100 + 173.2 to6933.3 + 519.6); COD (15960 + 173.2 to 19000 + 222.7), sulfides (148 + 34.6 to 201 + 24.3).
Chromium (VI) (142.5 + 24.5 to 239 + 33.4) was above the permissible limits (BIS Inland
Discharge Standards).
Key words: Tanning Industry, Tannery effluents, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Total Solids (TS).
Introduction
The tanning industry is typically portrayed as one of the pollutions producing businesses thatturnout wide varieties of high loads of pollutants. The tanning procedure is a wet procedure thatspends more quantities of water and produces about 90% of the spent water as effluent(Chowdhury et al. 2013). It's perceived a huge ecological danger because of large amounts ofpollutants like salinity, organic, inorganic burden, dissolved, suspended solids, speciﬁc
contaminations (sulﬁde, chromium, chloride, and other salt deposits) and critical heavy metals
and so on. (Cooman et al. 2003; Boshoff et al. 2004; Chaudry et al. 1997; Tariq et al. 2005;
Apte et al. 2005; Leghouichi et al. 2009; Akan et al. 2007). From the total water consumed in
the tanning process water 90% of the water is discharged as efﬂuent. Apart from the making ofleather, strong liquid and vaporous wastes are additionally released. In the chrome tanning
process, 40% unused chromium salts are generally released in the ﬁnal efﬂuents, making a
genuine danger to nature (Leghouichi et al. 2009; Owlad et al. 2008; Greenstein et al. 2005).
Exposure to chromium, pentachlorophenol and another dangerous toxin increment the dangerof dermatitis, ulcer, perforation of nasal septum and lung disease (Carlos et al. 2002)
Chromium is known to be exceptionally harmful to the aquatic organisms in the hexavalent form
than the trivalent form. Hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic and mutagenic, even with a little
amount (10mg/L) can cause nausea, vomiting, skin irritation and problems related to therespiratory tract which can cause lung carcinoma due to chromium toxicity (Subramani et al.
2002). With no exemptions there is no cost effective efﬂuents treatment plant (ETP) in leather
the tanning industries, the tannery industry is in transition about human wellbeing andecological security. The tannery emanating decimates the life of accepting water bodies andland surface (Cooman et al. 2003)
There are around 2161 tanneries that procedure 500,000 a lot of stows away and 314
kilograms of skins every year. This industry is widely unfurled in Tamilnadu, Kanpur, Karnataka
and Rajasthan (Vijayanand and Hemapriya, 2014). In Tamilnadu alone, there are around 1120
tanneries set in Vellore, Ranipet, Trichy, Dindugal, Erode and Pallavaram in the urban focus(Noorjahan, 2014). In India chromium is discharged into the environment from tanneries in therange of 2000 to 5000 mg/L in contrast to the prescribed discharge limits of 2 mg/L (Altaf et al.,2008).Tanneries have been present in Warangal since 1830 when the Nizam ruled the area.
The hide was treated in a crude manner using herbs. In 1965, chemicals were introduced toclean the hides. Because of many reasons, the number of tanneries has descended throughout
25

the years and the old magnificence is lost until the end of time. Presently, just twelve tanneries
exist in Desaipet and Enumamula territories in Warangal town employing around 100 workers
each on an average (The Hindu Jan 2013). This was during 2013 and now there is just a single
industry left barely battling for the existence. The present study aims to provide an effective,
ecofriendly treatment technique specifically to the tannery industry, for which characterization of
the effluent is mandatory to formulate the treatment technique. As a part of this, the samples
were collected at regular intervals of the time from the industry.
Study Area
The study area is located at Warangal, Desipet road, near Enumamula grain market and thecoordinates of the industry are 18.0000152 N; 79.6235566 E.
Materials and Methods
Collection of samples: The common effluent was collected freshly from the outlet (comes
collectively from all process of the industry) and it was stored in a pre-sterilized, brown bottle.
For the estimation of BOD, 300 ml BOD bottles also carried to the sample collection site, at thetime of sampling, dissolved oxygen is fixed by adding Mn (II) under basic conditions. The
samples were taken to the lab as early as possible and it was protected from sunlight duringtransportation. The samples were preserved using a refrigerator. Then the samples were
subjected to the analysis. This study was conducted in the year 2018-19, for every alternative
month (January, March, May, July, September, November) samples were collected, analyzed
with the instrument/ method used for analysis are represented in Table 1. At every collection, 3
samples were collected and analyzed and represented in Tables 2 - 5 with mean and standard
deviation values. In this study physical parameters such as pH, Turbidity, Total Solids, TDS,TSS and Chemical parameters such as BOD, COD, Chlorides, Sulfides, and Chromium (VI) are
analyzed by following standard procedures.
Table 01: Estimation of physio-chemical parameters
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Name of the experiment
Estimation of pH
Estimation of Turbidity
Estimation of Total Solids
Estimation of TDS
Estimation of TSS
Estimation of BOD
Estimation of COD
Estimation of Chloride
Estimation of Sulphide
Estimation of Chromium

Instrument/ method used for analysis
pH meter
Turbidimeter
Simple balance
TDS meter
Weighting
Titrimetric
Titrimetric
Titrimetric
Titrimetric
UV-Visible
Spectrophotometer

Test method
IS-3025- Part 11
IS-3025- Part 10
IS-3025- Part 16
IS-3025- Part 44
IS-3025- Part 58
IS-3025- Part 32
IS-3025- Part 29
IS-3025- Part 52

Table 02: Analysis of physical parameters of Groundwater
Parameter
PH
Turbidity
TDS
January
6.76 + 0.3
14.6 + 5.5
345 + 21.7
March
7 + 0.2
15 + 2241.6 + 14.4
May
6.67 + 0.3
13.3 + 5.5
192.6+ 63.1
July
6.5 + 0.25
12.3 + 4.5
465 + 31.2
September
6.67 + 0.41
21.3 + 3.2
387 + 81.2
November
7.06+ 0.2
21 + 5.3
410.6 + 18.4
BIS Drinking Water Standards
6.5 - 8.5
10500*All the values are expressed in mg/L except pH and turbidity.

26

Table 03: Analysis of Chemical parameters of Groundwater
Parameter
BOD
COD
Total Hardness
Chromium (VI)
January
30 + 8.6
410.6 + 50.8
117.6 + 8.3
0.2 + 0March
28 + 7
328 + 13.9
100 + 13.2
0.2 + 0.1
May
16 + 1.7
256 + 2783.3 + 11.9
0.1 + 0
September
37 + 6.2
408 + 16157.6 + 10.7
0.2 + 0November
32 + 3.4
357.3 + 16
137 + 2.5
0.1 + 0BIS Drinking Water
30
300
0.05
Standards*All the values are expressed in mg/L.

Table 04: Physical Characteristics of Untreated Effluent
H

Parameter
P
TSS
TS
4.9
+
0
17573.3+
2019.225200 + 2151.74
January
5 + 0.213360 + 2150
18710 + 2264.5March
4.6 + 09113 + 974.9
13566.7 + 1101.5
May
6.24 + 0.6
22587 + 610.5
29666.7 + 404.1
July
6.27 + 0.25
18760+2020.5
27100 + 1802.7September
6.3 + 0.4
18490 + 2259
27223.3 + 2289.8
NovemberBIS
5.5 to 9.0100Discharge
Standard*All the values are expressed in mg/L except pH and turbidity.

TDS

Turbidity

7626.6 + 210.7

278.3 + 70

5350 + 173.4

248.3 + 20.5

4453.3+1361

230 + 22.9

7079.6 + 216.7

278 + 20.6

8340 + 269.6

293.6 + 6.5

8743 + 81.4

323.3 + 25.1

2000

10

Table 05: Chemical Characteristics of Untreated Effluent
Parameter BOD
COD
5100 + 173.2
15960 + 40
January5333.3 + 378.5
15493.3 + 61.1
March
5066.6 + 378.5
16353.3 + 450
May6300 + 360.5
18533.3 + 611
July
19000 + 222.7
September 6266.6 + 461.8
17440 + 41.5
November 6933.3 + 519.6
BIS
250
Discharge 30
Standard*All the values are expressed in mg/L.

Chloride

Sulphide

Chromium (VI)2885 + 188.6

148 + 34.6

239 + 33.4

2637 + 27.9

120.6 + 11.1

167 + 11.7

2785.5 + 14.7

120 + 12.6

159.5 + 17.7

3015.1 + 96.3

129.4 + 4.8

192 + 53183.1+ 133.6

169.6 + 2.7

142.5 + 24.5

3405.6 +119.7

201 + 24.3

187.7 + 12.4

1000

2

1

Results and Discussion
Groundwater: Before the conducting study of the tannery effluent characterization
groundwater was analyzed because the industry was oldest, and it was running successfully
without any effective effluent treatment. From tables 2 & 3, the following parameters are seen
as follows
PH: The PH was recorded in the range of 6.5 + 0.25 to 7.06 + 0.2, which is in the permissible
limit i.e. 6.5 – 8.5
Turbidity: turbidity was recorded in the following range 13.3 + 5.5 to 21 + 5.3 NTU, which isabove the permissible limiting i.e. 10 NTU.
Total Dissolved Solids: Total Dissolved solids of the effluents are in the range 192.6 + 63.1 to410.6 + 18.4 mg/L, which is below the permissible limit i.e. 500 mg/L.
Biological Oxygen Demand: From the table 3, it was known that the BOD value was in therange from 16 + 1.7 mg/L to 37 + 6.2 mg/L.
27

Chemical Oxygen Demand: COD value ranged between 256 + 274 to 410.6 5 + 0.8 mg/L.
Total Hardness: Total hardness was recorded in the range of 83.3 + 11.9 to 164.3 + 5.1 mg/L.
which is below the permissible limit i.e., 600mg/L.
Chromium (VI): Very high concentration of hexavalent Chromium was detected in the present
study 0.1 + 0 to 0.2 + 0.1 mg/L, which is above the permissible limit i.e., 0.05 mg/L.
Like our study, Sivakumar 2014 conducted groundwater Quality assessment around Nagalkeni
Tannery Industrial Belt, Tamilnadu, and reported that all physiochemical parameters wereabove permissible limits set by BIS. So, they are not at all suitable for drinking or any otherpurpose. When such polluted water is used for the tanning process effluent shows still higher
values.
Untreated common effluent: The following physical and chemical parameters and theobservations of untreated tannery effluent are represented in Tables 4 & 5.
PH: In the sample of January (4.9) and May (4.6) the PH of the effluent was acidic while inNovember it was nearer to neutral i.e. 6.3 + 0.4 which is below the Inland discharge standard
i.e. 5.5 to 9.0 the reason can be attributed to dilution factor. The Acidic nature of the effluentscan be attributed to the irrational addition of sulphuric acid during the pickling stage. The pH
value was recorded between 4.6 + 0 to 6.3 + 0.4. Rabah and Ibrahim (2010) conducted a study
on physical, chemical and microbial characterization laden with tannery effluent and found that
PH of the effluents was neutral. Hugo Springer (1994) conducted the characterization of tannery
wastes at different stages of the tanning process and found that their PH was wide starting from
2.8 to 12.5.
Total Solids: Total solids of the effluents are in range 25200 + 2151.7 to 27223.3 + 2289.8 andabove the permissible limits, this was due to different the tanning processes consume different
chemicals and much more organic solids are sent out the prescribed limits of the TDS is 200
mg/L for discharging into the inland surface water. Such high quality of total solids (TDS & TSS)
would damage soil flora and fauna and Soil porosity and soil texture, water holding capacity,
etc. (Chowdhury et al. 2013), (Jeyasingh and Philip L 2005). Similar to our present study
Arasappan Sugasini and Kalyanaraman Rajagopal (2015) concluded that Total Solids ofuntreated and treated effluent were studied and found that results were exceeding than thepermissible limit. This attributed to the quality of the hides and skins processed in the tannery(Islam et al., 2014). High levels of TDS are aesthetically not accepted by the society it may
create distress in humans and livestock (Patel et al., 2009).
BOD and COD : From the table of Chemical parameters, it was seen that the BOD value was
5100 + 173.2 mg/L recorded less in January and it was maximum in November was 6933.3 +519.6 mg/L which was above the Inland discharge standard 30 mg/L. COD value ranged
between 15960 + 173.2 to 19000 + 222.7 mg/L which was above the discharge standard 250
mg/L. Values of BOD and COD agree with the earlier study by UNEP 1999;(Manjushree Chowdhury et. al 2015, Akan et. al 2007, Verma et. al 2008). The tanning processincludes the addition of different inorganic and organic loads, which leads to increased BOD,
COD values. When they have discharged the aquatic ecosystem, depletes the oxygen levels
alters the PH and gives intense coloration to the waterbody. Dissolved oxygen below 4mg/L in
the aquatic system is not at all suitable to the aquatic life (Trivedy and Goel 1986; Alam andMalik 2008).
Chloride: Chlorides were recorded the range of 2637 + 27.9 to 3405.6 + 119.7 mg/L, theresults showed exceed the levels of chlorides than the permissible limits 1000 mg/L as
discharged into the inland water surface. This can be attributed to the process of soaking andpickling, were in sodium chloride salts were extensively used. Sharma and Malaviya (2013)
conducted similar studies and reported all physical and chemical parameters were above thepermissible limits.
Sulphides: The range of sulfide is 148 + 34.6 to 201 + 24.3 mg/L. Sulfides were recorded
objectionably high than the permissible limit of 2mg/L of the effluents discharged into inlandsurface water. The high concentration of sulfides was toxic to the aquatic organisms and28

maybe to the organisms employed in the biological treatment system. Sharma and Malaviya(2013) conducted similar studies and reported all physical and chemical parameters wereabove the permissible limits.
Chromium (VI): Sharma and Malaviya (2013) conducted similar studies and reported all
physical and chemical parameters were above the permissible limits. Vidya and Usha
conducted a study on wastewater and concluded that a high level of metal such as Iron, Nickel,
Chromium, Zinc, Cadmium, and Manganese contaminates agricultural soil. The crops fromsuch soil when they are consumed cause serious health issues (Mohanta et al., 2010). A Veryhigh concentration of hexavalent Chromium was detected in the present study 142.5 + 24.5 to
239 + 33.4 mg/L which was above the discharge standard i.e. 1 mg/L. this can be attributed to
the fact the tanning and retaining is done with the chromium salts only in the industry, Similar
trends were observed in the different studies conducted by Deepali and Gangwar, 2010.
Conclusion
Leather industries uses a variety of tanning processes or techniques for making different
leather products, most of the industry’s concern is to make money ignoring the environmental
concerns. Effluent treatment is investment immense system, no tanner comes forward to invest
amount from their profits. Because almost of these are small scale industries. If there is support
from the government to help such industry by supplying facilities about the effluent treatment
this sector can improve the GDP of the country. The present study reveals that the complexityof the tannery effluent is unable to address the existing treatment technologies. This was clear
from the groundwater analysis; one common effluent treatment was set up but due to sometechnical issues it is unable to treat the effluent. The study strongly recommends setting up a
specific cost-effective eco-friendly treatment technology. The Authors are working seriously onthese grounds.
References
1. Alam ZM, Malik A (2008) Chromate resistance, transport and bio-reduction by
Exiguobacterium sp. ZM-2 isolated from agricultural soil irrigated with tannery effluent. J
Basic Microbiol 48:1-5.
2. Arasappan Sugasini and Kalyanaraman Rajagopal. Characterization of Physicochemical
Parameters and heavy metal Analysis of Tannery Effluent, Department of Biotechnology,
VISTAS (Vels University), Old Pallavaram, Chennai, India Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci(2015) 4(9): 349-359.
3. Akan JC, Moses EA, Ogugbuaja VO (2007) Assessment of tannery industrial effluent from
Kano metropolis, Nigeria Asian Network for Scientific Information. J Appl Sci 7(19):2788–
2793.
4. Altaf, M.M., Masood, F., Malik, A. 2008. Impact of long-term application of treated tannery
effluents on the emergence of resistance traits in Rhizobium sp. isolated from Trifolium
alexandrinum. Turk. J. Biol., 32: 1-8.
5. A.D. Apte, S. Verma, V. Tare, P. Bose, Oxidation of Cr (III) in tannery sludge to Cr(VI): Field observations and theoretical assessment, Journal of Hazardous
Materials B 121 (2005) 215–222.
6. Boshoff G, Duncan J, Rose PD (2004) Tannery effluent as a carbon source for biologicalsulphate reduction. Wat Res 38(11):2651–2658.
7. Chowdhury M, Mostafa MG, Biswas TK, Saha AK (2013) Treatment of leather industrial
effluents by filtration and coagulation processes. Water Res Ind 3:11–22.
8. Cooman K, Gajardo M, Nieto J, Bornhardt C, Vidal G (2003) Tannery waste water
characterization and toxicity effects on Daphnia Spp. Environ Toxicol 18:45–51.
9. D. Sivakumar. Groundwater Quality Assessment around Nagalkeni Tannery Industrial Belt.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering Vol:8, No:3, (2014) 1-6.
10. Deepali, K.K., Gangwar, 2010. Metals concentration in textile and tannery effluents,
associated soils and groundwater. NY. Sci. J., 3: 82-89.
11. E. Leghouichi, E. Laib, M. Guerbet, Evaluation of chromium contamination inwater, sediment and vegetation caused by the tannery of Jijel (Algeria): a casestudy, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 153 (2009) 111–117.
29

12. TheHindu Jan, 2013.
13. Hugo Springer, (1994). John Arthur Wilson Memorial Lecture “Treatment of Industrial
Wastes of the Leather Industry - is it still a Major Problem”. JALCA, 89, 153-185.
14. Islam, B.I., Musa, A.E., Ibrahim, E.H., Salma, A.A.S., Babiker, M.E. 2014. Evaluation andcharacterization of tannery waste water. J. Forest Prod. Ind., 3: 14-150.
15. J.W. van Groenestijn, J.S. Langerwerf, M. Lucas, Reducing environmental
emissions in tanneries, Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part AToxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering 37 (4) (2002) 737–
743.
16. K. Carlos, W. Katarzyna, W. Kazimierg, M.M. Juan, E. Laura, L. Nava, R.G.
Gomez, Possible adverse effects of chromium in occupational exposure of tannery
workers, Industrial Health 40 (2002) 207–213.
17. Manjushree Chowdhury & M. G. Mostafa. Characterization of the Effluents from Leather
Processing Industries Environ. Process. (2015) 2:173–187.
18. Mohan, D., Kunwar, P.S., Vinod, K.S. 2006. Trivalent chromium removal from waste waterusing low cost activated carbon derived from agricultural waste material and activatedcarbon fabric cloth. J. Hazard. Mater. 135: 280-295.
19. Mohanta, M.K., Salam, M.A., Saha, A.K., Hasan, A., Roy, A.K. 2010. Effect of tannery
effluents on survival and histopathological changes in different organs of Channa puntatus.
Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci., 1: 294 - 302.
20. M. Owlad, M.K. Aroua, W.A.A. Daud, S. Baroutian, Removal of hexavalentchromium-contaminated water and wastewater, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
200 (2008) 59–77.
21. Noorjahan, C.M. 2014. Physicochemical characteristics, identification of fungi andbiodegradation of industrial effluent. J. Environ. Earth Sci., 4: 32-39.
22. Patel, H., Gupte, A., Gupte, S. 2009. Effect of different culture conditions and inducers on
production of laccase by a basidiomycete fungal isolates Pleurotus ostreatus. Biosources,
4: 268-284.
23. Rabah, A.B., Ibrahim, M.L. 2010. Physicochemical and microbiological characterization ofsoils laden with tannery effluents in Sokoto, Nigeria. Nigerian J. Basic Appl. Sci., 18: 65-71.
24. Sharma, S., Malaviya, M. 2013. Bioremediation of tannery waste water by Aspergillus niger
SPFSL2-a isolated from tannery sludge. Int. J. Basic Appl. Sci., 2: 88 - 93.
25. Trivedy RK, Goel PK (1986) Chemical and Biological Methods for Water Pollution Studies.
Environmental Publication, Karad.
26. T. Subramani D. Haribalaji, Biodegradation of Tannery Effluent and Designing the Reactor
for Clarifier and Activated Sludge Process, International Journal of Modern Engineering
Research Vol.2, Issue.3, May-June 2012 pp-774-781.
27. S.R. Tariq, N. Shaheen, A. Khalique, S. Manzoor, M. Jaffar, Multivariate analysis of
selected metals in tannery efﬂuents and related soil, Journal of Hazardous
Materials A 122 (2005) 17–22.
28. UNEP (1991) Tanneries and the Environment: a technical guide to reducing the environmental
impact of tannery operations. United Nations Environment Programme, Industry andEnvironment, Programme Activity Centre (UNIDO, IE/PAC), Paris.
29. UNEP (2010). Clearing the water: A focus on water quality solutions. Nirobi, Kenya.
30. Verma T, Ramteke PW, Grag SK (2008) Quality assessment of treated tannery wastewaterwith special emphasis on pathogenic E. coli detection through serotyping. Environ Monit
Assess 145:243–249.
31. Vidya, S., Usha, K. 2007. Remediation potential of Ocimum basilicum against tannery
wastes. Pollut. Res., 26: 421-425.

30