ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Cleaner Production Opportunity Assessment of Soap and Detergent

Factory: the case of Repi Soap and Detergent S.Co.

A Thesis Submitted To the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Chemical Engineering (Environmental Engineering)

BY: MULUGETA YILMA TSEGAYEA

ADVISOR: Dr Ing. NURELEGNE TEFERA

January, 2009
Addis Ababa
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr Ing. Nurelegne Tefera for his guidance,
support and advice throughout the study and preparation of this thesis.

I would also like to express my gratitude to department heads and staffs in the quality control,
production, technical and administration of Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co, for their valuable
information and support during the assessment work.

I am indebted to Coal Phosphate Fertilizer Complex Project (COFCOP) management and staff
(especially Ato Kassaye Yeshitela, Ato Bogale Kena and Desta W/Gabreiel) for their assistance
and understanding.

I am very much grateful to my parents, brothers and sisters for their support and encouragement.
Thank you so much.

I very much thank my friends (especially Andinet Abebe, Endashaw Kinfe, Tsegaye Gebre,
Eyob Tefera, Jemal Yassin, Debrish Menberu and Tatek Temesgen) for sharing their thoughts,
ideas and encouragement. Last but not least, I am very much grateful to my dear friend
Abaynesh Yihdego for encouraging me in a unique way.

i
 ABSTRACT

As consumption trend of soaps and detergents rise in Ethiopia, assessment of the environmental
performance of the industry becomes vital. Hence, Cleaner Production Assessment was
conducted on Repi Soap and Detergent Share Company (RSD). This paper focuses on
determining the quantity and quality of waste water generated, the prospect of utilizing laundry
wastewater for irrigation in RSD and its impacts on the environment, the amount and type of raw
material used and energy consumed by the processes using Cleaner Production Assessment
principles. Literature review of this study suggests that Sodium tri-poly phosphate (STPP), which
was used as a raw material in RSD, causes disposal problem due to its potential to cause
eutrophication. This raw material can technically be replaced by zeolite A and polycarboxylates
in combination. However the Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia's regulation requires
that a detergent must contain a minimum of 10 per cent phosphate content. Hence, there is a
need to adjust this regulation in accordance with the current local environmental condition. From
the assessment in RSD, the wastewater from the factory was mixed with wastewater overflow
from toilet septic tank to be used for growing vegetables; however, from experimental results the
quality of the wastewater far exceeds some of irrigation water standards and can pose potential
threat to the environment. By implementing Cleaner Production options (good housekeeping and
input substitution) wastewater discharge to the environment would be reduced by 84.28 per cent.
On the other hand thermal insulation of the furnace and improving thermal efficiency of the
spray dryer can save birr 55,232.63 and 187,834.04 per year respectively. Moreover, lowering
the moisture content of the slurry and powder can save birr 487,258.44 per year. In addition to
these, thermal insulation of deareator, recovering condensate and replacing dilapidated steam
trap can save birr 195,277.45 per year. Therefore by implementing Cleaner Production options,
the company can save birr 926,158.61 per year. The results of this paper would be used to
evaluate environmental performance of the detergent industry and the reuse potential of laundry
wastewater for irrigation purpose. Also it can serve the purpose of assessing both raw material
and energy consumption of the detergent industry.

ii
 Table of Contents
Title Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I

ABSTRACT II

LIST OF FIGURES VI

LIST OF TABLES VII

ABBREVIATION VIII

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. DETERGENT PRODUCTION IN ETHIOPIA AND ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS 2

1.2. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3
1.3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY 4
1.3.1. Specific Objectives 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1. CLEANER PRODUCTION 5

2.1.1. Types of Cleaner Production Options 5
2.1.2. Reasons to Invest in Cleaner Production 6
2.2. OVERVIEW OF DETERGENT PRODUCTION 6
2.2.1. Composition of Laundry Detergents 6
2.2.2. Formulation of Detergents 10
2.2.3. Powder Detergent Production 11
2.2.4. Liquid Detergent Production 15
2.2.5. Bar Detergent Production 15
2.3. UTILITIES REQUIRED FOR DETERGENT PRODUCTION 17
2.3.1. Energy 17
2.3.2. Steam 17
2.3.3. Water supply 17
2.4. EFFLUENT DISCHARGE 18
2.4.1. Laundry Water Reuse Potential for Irrigation 18

iii
 2.4.2. Reclaimed Laundry Water Quality for Irrigation 19
2.4.3. Health Assessment of Laundry Water Reuse 22
2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 23
2.5.1. Surface Water Standards 23
2.5.2. Irrigation Water Standards 23

3. CLEANER PRODUCTION METHODOLOGY 27

3.1. INITIAL CHECKLIST 27

3.2. TASK 1: PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION 28
3.3. TASK 2: PRE-ASSESSMENT 28
3.3.1. Company Description and Flow Diagrams 28
3.3.2. Walk-Through Inspection 29
3.4. TASK 3: ASSESSMENT 30
3.4.1. Compiling Facility Data 30
3.5. TASK 4: EVALUATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY 35
3.5.1. Prioritization of Opportunities 35
3.5.2. Evaluation of Technical, Economic and Environmental Feasibility 35
3.6. TASK 5: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING 37

4. CLEANER PRODUCTION ASSESSMENT IN RSD 38

4.1. STEPS TAKEN FOR CLEANER PRODUCTION ASSESSMENT IN RSD 38

4.2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF REPI SOAP AND DETERGENT S.CO 39
4.3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR POWDER DETERGENT
PRODUCTION 41
4.3.1. Slurry Preparation 42
4.3.2. Slurry Filtration and Pumping 43
4.3.3. Slurry Drying and Powder Storage 45
4.3.4. Hot Air and Steam Production 46
4.4. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND FLOW DIAGRAM FOR LIQUID DETERGENT PRODUCTION 47
4.5. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND FLOW DIAGRAM FOR BAR DETERGENT PRODUCTION 48
4.6. MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE 49
4.6.1. Powder Detergent (ROL) Production Quantitative Data 50

iv
 4.6.2. Liquid Detergent (Largo) Production Quantitative Data 62
4.6.3. Bar Detergent (Ajax) Production Quantitative Data 63
4.6.4. Summary of Results 65

5. DISCUSSION 69

5.1. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING AND STAFF TRAINING 69

5.2. HEAVY FUEL LOSS 69
5.2.1. Furnace 69
5.2.2. Spray Dryer 70
5.2.3. Boiler 74
5.3. STEAM LOSS 76
5.3.1. Boiler Steam Header 76
5.3.2. Deareator 76
5.4. CONDENSATE LOSS 76
5.5. SERVICE WATER LOSS 76
5.6. LAUNDRY WASTEWATER 77
5.6.1. Replacing STPP with Zeolite A 77
5.6.2. Laundry Wastewater for Irrigation Purpose 79
5.7. Implementation and Monitoring 84

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 86

REFERENCES 88

APPENDIX 1 - LABORATORY ANALYSIS METHOD, REAGENT AND APPARATUS REQUIRED 93

APPENDIX 2 - EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULT 99
APPENDIX 3 - RESOURCE CONSUMPTION AND WASTEWATER GENERATION 100
APPENDIX 4- PROCESS PARAMETER MEASUREMENTS 102
APPENDIX 5 - STEAM PIPE CAPACITIES 103
APPENDIX 6- STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERGENTS IN ETHIOPIA 104

v
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page
2.1. Simplified flow sheet for powder detergent production 11
2.2. Flow diagram for a typical bar detergent production 16
3.1. Hourly steam loss from leaks as a function of steam plume length 31
3.2. Quantity of heat released at various temperatures 33
4.1. Flow diagram of powder detergent production in RSD 41
4.2. Flow diagram for slurry preparation 42
4.3. Flow diagram for filtration and pumping of slurry 43
4.4. Flow diagram for processes from slurry drying and powder storage 45
4.5. Flow diagram for hot air and steam production 46
4.6. Flow diagram for Largo (Liquid detergent) Production 47
4.7. Flow diagram for Ajax (bar detergent) production 48
4.8. Flow diagram for paste preparation 52
4.9. Flow diagram for slurry preparation 53
4.10. Flow diagram for filtration and pumping of slurry 55
4.11. Flow diagram for air lift and cleaning 58
4.12. Flow diagram for packing 59
4.13. Flow diagram for furnace (hot air preparation) 60
4.14. Flow diagram for boiler 61
4.15. Flow diagram for Largo production 62
4.16. Flow diagram for bar detergent (Ajax) production 64

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page
2.1. Indicative composition of typical laundry powder detergent 10
2.2. Amount of water lost due to leakage 18
2.3. Effluent discharges to land waters 23
2.4. The 1989 WHO guidelines for the use of treated wastewater in agriculture 25
2.5. Controlled application of effluent to lands 26
4.1. Raw materials used for powder, liquid and bar detergents production in RSD 40
4.2. Raw material to be used for powder, bar and liquid detergents 65
4.3. Electrical energy and fuel consumption 66
4.4. Steam consumed and wasted by the processes 67
4.5. Service water used in the processes 67
4.6. Wastewater generated in the process 68
5.1. Thermal efficiencies for various possible hot gas temperatures in RSD 71
5.2. Parts water evaporated to produce a part of powder 72
5.3. Benefits to be obtained on the tower 73
5.4. Comparative presentation of RSD wastewater laboratory results with standards 79
5.5. Technical, Economic and Environmental feasibility in RSD 83
5.6. Summary of Cleaner Production (CP) Opportunities for RSD 85

vii
 ABBREVIATION

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CMC Carboxy Methyl Cellulose
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CP Cleaner Production
EC Electrical Conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GHK Good House Keeping
LABS Linear alkylbenzene sulfonate
MPN Most Probable Number
RSD Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co.
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SCMC Sodium Carboxy-methyl Cellulose
STS Sodium Tolune Sulfonate
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TN Total Nitrogen
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UNEP United Nation Environment Program
WHO World Health Organization

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION
Detergents are any substance or preparation containing soaps and/or other surfactants intended
for washing and cleaning processes. Detergents may be in any form (liquid, powder, paste, bar,
cake, moulded piece shape, etc.) and marketed for or used in household, or institutional or
industrial purposes [1].

A detergent derives its cleaning ability from its dual water-attracting (hydrophilic) and water-
repelling (hydrophobic) properties. When detergents are introduced into water these properties
cause the detergent molecules to aggregate into spherical clusters called micelles with the
hydrophilic components in the water and the hydrophobic components in air or dissolved in fatty
soils (dirt). This causes a reduction in interfacial tension which when combined with the
mechanical action of washing causes dirt molecules to be easily removed from the fabric and
into the wash water [2].

Population growth, particularly households with children, drives demand in the consumer sector,
while economic growth drives demand in the commercial sector. The profitability of individual
companies depends on efficient operations and effective sales and marketing. Large companies
have scale advantages in purchasing, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. Major
companies in the consumer sector include divisions of Proctor & Gamble (P&G), Unilever, and
Dial. Major companies in the commercial sector include divisions of Ecolab and US chemical.
The industry is highly concentrated: the top 50 companies hold almost 90 percent of the market.
Small companies can compete effectively by offering specialized products, providing superior
customer service, or serving a local market [3, 4].

A distinction must be made between developed and developing countries because their needs are
not the same. In developing countries soap remains the main (and often only) detergent for
almost all types of cleaning. In developed countries, the range of products is much wider to meet
specific consumer needs [4].

1
1.1. Detergent Production in Ethiopia and Associated Problems
Synthetic detergents have been in the Ethiopian market for decades. However, similar to other
developing countries, soap has been mainly used in Ethiopia. Nowadays, the demand for
detergents is growing because of better awareness towards the performance of detergents. In
parts of northern Ethiopia where surface water is hard, detergents are used widely due to their
superior performance over soaps. It is expected that the demand for synthetic detergents will
continue to grow and this in turn will induce growth in the industry. Factors contributing to this
demand include the rapid population growth, greater awareness, increased urbanization and
expected growth in incomes.

In Ethiopia detergents are produced in four main factories: Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co., East
African Group Chemical Industry, Star Soap and Detergent Factory and Geteshet Soap and
Detergent Industry. Among these industries, Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co. and Star Soap and
Detergent Factory are located in Addis Ababa and the other two are along the main road between
Dukem and Debrezeit.

Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co. was established in 1974. The other three have been in business
for less than a decade. Most of these industries were not operating in full capacity mainly due to
market unavailability for their products. Imported products among many, Zahara and Aerial,
have been very popular in the Ethiopian detergent market. Hence, imported products enjoy the
wide domestic market for powder detergents.

The detergent industry uses water, energy and chemical raw materials like Sodium Tri-Poly
Phosphate (STPP) that can be a problem for disposal. Spray dryers in detergent factories use high
energy and can be inefficient, if the operating parameters are not well controlled. Steam can be
wasted in detergent industries in the form of leakage or through failed steam traps. Condensate
un-recovered can result in substantial loss of energy. Heat loss from hot surfaces like furnace can
be saved by performing thermal insulation. Water in detergent industries is used mostly for the
process, but wastewater is still created due to mismanaged processes.

2
For production processes, Cleaner Production aims in particular at conserving raw materials and
energy, eliminating toxic raw materials, and reducing the quantity and toxicity of all emission
and wastes before they leave the process or source reduction. In the case of products, Cleaner
Production aims at reducing the environmental impact along the life cycle of a product, from raw
materials extraction to its ultimate disposal. Finally, for services, Cleaner Production entails the
incorporation of environmental concerns into designing and delivering services. Cleaner
Production requires changing attitudes, responsible environmental management and evaluating
technology options [5].

1.2. The Statement of the Problem

Environmental policy of chemical industries cannot limit itself simply to ensuring that safe
products are put on the market which do not accumulate in the natural environment. It applies as
well as to the production of raw materials for which systematic research toward cleaner and more
energy-efficient processes needs to be mounted [4].

When phosphate detergents are used, disposal of wastewater is an issue. One consequence of the
use of STPP in the domestic environment can be increased phosphate in household waste water,
which may then contribute to the phosphorus load in rivers, lakes and inshore waters. The
presence of phosphates in waste water can be an environmental issue because of
eutrophication, the increase of nutrient levels in water, which can lead to environmental
problems such as the formation of large masses of algae or blooms which are unsightly, causing
slow moving water to be turbid, and may be toxic [6]. This may increase decomposer organisms
that require oxygen, which can deplete the amount of oxygen dissolved in the water. Excessively
large numbers of decomposers may reduce the oxygen levels to the extent that other aquatic
organisms die from lack of oxygen. Decomposer populations grow in response to an increase in
their food, such as detergent components and, in the drier summer months, the dying excess
algae [7].

Reusing greywater for gardens may detrimentally alter the properties of soil and gradually kill
plants sensitive to phosphorus. Many of these contaminants are classified as plant nutrients and if
disposed to waterways or groundwater may cause environmental damage and toxicity to animal

3
and human through consumption. The microbiological contamination in laundry water also raises
concern on the risk of human infection by bacteria, viruses and other infectious pathogens [8].

In RSD, STPP is used as a builder for the detergent formulation. Wastewater from toilet and
factory were mixed and used in the factory compound for Salad and cabbage irrigation purpose
for fear that it might upset the quality of the nearby river if discharged to it. However, this can
pose potential threat to public health and plant growth and may also affect the basic structure of
the soil used for irrigation.

In RSD electrical and fuel energy consumption by the processes such as spray drying was high
that optimization is important to save energy loss.

1.3. Objective of the Study

The general objective of this research is to conduct cleaner production assessment for the soap
and detergent production: the case of Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co.

1.3.1. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are to:
Generate cleaner production options.
Analyze cleaner production options generated in terms of technical, financial and
environmental feasibility.
Assess costs and benefits of switching from STPP to zeolite-based detergents.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Cleaner Production

Cleaner Production is generally defined as the continuous application of an integrated
preventive environmental strategy to processes, products, and services to increase eco-efficiency
and reduce risks to humans and the environment (UNEP, 1994). Cleaner Production aims at
progressive reductions of the environmental impacts of processes, products and services, through
preventative approaches rather than control and management of pollutants and wastes once these
have been created [5].

2.1.1. Types of Cleaner Production Options

1. Good housekeeping practices imply procedural, administrative, or institutional measures that
a company can use to minimize waste and emissions. Many of these measures are used in
industry largely as efficiency improvements and good management practices. Good operating
practices can often be implemented with little cost. These practices can be implemented in all
areas of the plant, including production, maintenance operations, and product storage [9].

2. Input substitution refers to the use of less polluting raw and adjunct materials and the use of
process auxiliaries (such as lubricants and coolants) with a longer service lifetime [5].

3. Technology modifications are oriented towards process and equipment modifications to

reduce waste and emissions, preliminary in a production setting. Technology changes can range
from minor changes that can be implemented in a matter of days at low cost, to the replacement
of processes involving large capital costs. These include the following:

Changes in the production process

Modification of equipment, layout, or piping
Use of automation
Changes in process conditions, such as flow rates, temperatures, pressures, and residence
times [9].

5
4. Product modifications change the product characteristics, such as shape and material
composition. The life time of the new product is, for instance, expanded, the product is easier to
repair, or the manufacturing of the product is less polluting [5].

2.1.2. Reasons to Invest in Cleaner Production

Financial: Cleaner production improves your financial bottom line by: increasing
efficiency and productivity, reducing costs for waste disposal and treatment, reducing
raw material, energy and water costs and reducing liability risks.

Environmental: Cleaner production improves your environmental bottom line by:

reducing pollution of waterways, air and land, and reducing risk of non-compliance with
regulatory requirements.

Social: Cleaner production improves your social bottom line by: enhancing corporate
profile and marketing edge by demonstrating environmental responsibility (also
indirectly improving your financial bottom line), reducing health and safety risks,
improving staff morale and service [10].

2.2. Overview of Detergent Production

2.2.1. Composition of Laundry Detergents

Detergents are comprised of four major types of ingredients: builders, surface active agents
(surfactants), additives, and fillers [11].

Although the chemical composition of (phosphate and non-phosphate) detergents is continually

being refined to maximise washing efficiency, the main ingredients have remained relatively
constant over the last 20 years [1].

Surfactant
The surfactant or surface active ingredient performs the primary cleaning in detergents through
the reduction of interfacial tension. This consists of completely wetting the dirt and surface of the
item being washed, removing the dirt from the surface, and maintaining the dirt in solution [2].

6
Basically, every surfactant is an organic compound consisting of two parts: a hydrophobic
portion, normally including a long hydrocarbon chain, and a hydrophilic portion, which renders
the entire compound sufficiently soluble or dispersible in water or other polar solvent to sieve its
intended use [12].

Dodecyl Benzene or linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (LABS) are important raw materials
(surfactants) required for the manufacture of synthetic detergents. Dodecyl benzene has no bio-
degradable property so it causes pollution and sewage problems. The use of dodecyl benzene is
not encouraged nowadays. LABS surfactants are accepted as adequately biodegradable [4, 13].

Builder
Builder is a compound which works in synergy with the surfactant and is generally employed in
domestic laundry detergents. Un-built detergents require the surfactant to perform the cleaning
unaided and are mostly utilised by industries for washing of hard surfaces. The function of the
builder is inactivation of the hardness ions by sequestration, precipitation or ion-exchange.
Builders also counteract soil redeposition and provide pH buffering in the wash liquor [2].

Phosphates had been widely used as builders since 1947. Comprised of condensed or complex
phosphates and sodium, the most common phosphate used by the detergent industry was sodium
tri-poly phosphate [11].

There was a move to phosphate-free detergents from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s all over
Europe. Countries like Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Austria have gone
completely phosphate free. The rest European countries have banned the use of phosphate based
detergents in some affected localities [1].

However, in 1995 phosphates remained un-banned and still widely used in Latin America and
other developing regions. They were also used in industrial applications and in dishwashing
detergents [5].

7
Alternatives to phosphates in detergents
Concern about the environmental impact of phosphates in synthetic detergents resulted in the
introduction of various controls and restrictions on the use of phosphates in household
detergents. This led to a search for alternative builders [6]. The following are alternatives to STPP
in synthetic detergent production.

Carbonates
Sodium carbonate is used in both phosphate and phosphate-free detergent formulations largely
due to its low cost and other properties, notably alkaline buffering. Sodium carbonate softens the
wash water by precipitation of hardness ions. To produce free-flowing powders carbonates have
to be used together with silicates [2].

Sodium carbonate in household cleaning products has a negligible effect on the aquatic
ecosystems and it has no adverse effect on consumers [1].

Sodium silicate
Sodium silicate is used in laundry detergent formulation to provide alkaline buffering and for
corrosion control. Silicate has no effect on water softening or redeposition, but is a source of
alkalinity in the wash water [2].

Although considered corrosive to eyes and skin, sodium silicates have a low toxicity and their
use in detergents is not considered to present significant risks to human health or to the
environment [1].

Carboxylic acids
Polycarboxylates are used in formulations as co-builders to disperse dirt particles and
precipitates which would cause greying and encrustation on washing machine parts and fabrics.
Polycarboxylates are unable to substitute STPP completely because they possess insufficient
complexing capability, but their use during detergent manufacture are of considerable economic
advantage as they result in better homogenization and stabilization [2].

8
Zeolite A and its cobuilders
Zeolite A is a water-insoluble sodium aluminosilicate and is one of the many types of sodium
aluminium silicates that is applicable for use in detergents [2].

Zeolite A has a reasonable performance in abstracting calcium and magnesium ions but is limited
as a builder. It does not buffer during the washing process and does not prevent redeposition of
soil particles in the wash liquid, so it has to be used with a cobuilder, usually polycoarboxylic
acids. Zeolites do not present significant risks to people or to the environment [1, 6].

The United Nations stated that with regard to natural resources and future production capacities,
there were no serious restrictions against total replacement of STPP by zeolite A [2]. Hence, a
combination of zeolite A with polycarboxylates can be used to replace STPP for detergent
production. There by, minimize eutrophication problems caused due to phosphate in detergents.

Additives
Additives are used to improve the performance of the detergent and include anti redeposition
agents, bleach stabilizers, enzymes, fabric-whitening agents, foam controllers, corrosion
inhibitors, perfumes and colourants [2].

Fillers
All of the ingredients in a detergent are not active. In so-called conventional powders, some
ingredients do not play a part in wash performance. However, some of these components are
necessary for the manufacturing process, such as water (in sufficient quantity to hydrate the salts,
particularly in phosphate formulas), and toluenesulfonate (to reduce slurry viscosity), for
example. In general, powders contain a certain quantity of fillers. The most frequently used of
these is sodium sulfate, which is cheap because in general it is a by-product of chemical
manufacture [4].

9
2.2.2. Formulation of Detergents
Laundry detergents are produced in two major types of formulations: Powder and Liquid.
Powders are generally more effective in removing clay and ground-in dirt, while liquids work
well on oily soils [11].

Each large manufacturer has particular secrets and know-how that make a difference in the final
product. For example, the simple application of a well-known process, such as spray drying a
conventional powder, will not always result in product with little sodium tri-poly phosphate
breakdown, good flow properties, and satisfactory behavior in the washing machine [4].

Although there are numerous formulations of phosphate detergents, Table 2.1 provides an
indication of the typical compositions of the main product types used in laundry detergents [1].

Table 2.1. Indicative composition of typical laundry powder detergent

Raw materials Composition (%) for STPP Composition (%) for
based detergents zeolite based detergents
Surfactants 12 15-30
Builders
STPP 20-25
Zeolite A 0 25
Polycarboxylates 0 4
Phosphonates 0-0.2 0.4
Sodium silicate 6 4
Sodium carbonate 5 12

Bleaches
Sodium perborate 14 24
Activators 0-2 2
Performance additives 12-35 1.5
Water balance balance

10
2.2.3. Powder Detergent Production
The primary production methods for powder detergents are spray-drying, agglomeration, and dry
mixing. Spray-drying involves spraying a mixture of liquid and dry ingredients through nozzles
to form small droplets, which then fall through a current of hot air and form hollow granules as
they dry. In agglomeration, dry raw materials are blended with liquid materials by rolling or
mixing. Dry mixing is used to blend primarily dry raw materials, although small quantities of
liquids may be added [11].

Air
Builder

Active Cyclone
matter
Spray
dryer
Slurry mixer Dust
collection

Hot air
Slurry
Water

Powder for cooling

and separation

Figure 2.1. Simplified flow sheet for powder detergent production

Traditional detergent powders are manufactured in three stages.

1. Preparation of a mixture of liquid and solid raw materials (the slurry), which can stand high
temperatures, and which is then atomized (spray drying).
2. The base powder thus produced is allowed to cool before the more sensitive ingredients are
added, that is post dosing.
3. The final powder is packed. Figure 2.1 shows a simplified flow sheet for spray-drying powder
detergent production [4].

11
Slurry preparation
When slurry is made batch wise, the main liquid ingredients are charged and the powders added
to them, as is necessary to maintain a mixable liquid through the process [14].

It is obvious that if a sulphonic acid is used as the basic material it must be neutralized, either
continuously or batch-wise, and it is essential to do this before the acid comes into contact with
the rest of the ingredients of the slurry. Otherwise, insoluble silica may be precipitated, the
polyphosphate can easily be hydrolyzed to orthophosphate; and the optical brightener may also
be affected adversely. In continuous operations, the sulphonic acid and caustic soda should be
fed into a neutralizing vessel with all the water required for the slurry. This sodium sulphonate
paste is then fed into the slurry preparation vessel, where the rest of the ingredients are added [15].

After treatment of slurry

Some ageing of the slurry is desirable for the formation of sodium tripolyphosphate hexahydrate,
as well as necessary to provide a small buffer from which the drier can be fed; about 20-30
minutes is often suitable [14].

Conversion of the slurry into powder requires the use of pressures upto 8.0MPa. The most
practical means slurry transport uses a slowly moving three-plunger pump, usually preceded by a
low-variety. Between the storage vessel and the high-pressure pump, it is advantageous to
provide a magnetic separator, sieves, and /or wet-grinding mills for removing metallic objects
and large particles or agglomerates that might otherwise clog the spray nozzles. Bulk density can
be increased by evacuating the slurry, where as deliberate introduction of air can be used to
reduce the density. Any sudden changes in pressure in the high-pressure portions of the system
are compensated in an air vessel [16].

The hot gas generator and the fans

Inlet temperatures of 250 OC -400 OC have been common for detergent powders, but improved
hot gas inlet design may permit up to about 450 OC. It will be seen that thermal efficiency
increases as the gas inlet temperature rises. This is because a smaller mass of gas is required to
achieve a given amount of drying; and this gas, which leaves at a temperature substantially

12
independent of the inlet temperature, carries with it less heat than larger mass of gas used when
the inlet temperature is lower [14].

Atomization
The purpose of the atomizer is to meter flow into the chamber, produce populations of liquid
particles of the desired size and distribute those liquid particles uniformly in the drying chamber.
The selection of a specific atomizer is made based on the feedstock, the required powder
properties, the dryer type and capacity and the atomizer capacity [17].

Slurry is distributed in the tower head by a ring tube connecting a series of nozzle guns, each
equipped with swirl nozzles. Atomization occurs as the slurry emerges from the nozzles. The
number of nozzles and their types must be such that individual spray cones do not overlap, and
the sides of the tower should remain clean [16].

Spray drying
Spray drying chambers typically are vertical vessels with a cylindrical cross-section and a
conical bottom. The size of the cylindrical and conical sections depends on the application needs.
Different spray dryer designs can be obtained by passing the heating gas either co-currently or
counter-currently to the feed solution by a different choice of atomizer. Normal counter-current
detergent powder towers include an element of mixed flow in that a small proportion of cold air
is drawn into the base of the tower where the powder leaves. This would be difficult to avoid
because the tower is operated at a very slight negative pressure (a few mm water gauge), so as to
avoid the blowing out of hot gas, spray or powder. The cold air provides useful cooling of the
powder, so there is no need to attempt any form of sealed powder discharge which would be
difficult with warm sticky powder [14, 18].

The residence time in the chamber refers to the time required for the droplets to fall, due to
gravitation and air flow, through the chamber. The amount of drying is, therefore, a function of
the driving potential (vapor pressure differential), the mass transfer coefficients, and the
residence time in the chamber [19].

13
Air-pressures in spray-drier towers are usually balanced to range between 0-5 pa vacuum water
gauge. This is accomplished by means of dampers on either the inlet air duct or exhaust duct, or
both. The rate of exhaustion of air plus vapour is adjusted to be either equal to or slightly greater
than the rate of ingress of hot air into the chamber. Positive pressure inside the tower is not
advisable since it may cause blowing out of dust. The vacuum in the chamber can be raised,
however, quite easily to 125 pa water gauge provided that the tower is sealed off at its base with
a rotary valve or other sealing-discharging device. The increased vacuum will retard the rate of
fall of the dried particles and thus extend the residence in the tower. At the same time the higher
vacuum will tend to add to the amount of fines produced, the actual increase being dependent on
the particle spread of the powder [15].

Counter-current contact gives powders a bulk density 0.15-0.45 (more usually 0.3-0.4) g/mL and
a moisture content of 6-15%, commonly about 10%. Contrary to general belief the outlet air
temperature need not be above 100oC to obtain a desirable product. Spray-driers can work
efficiently at temperatures well below 100oC. However, for a bone dry powder the temperature
must be in the vicinity of 100oC or near the boiling point of water at the altitude of the particular
plant [14, 15].

Separation
The powder which leaves the tower at 60-70oC required to be:
Cooled further and weathered; that is salts allowed to crystallize in hydrate form.
Mixed with ingredients not included in the slurry, such as perfume, sodium perborate,
and enzymes.
Screened to remove any coarse material, which needs to be re-slurried (this may be done
before, or after, dosing with ingredients, or both).
Conveyed directly to the packaging machines, or to intermediate storage [14].

Storage and packing

If a powder must be stored in ambient relative humidity exceeding 60 per cent, the risk of lump
formation can be minimized by discharging the powder from the spray-tower with at least three-
quarters of the stable moisture content. It is economically unsound to dry a powder to 1 per cent

14
moisture content when the powder must revert to, say 7 per cent. The operation would be a lot
more efficient if the powder were dried to 7 per cent in the first place. After storage, the product
obtained is then put into packets, boxes, or drums equipped with a dosing system [4].

2.2.4. Liquid Detergent Production

Liquid detergents can be made from a variety of starting materials, but in every case the plant is
the same. A vessel equipped with a slow-speed stirrer is all that is required and the stirrer should
be positioned so that it is well under the surface of the liquid, so as not to cause foaming. It is,
however, necessary that the vessel be of a non-corrdible material. Stainless steel is satisfactory,
but expensive; concrete or asbestos cement vessels are eminently suitable, and so are those of
glass-fiber reinforced plastics. To the user, the advantages are that they are instantaneously
dispersed in water, the material can be perfumed and be given a very attractive appearance [15].

Liquid detergents are produced through both batch and continuous blending processes. In the
typical blending process, dry and liquid ingredients are combined and blended to a uniform
mixture using in-line or static mixers [11].

Liquid detergents are distinctive because of their relatively high surfactant content (up to 40%).
For reasons of solubility and stability, they seldom contain builders and generally are devoid of
bleaching agents [16].

Liquid detergents can be packed in a range of containers including glass bottles and drums, but
plastic bottles of various shapes and sizes are now normal for the domestic trade. Types of
polythene of varying rigidity are most usual. Some products are packed in rigid bottles, but
flexible squeeze bottles, with caps provided with a small hole, are virtually standard for
dishwashing liquids. Packaging lines can be very simple, with hand operations and semi-
automatic fillers; but with the very large tonnages now being produced by major companies, the
trend is to highly mechanized, high-speed, lines [14].

2.2.5. Bar Detergent Production

Bar detergents are found predominantly in developing countries [4]. The sulphonic acid is mixed
with the dry ingredients in a dough-mixer. After neutralization, the addition of any special

15
ingredients, the mass is allowed to age. This ageing varies with the formulation and further
manipulation. If a bar of high active-matter content (60%) is being made, the mass should be
aged for 12 hours. If a low active matter material (40 percent) is being manufactured, the mass
can be transferred to the next stage immediately. In fact, it is not advisable to allow it to age, as it
will set hard and become unworkable [15].

After the requisite ageing period, the mass is passed through a soap mill. In certain factories this
milling is dispensed with and the aged mass is fed directly into a plodder. However, the
appearance and texture of the finished product is definitely inferior if it is not passed through a
mill [15].

LABS and solid

ingredients

Dough mixer

Plodder Cutter
Miller (extruder)

Packing and storage

Figure 2.2. Flow diagram for a typical bar detergent production

After milling, the chips are fed into a plodder and extruded into the required shape, cut on soap-
cutting tables and stamped [15]. Flow diagram for bar detergent production is shown in figure 2.2.

16
2.3. Utilities required for Detergent production
2.3.1. Energy
Industry uses energy for a variety of purposes. Steam production via conventional boilers and co-
generators is the largest use. Electric motor drive, which includes motors and the corresponding
pumps, fans, compressors, and materials processing and handling is the next largest category [20].

Bare or improperly insulated steam pipes are a constant source of wasted energy because they
radiate heat to the surroundings instead of transporting it to steam-using equipment. The heat
losses reduce the steam pressure at the terminal equipment. This situation increases the boiler
load because extra steam is required to make up the losses [21].

2.3.2. Steam
A steam-distribution and condensate-return system should deliver steam efficiently from the
boiler plant to heating systems and processing equipment and return condensate to the boiler for
re-use. Some energy is always lost from a steam and condensate system, most significantly in
steam trap loss. Others include heat loss from piping and fittings (insulated and un-insulated),
leaks and flash losses, condensate loss to drain and overall system losses [21].

Techniques used to measure steam loss include hole size or equivalent circle method and Plume
height method [22].

Energy losses can also be reduced with proper attention to steam distribution systems. This
includes maintenance of steam traps and increased insulation of steam carrying pipes [20].

2.3.3. Water supply

Inadequate water management is accelerating the depletion of surface water and ground water
resources. A facility may have several water systems, some for process use (process cooling
water, chilled water) and some for building services (potable water, domestic hot
water).Whatever their function; water systems tend to have similar inefficiencies and energy
management opportunities. Water losses are detailed in Table 2.2 [19, 21, 23].

17
Table 2.2. Amount of water lost due to leakage

Leakage rate Daily loss (m3) Monthly loss (m3) Yearly loss (m3)

One drop/second 0.004 0.129 1.6

Two drops/second 0.014 0.378 4.9
Drops into stream 0.091 2.6 31.8
1.6 mm stream 0.318 9.4 113.5
3.2 mm stream 0.984 29.5 354.0
4.8 mm stream 1.6 48.3 580.0
6.4 mm stream 3.5 105.0 1,260.0

2.4. Effluent Discharge

2.4.1. Laundry Water Reuse Potential for Irrigation
Water quality has been degraded by domestic and industrial pollution sources as well as non-
point sources. In some places, water is withdrawn from the water resources, which become
polluted owing to a lack of sanitation infrastructure and services. Over-pumping of groundwater
has also compounded water quality degradation caused by salts, pesticides, naturally occurring
arsenic, and other pollutants. In urban areas, demand for water has been increasing steadily,
owing to population growth, industrial development, and expansion of irrigated peri-urban
agriculture [23].

Agricultural irrigation has, by far, been the largest reported reuse of wastewater. About 41
percent of recycled water in Japan, 60% in California, USA, and 15% in Tunisia are used for this
purpose. In developing countries, application on land has always been the predominant means of
disposing municipal wastewater as well as meeting irrigation needs. In China for example, at
least 1.33 million hectares of agricultural land are irrigated with untreated or partially treated
wastewaters from cities. Reuse has advantages as well as disadvantages at each level. The choice
is conventionally technical and economic one, though some view it as important that the
community as a whole should become more involved in the working of reuse systems [24].

18
Wastewater contains a wide spectrum of pathogens and sometimes heavy metals and organic
compounds that are hazardous to the environment and human health. Therefore, the World
Health Organization advises treatment of wastewater before application to the fields, to protect
farmers and crop consumers [25].

Laundry water is quite different in its quality from the potable water. It contains many
substances, such as boron and phosphate, and the water is often alkaline and saline. Detergents
used for washing clothes comprise of phosphorus, ammonia, organic nitrogen and boron in
varying quantities [8].

Standards for wastewater reuse in many countries have been influenced by the WHO (1989)
Health Guidelines and the USEPA/USAID (1992) Guidelines. The WHO guidelines (WHO,
1989), are significantly less strict, with the intention to introduce some treatment of wastewater
prior to crop irrigation, particularly in developing countries. WHO guidelines are therefore more
appropriate for these countries, at least as an interim measure until there is an ability to produce
higher quality reclaimed water [26, 27].

2.4.2. Reclaimed Laundry Water Quality for Irrigation

The chemical constituents in reclaimed water of concern for agricultural irrigation are salinity,
sodium, trace elements, excessive chlorine residual, and nutrients. Sensitivity is generally a
function of a given plants tolerance to constituents encountered in the root zone or deposited on
the foliage. Reclaimed water tends to have higher concentrations of these constituents than the
groundwater or surface water sources from which the water supply is drawn [28].

The potential environmental impacts associated with greywater are due to the many pollutants it
contains, such as particles of dirt, lint, food and human waste products (even greywater from
laundries and bathrooms will contain some body fats, urine, faeces or blood), and chemicals
derived from detergents and other cleaning agents. If the greywater is untreated these pollutants
can build up in the soil, damaging the soils structure, altering soil acidity/alkalinity balances and
possibly harming plant growth [29].

19
Salinity
Salinity is the single most important parameter in determining the suitability of the water to be
used for irrigation. Salinity is determined by measuring the electrical conductivity (EC) and/or
the total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water [28].

High salt concentration in wastewater applied to soil will lower the total water potential of soil
and will affect water and nutrient uptake by plat roots. In addition, high ion accumulation inside
plants may reach toxic level, which is detrimental to plants. Therefore, irrigation with highly
saline effluent on soils may reduce plant productivity or, in extreme cases, kill crops and native
vegetation [8].

Sodium
Laundry products, in particular, use a variety of chemicals that can be harmful to plants. Most
soaps and detergents contain sodium compounds. High levels of sodium can cause discoloration
and burning of leaves, and can contribute toward an alkaline soil condition. In addition, high
sodium can be toxic to certain plants and can prevent calcium from reaching them. A second
possible effect of some types of sodium is a disturbance of the soils ability to absorb water. The
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is the parameter that measures the effect on the soils structure of
sodium compounds. A high SAR (13 or above) will result in soils with reduced permeability and
aeration, and a general degradation of the soils structure [30].

Boron
Elevated levels of boron (B) may arise in laundry greywater due to presence of borate in
bleaches and some detergents. Boron is considered as a plant micro-nutrient which plants require
in very small amounts for their growth and physiological functions, such as aiding calcium and
carbohydrate metabolism in plants. Most soils provide adequate amounts of this nutrient
naturally [8].

Plant damage from exposure to excessive amounts of boron is first displayed by a burnt
appearance to the edges of the leaves. Other symptoms of boron toxicity include leaf cupping,
chlorosis, branch dieback, premature leaf drop and reduced growth [30].

20
Trace elements
The elements of greatest concern at elevated levels are cadmium, copper, molybdenum, nickel,
and zinc. Nickel and zinc have visible adverse effects in plants at lower concentrations than the
levels harmful to animals and humans. Zinc and nickel toxicity is reduced as pH increases.
Cadmium, copper, and molybdenum, however, can be harmful to animals at concentrations too
low to impact plants [28].

Chlorine residual
Bleaches commonly contain chlorides that can also damage plants, particularly if the bleach
water actually touches the foliage. One symptom of chlorine-induced damage is a tendency for
new, expanding leaves to appear bleached. Ammonia is often used as a substitute for bleach, as it
also breaks down grease, and is preferable as a household cleaning and deodorizing agent.
Chlorine is undesirable for plants in large amounts, although it is found in small amounts in
many municipal water supplies. Bleaches and detergents carry large amounts of chlorine [30].

Nutrients
The nutrients most important to a crops needs are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, boron,
and sulfur. Reclaimed water usually contains enough of these nutrients to supply a large portion
of a crops needs [28].

Leaching of N to the groundwater is one of primary factors limiting the re-use of effluent,
containing high N concentration. Nitrate is the dominant form of N leached into groundwater and
nitrate in drinking water has adverse effects on human health. Algal growth or eutrophication
problem is also associated with runoff with high concentration of nitrogen into surface water
bodies. For these reasons, information on nitrogen is needed for wastewater quality analysis [8].

Phosphorus is used in laundry detergents as a builder and deflocculating agent. The amount of
phosphorus in laundry wastewater varies depending on the types of detergents used. Irrigation
with laundry greywater could increase the amount of available phosphorus in soil for plant
uptake; in particular, laundry wastewater discharge associated with the use of phosphate-based
detergents. However, potential problems could occur from excess P loading when drainage

21
occurs, which could contaminate groundwater and may cause eutrophication through erosion of
P-rich topsoil and a discharge of dissolved P in runoff to surface water bodies [8].

2.4.3. Health Assessment of Laundry Water Reuse

Domestic wastewater, or sewage, can be divided into two categories: blackwater which
originates from toilets and kitchens has gross faecal coliform contamination and generally has
high concentrations of organic matter; and greywater which originates from bathrooms and
laundries and constitutes the largest flow of wastewater [30].

Use of untreated wastewater for crop irrigation causes significant excess infection with intestinal
nematodes in farm workers, in areas where such infections are endemic. In India, sewage farm
workers had a significant excess of Ascaris and hookworm infections, compared with farm
workers irrigating with clean water. The intensity of the infections (number of worms per
person) and the effects of infection were also higher, e.g. the sewage farm workers suffered more
from anaemia, one of the symptoms of severe hookworm infection. Transmission of cholera can
occur to consumers of vegetable crops irrigated with untreated wastewater, as during the
outbreak of cholera in Jerusalem in 1970. It appears that typhoid can also be transmitted through
this route [27].

Indicator organisms
Coliform is a family of bacteria that is always present in soils and in all types of water and
wastewater, even in high quality drinking water. The coliform group of organisms survives better
in water environment than other pathogens; hence, coliform groups are commonly used as an
indicator of water quality. Commonly, there are three ways of using coliform groups to indicate
the quality of water. First, the test of total coliform bacteria indicates the cleanliness of the water
supply to judge the adequacy of disinfection. The next common indicator group is thermotolerant
(or faecal) coliform bacteria, which are a subset of total coliform and are used to indicate
possible faecal contamination of water [8].

22
2.5. Environmental Standards
2.5.1. Surface Water Standards
General standards for industrial effluents in Ethiopia are shown below in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Effluent discharges to land waters

Constituent group or Emission limit value(mg/L)

parameter
pH 6-9 pH units
BOD5 at 20oC 80
COD 250
Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen (as N) 80
Nitrate (as N) 20
Total phosphate (as P) 10
Magnesium (as Mg) 100
Calcium (as Ca) 100
Chloride (as Cl) 1000
Sulphate (SO4) 1000
Total Coliforms (Number per 400
100mL)

Source: Standards for Industrial Pollution Control in Ethiopia (2003)

2.5.2. Irrigation Water Standards

While wastewater reuse for agriculture has many benefits, it should be carried out using good
management practices to reduce negative human health impacts. The WHO initially published
Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in Agriculture and Aquaculture in 1989
and later revised it as Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and grey water, volume
2: wastewater use in agriculture (WHO 2006). The Guidelines are set to minimize exposure to
workers, crop handlers, field workers and consumers, and recommend treatment options to meet
the guideline values (WHO, 2006). The Guidelines are focused on health-based targets and

23
provide procedures to calculate the risks and related guideline values for wastewater reuse in
agriculture [23].

WHO (1989) Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater in agriculture took into account all
available epidemiological and microbiological data and are summarised in Table 2.4. The faecal
coliform guideline (e.g. =1000 FC/100mL for food crops eaten raw) was intended to protect
against risks from bacterial infections, and the newly introduced intestinal nematode egg
guideline was intended to protect against helminth infections (and also serve as indicator
organisms for all of the large settlable pathogens, including amoebic cysts). The exposed group
that each guideline was intended to protect and the wastewater treatment expected to achieve the
required microbiological guideline were clearly stated. Waste stabilisation ponds were advocated
as being both effective at the removal of pathogens and the most cost effective treatment
technology in many circumstances [27].

24
Table 2.4. The 1989 WHO guidelines for the use of treated wastewater in agriculture

Category Reuse conditions Exposed Intestinal Feacal Wastewater

group nematodesb coliforms treatment expected
(arithemetic (geometric to achieve the
mean no. mean no. per required
per 100mLc) 100mLc) microbiologica
quality

A Irrigation of Workers, 1 1000d A series of

crops likely to be consumers, stabilization ponds
eaten uncooked, public designed to
sports fields, achieve the
public parksd microbiological
quality indicated,
or equivalent
treatment
B Irrigation of Workers 1 No standard Retention in
cereal crops , recommende stabilization ponds
industrial crops, for 8-10 days or
fodder crops, equivalent
pasture and treesc helminth and fecal
coliform removal
C Localized None Not Not Pretreatment as
irrigation of applicable applicable required by the
crops in category irrigation
B if exposure of technology, but not
workers and the less than primary
public does not sedimentation
occur

a. In specific cases, local epidemiological, sociocultural and environmental factors should be

taken into account and the guidelines modified accordingly.
b. Ascaris and Trichuris species and hookworms.
c. During the irrigation period.
d. A more stringent guideline ( 200 faecal coliforms per 100 ml) is appropriate for public lawns,
such as hotel lawns, with which the public may cone into direct contact.
e. In the case of fruit trees, irrigation should cease two weeks before fruit is picket, and no fruit
should be picked off the ground. Sprinkler irrigation should be used [27].

25
In Ethiopia, the standard for application of effluent to lands is given in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Controlled application of effluent to lands

Constituent group or Emission limit value(mg/L)

parameter
pH 5.5 - 9 pH units
BOD5 at 20oC 500
Chloride (as Cl) 1000
Sulphate (SO4) 1000

Source: Standards for Industrial pollution control in Ethiopia (2003)

26
 3. CLEANER PRODUCTION METHODOLOGY
Initial check list was used to see the significance of Cleaner Production assessment in RSD.
Then, based on methodology developed by UNEP and UNIDO the assessment is described, and
consists of the following basic steps:
planning and organising the Cleaner Production assessment
pre-assessment (gathering qualitative information about the organization and its
activities)
assessment (gathering quantitative information about resource consumption and waste
generation and generating Cleaner Production opportunities)
evaluation and feasibility assessment of Cleaner Production opportunities
implementation of viable Cleaner Production opportunities and developing a plan for the
continuation of Cleaner Production efforts.

3.1. Initial Checklist

The following simple checklist was used in identifying initial Cleaner Production opportunities
likely to lead to cost savings and increased profitability in RSD.

1. Does RSD provide services or manufacture goods which use:

energy
water
raw materials?
2. Are the costs of one or more of these a significant proportion of operating costs in RSD?
3. Does RSD generate solid, liquid, gaseous or chemical wastes?
4. Do any of the products manufactured in RSD become a problem for disposal at the end of
their life [10]?

For all the above questions, the answer was yes. Therefore, cleaner production is likely to lead
to cost savings and increased profitability. The details of methods and materials were used to
assess cleaner production opportunities in RSD are given below.

27
3.2. Task 1: Planning and Organization
This section includes obtaining management commitment, setting aims and establishing a proper
project organization for conducting the Cleaner Production assessment [5].

At Repi Soap and Detergent S.Co the management was committed and ensured collaboration and
participation. The arrangement for a Cleaner Production team set up was to identify, investigate
and evaluate cleaner production options. A plan was aimed to include a cross-section of staff on
the team, from major business functions such as manufacturing, purchasing, marketing,
distribution, human resources, finance/accounting, and research and development. However, due
to staff limitation, it was not possible to organize a team and yet almost everybody in the factory
cooperated for the realization of the cleaner production assessment.

3.3. Task 2: Pre-Assessment

Prior to the assessment a facility description, a process description, a process flow diagram,
major energy consuming equipment, raw material information, and energy and waste data were
collected in RSD. Collection of this data prior to the assessment gave an idea of where attention
should be focused during the actual assessment [31].

3.3.1. Company Description and Flow Diagrams

In this section the company was described along with flow diagrams for each one of the
processes.

Process description
The process description was a very important part of the information collection process as it
provided the basic information needed to generate process flow diagrams and for opportunity
analysis in RSD. The process description includes the following elements:

Description of the products produced (i.e., ROL, LARGO and AJAX)

Brief list of raw materials (LABS, Sodium Hydoxide, Zeolite, Sodium Tripoly phosphate,
Sodium Silicate, Soda ash, Sodium Sulphate, Sodium Chloride, SCMC, Triethanolamine,
Photine, STS, Perfume and water) and
Step-by-step description of unit operations from the beginning of the product manufacture
following through to the finished product.

28
Process flow diagram
The flow diagram for all processes in RSD was drawn by a series of block diagrams (chapter
four) that visually describe the flow of materials. For each block in the flow diagram, data
including raw material input, waste stream output, utilities, products, and co-products were
obtained.

3.3.2. Walk-Through Inspection

During the walk-through in RSD, talking to several staff members, heads of production,
technical and quality departments, and operators presented valuable information. Observations
about the operations and general appearance of the facility (e.g., evidence of leaks and spills)
were recorded.

The following check-list was used for assessment during the walk-through:
Are there any drips, leaks or spills or emissions?
Is all equipment operating properly at design capacity/efficiency?
Are energy, water or raw materials being wasted?
Are hazardous materials and wastes stored appropriately?
Are different wastes kept separated?
Are wastes necessary?
Are there any opportunities for reuse or recycling on site?
Could any hazardous raw materials or consumables be substituted for less hazardous
materials [10]?

It was necessary to return to the process as often as necessary to gather adequate data to develop
a list of opportunities.

From the pre-assessment in RSD: high fuel consumption at the spray tower per unit of product,
boiler short-cycling due to over sizing, steam loss through steam traps, STPP being used as raw
material, wastewater from factory washing and toilet septic tank overflow being used for
agricultural purpose were noted.

29
3.4. Task 3: Assessment
This consists of the in-depth evaluation of the selected audit focuses in order to develop a
comprehensive set of alternate Cleaner Production options in RSD. This required a quantification
of the volume and composition of the various waste streams and emissions as well as a detailed
understanding of the causes of these waste streams and emissions [5].

3.4.1. Compiling Facility Data

Measurements, production log book, product quality control sheets, energy consumption records
and interview with production and technical personnel were main sources for data compilation.
Compiled data were used for material and energy balance of the whole process.

Spray dryer
During analysis on the air used for spray drying in RSD, it was taken that upstream (i.e. before
the heaters) the mass flow rate was not modified when air was heated up to 283oC. This was due
to opposite effects of temperature on pressure losses in the equipment, through decreased air
density and viscosity and increased by the total cross section gave the velocity. Therefore, it was
considered that the mass flow rate of dry air delivered by the fans was not significantly modified
by temperature [32].

Speeds of air were measured by a digital anemometer at exhaust air pipe and tower base at
ambient temperature. At the tower base, air flow rate was measured while all machineries were
operating but no product was being discharged. This was done to avoid measuring disruption due
to be caused by detergent powder. However, at the exhaust pipe measurement was taken while
production was going on. Then, to determine the air flow rates at exhaust air outlet and tower
base were measured with anemometer at 3 positions of the section of straight cylindrical ducts.
The weighted average of velocities multiplied by the cross-sectional area gives the volume
flowrates. Fifteen replications were performed.

A hygrometer and thermometer were used to measure the relative humidity and temperature of
the air into and from the spray drier. The mass flow rate of concentrated slurry was calculated
from the daily production mass and production hour taken.

30
Steam leaks
In RSD, steam trap of the steam header was one point where there was a continuous steam
leaking. However, this point steam loss was substantial. Steam leaks at pipe fittings, valves and
traps can result in substantial energy losses.

Figure 3.1. indicates how to calculate the hourly loss from a steam leak by measuring the length
of the steam plume, which is the distance from the leak to the point at which water condenses out
of the steam [33].

Figure 3.1. Hourly steam loss from leaks as a function of steam plume length

Steam and electrical energy consumption

The electrical energy and steam consumption for sections and unit operations is estimated
by recording the time of consumption and taking the design capacity of processes, motors
and pumps [34].

31
The steam demand of a plant can be determined using a number of different methods:
calculation, measurement and thermal rating [35].

The design steam demand (thermal rating) of the processes in RSD is not known. There
was no steam flow meter measuring equipment either. Therefore, time take for steam
consumption by the process was recorded; steam pressure and the size of the pipe the
steam was passing through were identified. Then, a steam pipe capacity table
(Appendix 5) was used to estimate hourly steam consumption of the processes.

The total variable cost of raising steam (CG) in RSD was calculated using equation (3-2).
Fuel cost is usually the dominant component, accounting for as much as 90% of the total.
It is given by [36]:

af H h
Cf .......................................... . (3-1)

Where: af fuel cost, $/kJ

H enthalpy of steam, kJ/kg
h enthalpy of boiler feed water, KJ/kg
overall boiler efficiency, fractional

Then the cost of raising steam:

CG = Cf (1 + 0.3)... (3-2)

Heat loss from furnace surface

The quantity of heat loss from surface of furnace body is the sum of natural convection and
thermal radiation. This quantity can be calculated from surface temperatures of furnace. The
temperatures on furnace surface should be measured at as many points as possible, and their
average should be used. If the number of measuring points is too small, the error becomes large.

32
For finding the temperature of the furnace wall temperature in RSD: the tip of the thermometer is
placed to the outer wall of the furnace. It was made sure that the tip of the thermometer touches
the furnace. Then it was waited a couple of minutes for the temperature to stabilize. Then the
temperature was read when it stabilized. This was conducted fifteen times for each of the three
spots on the surface (a total of 45 measurements). The average result was taken as furnace wall
temperature (Appendix 4).

The following Figure 3.2 shows the relation between the temperature of external wall surface
and the quantity of heat release calculated with this formula.

Figure 3.2. Quantity of heat released at various temperatures

Therefore from the above figure, the quantities of heat released from ceiling, sidewalls and
hearth per unit area can be found [37].

33
Water flow rate measurement
Water and wastewater flow rates were measured by recording the time taken to fill a known
volume of flask and in some cases by measuring the change in water level in a tanker with a
known volume in a given time.

Water samples collection

Water in RSD was sampled to see its suitability for the environment and agriculture. Looking at
the process in detergent industries, almost all the water used goes in a closed loop. However,
faulty processes like it was in RSD generate wastewater at different points in different times. As
there was no constant source of wastewater in the process, the mixture of different wastewaters
in the factory were sampled three times in a judgmental sampling method. This factory
wastewater in RSD was mixed with toilet wastewater overflowing from septic tank. From this
mixture also three samples were taken. Hence, a total of six samples were taken for laboratory
analysis and each analyzed for 16 parameters. The number of samples was limited by project
funding. Judgmental sampling method was used for sampling wastewater.

Samples were collected in clean transparent plastic buckets after rinsing several times, first with
hot and cold water and final thorough rinses with the actual wastewater being sampled. As the
water flows in RSD were shallow, samples were collected by lowering plastic buckets to the
bottom, opening and closing them there by hands, and taking out. The water samples after proper
marking and labeling were taken to the Addis Ababa Environmental Protection Authority
laboratory immediately for analysis to avoid any change or deterioration in its quality due to
chemical and microbial activity. The time taken to transport the samples was 45 minutes.
Samples were then analyzed immediately [38].

Wast water analysis

Due to economical constraints associated with project funding, a certain physical, chemical and
biological quality parameters and number of samples were selected for the laundry (3 samples)
and laundry and toilet mixture (3 samples) water analysis. These analyses included pH,
electrical conductivity (EC), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), concentration of selected cations (Na, Ca, Mg and K), chloride(cl-), nutrients (total

34
nitrogen, phosphate, nitrate and nitrite), and faecal coliforms. As no heavy metal and boron were
used in laundry water in RSD, the analysis on heavy metal and boron was not covered in this
thesis. In order to evaluate the potential health hazard associated with laundry and toilet water
reuse, faecal coliform analysis was used. Reagents and apparatus required for the analyses of
each parameter for this particular study are presented in appendix 1.

Material and energy balance

Material and energy balances in RSD were calculated based on the conservation laws of mass
and energy. Whenever possible direct measurements were made for both the material flow and
energy flow, and then calculations were used to determine unknowns.

3.5. Task 4: Evaluation and Feasibility study

A set of Cleaner Production options were obtained from previous stage of the assessment in
RSD. Next, the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of the options were examined.

The feasibility analysis phase consists of three post-assessment activities: (1) prioritization of
opportunities, (2) evaluation of technical and economic feasibility, and (3) generation of an
assessment report [10].

3.5.1. Prioritization of Opportunities

Because of time and resource constraints, most facilities have to set priorities among their energy
conservation and pollution prevention options based on the original goals and criteria specific to
the processes evaluated [31].

3.5.2. Evaluation of Technical, Economic and Environmental Feasibility

Following the assessment in RSD it was necessary to evaluate the technical, economical and
environmental feasibility of each energy conservation and pollution prevention options
identified.

Technical evaluation
Technical evaluation in RSD included calculations of energy conservation or waste reduction
and the associated costs, impacts on operations, and its advantages and disadvantages.

35
Additionally, the technical evaluation included evaluation of the implementation aspects of the
option including such things as: is there room in the facility for new equipment and will the new
process affect the quality of the product [31].

Economic evaluation
Economic feasibility compares current savings with costs of implementing the option. The likely
payback period for any capital investment is often the simplest method for assessing economic
feasibility.

The payback period is the time it will take to save the money spent to change or improve a
process or operation, and is expressed as [10]:

Capital investment and project cos ts

Paybackperiod years .. (3-3)
Net savings in operating cos ts per year

Environmental evaluation
The objective of environmental evaluation is to determine the positive and negative impacts of
the options for the environment [9].

Selection of feasible options

In RSD first, the technically non-feasible options and the options without a significant
environmental benefit were to be eliminated. All remaining options can in principle be
implemented. However, a selection is required in case of competing options or in case of limited
funds [9].

Based on these considerations, the viable options were re-screened and priorities were set for
implementation. Priorities were based on greatest return or urgency [10].

36
3.6. Task 5: Implementation and Monitoring
Management support is the most important element in successfully implementing Cleaner
Production opportunities. Actions taken to implement energy conservation and pollution
prevention projects vary greatly from project to project and company to company. One facility
may decide to use in-house expertise to implement projects while another may find it beneficial
to contract the work to an outside organization. After successful implementation of the project, it
is beneficial to track and advertise the resulting cost savings and impacts to give feedback to
facility personnel. This allows personnel to see the results of changes in procedures or
installation of new equipment and to participate in the energy conservation and pollution
prevention program [31].

The expected result of this phase is threefold: obtain

1. Implementation of the feasible Cleaner Production measures

2. Monitoring and evaluation of the progress achieved by the implementation of the feasible
options

3. Initiation of ongoing Cleaner Production activities [9].

37
 4. CLEANER PRODUCTION ASSESSMENT IN RSD
The results obtained from the cleaner production assessment in RSD are described in this
chapter.

4.1. Steps Taken for Cleaner Production Assessment in RSD

In RSD, it was first realized that the company used chemical raw materials, water and energy in
the course of producing detergents. It was also recognized that significant proportion of the cost
was spent on energy and raw materials. The factory generated liquid waste and used raw
materials like STPP that can be a problem for disposal. Therefore, it was believed that cleaner
production could offer a great opportunity to reduce costs, improve the companys
environmental performance and increase profitability.

Then based on the methodology developed by UNEP and UNIDO, the assessment in RSD was
conducted. By recognizing the rewards of implementing cleaner production, the management in
RSD expressed commitment to its realization. The management, however, did not officially
organize a team. The management, instead, laid a level ground where every department could
participate and contribute to its realization. At this stage, the objective was to:

Generate cleaner production options.

Analyze cleaner production options generated in terms of technical feasibility, financial
feasibility and environmental benefit.
Assess costs and benefits of switching from STPP to zeolite-based detergents.

Therefore, at this stage in RSD the framework of the study was developed.

At this third stage in RSD or the so called "pre-assessment stage" process description, facility
description, process flow diagram, major energy consuming equipment (like spray dryer), raw
material information, and energy and waste data were collected in RSD. Walk-through in the
factory and company compound was important in this process. From these data of energy
consumption, wastewater generation, raw material that can be a problem for disposal were
observed and recorded for further assessment. Therefore, at this stage the focus of the study was
decided.

38
Fourth, in-depth assessment of energy, raw material and waste were undertaken to develop a
comprehensive set of cleaner production options. Therefore, at this stage set of cleaner
production options were prepared.

Fifth, the technical, economic and environmental feasibility of the options were undertaken. This
is explained in chapter five. The following are assessments in RSD from pre-assessment to
assessment stage.

4.2. General Description of Repi Soap and Detergent S.Co

Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co (RSD) is the oldest soap and detergent factory in Ethiopia. The
factory is located in the west of Addis Ababa in Kolfe Keranio sub-city along Jimma road. The
factory compound has an area of 28,384m2.

The factory was first owned by six foreign citizens. It was commissioned and commenced
production in 1967. It was confiscated and registered as government property when the Derg
regime came to power in 1974. In 2006, the company was privatized and now owned by Alsam
private limited company.

RSD produces mainly detergents of different forms such as:

ROL: powder detergent for laundry
AJAX: bar detergent for laundry
LARGO: liquid detergent for laundry.

The powder plant operated below four months in a year mainly due to high production cost and
lack of domestic market for its powder detergent products. Also, other major domestic detergent
producers face the same challenge. Zahara and Aerial are among many imported powder
detergents that enjoy the wider domestic market. However, RSD also produced bar and liquid
detergents seven to eight months in a year. The factory enjoys wide domestic acceptance and
market for its bar and liquid detergents. For this budget year 2008/9, it aims to produce 1500 tons
powder, 3000 tons bar and 1200 tons liquid detergent. When seen in light of the volume of
energy, manpower and number of machineries used, the powder detergent plant was the highest.
The average production capacity of the plants in RSD was 0.58ton/h, 1.65ton/h and 0.60ton/h for
powder, liquid and bar detergents respectively. Currently the factory has 150 total number of

39
manpower of which 40 are female. The factory used water well as service water source ever
since it has become operational. Heavy fuel was used by boiler and furnace for steam and hot air
production respectively. All other energy demands of the processes are electrical energy from the
national grid.

Wastewater from laboratory, factory floor washings, toilet (mixture of urine and feces), clothes
washing and chemical leakage washings are all used for irrigation purpose to grow vegetables in
the factory compound or directed to open storage pond that overflow on grassland in the factory
compound.

In RSD the raw materials that were used for powder liquid and bar detergents are listed in the
table below (Table 4.1). The composition of each product in RSD was intentionally omitted to
protect the companys commercial secret, upon their request.

Table 4.1. List of raw materials used for powder, liquid and bar detergents production in RSD
Ingredients used for the production of:
No. Raw material Powder detergent Liquid detergent Bar detergent
1 LABS
2 Sodium hydroxide
3 Zeolite
4 STPP
5 Sodium silicate
6 Soda ash
7 Sodium sulphate
8 Sodium chloride
9 SCMC
10 Photine
11 STS
12 Monstral blue
13 Triethanol amine
14 Perfume
15 Water

40
4.3. Process Description and Process Flow Diagram for Powder Detergent Production
This section contains a brief process description and process flow diagram for powder detergent (ROL) production in RSD. Figure 4.1
shows the general flow diagram for powder detergent production in RSD.
Hot air

NaOH solution Cyclones

Water
LABS

Dust
Neutralizer
Pneumatic
Spray conveyor for
drier cooling and dust Dust
separation
Solid raw Paste
materials

Mixing vessel
(slurry) Powder Perfume
Sieve dosing

Slurry
Storage
Hot air
Figure 4.1. Flow Diagram of powder detergent Production in RSD

41
4.3.1. Slurry Preparation
Electricity
Electricity Electricity

NaOH Water LABS

pumping pumping

Water LABS
NaOH

Paste preparation
(Reactor)
Electricity

Paste Electricity

Water for Slurry preparation Chemical

washing ingredients
(Solids)

Spillages Spillages
from sieve
Slurry

Wastewater

Ageing tank Electricity

Slurry to spray drier

Figure 4.2. Flow diagram for slurry preparation

42
4.3.2. Slurry Filtration and Pumping

Slurry from
ageing tank Washing
water
Slurry
Electricity
Filter (lumps bleeding
Circulating and solids)
cooling water Leakage
Cooling
water
leakage
Electricity Centrifugal
pump Waste
water
Cooling
Cooling water
water leakage
Electricity Reciprocating
Cooling pump
water
Slurry to
spray
tower

Figure 4.3. Flow diagram for filtration and pumping of slurry

In RSD, Sodium hydroxide, LABS and water were mixed in a reactor to produce paste. These
raw materials were first made ready in overhead tankers by pumping. However, LABS was not
pumped because of its corrosive nature. Instead, it was hoisted in a container then poured down
to an over head tanker. The paste was then put into a reactor where it was mixed with soda ash,
sodium sulfate, sodium-tri-poly-phosphate, zeolite, sodium chloride, sodium tolune, optical
brighteners, sodium carboxyl methyl cellulose and sodium silicate. Then it was sent to ageing
tank through a simple open sieve where there usually occurred spillage. The ageing process
enables to finalize reaction.

43
Slurry in RSD was filtered to prevent clogging of the atomizing nozzles in the spray dryer.
Electro mechanical sieve was used for this purpose. Because of high pressure development in
this filter, slurry bleeding through hinges and joints was usually observed. This was washed with
water.

After filtering the slurry, centrifugal pump was used for homogenizing the slurry. This pump also
conditioned the head for the following high pressure reciprocating pump. The working load on
the reciprocating pump was controlled by a pressure gauge. The change in pressure usually tells
the amount of slurry entering into the spray dryer. Therefore it was used to control drying
process. Water used for cooling both pumps was leaking continuously.

In RSD, furnace is used to heat ambient air. The air from the furnace was induced counter-
currently by a fan in to the spray dryer. The air in the tower, after drying the slurry, was
exhausted by a fan. Before this hot air was released into the open air, ten cyclones were used to
remove the dust with the air. The dried product is collected by belt conveyor at the base of the
tower. This powder was conveyed to an air lift where it was cooled in due course. This powder
was lifted to the fifth floor of the building by the air lift where dust is separated by a cyclone.
During its journey back to the first floor, the powder was perfumed and stored in open buggies
on the first floor. From these buggies, powder was transferred by gravity to the packing machine.

44
4.3.3. Slurry Drying and Powder Storage

Electricity for Exhaust air and dust

scraper
Air

Spray drier 10 cyclones

Hot air (Each five in
parallel)
Cold air Electricity

Power Dust
detergent collection

Air Electricity
Air lift

Air

Electricity
Cyclone

Dust
collection
Electricity
Vibrating sieve
Coarse
product

Electricity Perfume dozing

Perfume

Powder detergent to
temporary storage buggies

Figure 4.4. Flow diagram for processes from slurry drying and powder storage

45
4.3.4. Hot Air and Steam Production

Electricity

Steam Steam
Hot
Deareator water
Water
Electricity
Boiler
Heavy
fuel
Heavy
fuel Heavy Steam blow down
fuel Electricity Hot
air
Hot
air Hot air
Steam Furnace induce fan
Heavy
fuel
Air Electricity
Electricity

Figure 4.5. Flow diagram for hot air and steam production

In RSD the furnace and boiler used heavy fuel and electrical energy. Boiler feed water was
heated by direct steam in un-insulated deareator. The boiler burner was observed to experience
short-cycling. The furnace outer surface was un-insulated while the inside part was insulated
with fire brick. Heavy fuel used by both the boiler and furnace was heated by steam in a coil
inside a tanker.

46
4.4. Process Description and Flow Diagram for Liquid Detergent Production

Water

Active
matter Chemical
Reactor ingredients
Electricity

Liquid
detergent Washing
(Largo) water

Largo manual Leakage

packing Trickling
Largo
Wastewater

Packed Largo to Store

Figure 4.6. Flow diagram for Largo (Liquid detergent) Production

All raw materials were mixed in a reactor to produce liquid detergent. The packing was done in
jerrycans manually. The meager leakage on each of the jerrycans was washed with water by
collecting all the jerrycans together after each batch. This water contributes to the amount of
wastewater in the factory.

47
4.5. Process Description and Flow Diagram for Bar Detergent Production

Water

LABS

Chemical
Sigma mixer ingredients
Electricity

Mixture to
milling Cooling water

Electricity Miller (3 rollers)

Circulating
cooling water Electricity
Mixture to
plodder
Cooling
water Plodder Cutter
(double screw)

Circulating
cooling water Bar detergent to
Electricity
Store

Figure 4.7. Flow diagram for Ajax (bar detergent) production

In RSD for bar detergent (AJAX) production the raw materials were first mixed in sigma mixer.
This was then milled by a miller with three rollers. This served the purpose of homogenizing.
Then, it was allowed to pass through a duplex plodder. Finally, it was cut and packed.

48
4.6. Material and Energy Balance
A material balance taken over the complete process will determine the quantities of raw
materials required and products produced. Balances over individual process units set the process
stream flows and compositions. Material balances are also useful tools for the study of plant
operation and trouble shooting. They can be used to check performance against design, to
extend the often limited data available from the plant instrumentation, to check instrument
calibrations, and to locate sources of material loss.

In process design, energy balances are made to determine the energy requirements of the
process: the heating, cooling and power required. In plant operation, an energy balance (energy
audit) on the plant will show the pattern of energy usage, and suggest areas for conservation and
savings [39].

In order to do these balances for RSD not many problems were faced with data collection and
acquisition for the material balance. In addition to material balance data collected, production log
book and quality control data sheets were used as a source of data.

Water and wastewater flow rates were measured by recording the time taken to fill a flask with
known volume or the change in water level in a tanker of known volume in a given time. Fuel
consumption by the boiler and furnace are measured by taking changes in fuel level in the
tankers with in a given time.

The reciprocating slurry pump, boiler and steam header were the only ones that had pressure
measuring devices. Temperature sensors were put in place for induced hot air to the spray tower
and exhausted air from the spray tower. Complete energy balance could not be conducted using
measurements collected from these devices alone. Therefore thermometer was used whenever
necessary to measure process temperature and hygrometer was used to measure humidity
changes in the process. Also, anemometer was used to measure the speed of air to and from the
spray tower and then air flow rate was calculated from speed of air and pipe cross sectional area.
Steam pipe capacity table (Appendix 5) was used to estimate the steam consumption of each
process section as there was no steam measuring instrument for flow rate. Steam produced by the

49
boiler is used to heat heavy fuel to be used by furnace and boiler, to heat boiler feed water in the
dearator, during slurry preparation and pipe line washing to prevent clogging.

The electrical energy consumed in the different sections are used by stirrer motors, pump motors,
fan motors, spray tower scraper motor, conveyor belt motor, air lift motor, sieve motor, folding
and packing machine drive motor, air compressor motor, mixer motor, duplex plodder motor and
cutter motor. The production hours for powder, liquid and bar detergents were calculated from
their respective existing production capacity.

Boiler in Repi Soap and Detergent S.Co had a design capacity of 1ton/h at 12 bar. As there was
no process steam load estimating means, a new water flow meter device was bought and fixed
right before boiler feed water tanker. Then, the steam load of the process was determined by
using the water flow meter, considering the amount of all water fed to the boiler was converted
into steam. From 15 days data it was found out that the steam produced was 0..106ton/h at 7 bar
on average (Appendix 4).

To estimate steam loss from the steam header fig 3.1 was used. And Q = mcpT was used to
estimate the steam consumption and loss from deareator.

Most of the service water used in RSD was consumed directly by the process. Wastewater
generations in the process were related mainly to floor washings, Largo jerrycans and spillages
washings, laboratory wastewater, canteen wastewater, clothes washings, slurry and chemical
leakage cleanings. The mixture of these wastewaters was again mixed with toilet wastewater in
the factory compound and it was used for salad and cabbage irrigation purpose in the factory
compound.

4.6.1. Powder Detergent (ROL) Production Quantitative Data

Raw material transfer to storage tanks for paste preparation
All water in RSD was pumped ground water from an area near the factory compound. This had
been done since the company became operational and that is for more than three decades. After

50
the water was pumped, it was stored in three tankers that contain a total of 30m3. From here
water was again pumped to two overhead tankers from which to be used for all processes.

At this stage of the process, solid NaOH in a metal barrel was diluted with water to 36% by
weight solution in a tanker on the ground. Since the reaction is exothermic no mixing is used to
assist solution formation. Then, it was pumped to a storage tanker on the first floor to be used for
paste preparation.

LABS in plastic barrels were lifted up to second floor using hoisting machine. It was, then,
poured empty to a tanker on the first floor to be used for paste preparation. While filling up
tankers on the first floor with LABS, caustic soda and water, they overflowed once in a while.
This same floor is also used for temporary storage of powder in buggies until it can be packed. In
the course of this storage, powder dusts fall on the floor dispersedly. Therefore, water was used
to wash both dispersed powder dusts and overflowed chemicals.

Electrical energy was used in this section for: caustic soda pumping, water pumping and
hoisting LABS.

Paste preparation
In RSD paste was prepared on a tower above the ground floor in a jacketed rector with an
agitator. The reactor had neither temperature sensor nor pressure gauge. Thermometer was used
to measure the temperature of the paste for this study. As most of the operators had decades of
experience on this section, no major discrepancy was observed in product quality. However, the
production procedure was open for product variation. For this section LABS, water and NaOH
were used from 1st floor, all flowing down by gravity. Paste preparation in Repi Soap and
Detergent is prepared at a temperature of 62OC. Each mole of LABS and 36% concentrated
NaOH was allowed to under go neutralization reaction in the reactor. During this neutralization
process, 1 mole of water created for each mole of reaction taken place stochiometrically. Water
is added to make the solution 50% concentrated.

51
The moisture content and pH of the paste was checked in laboratory every production hour by
shift chemists and recorded on quality control sheet. This showed on average a moisture content
of 51% and pH of 8.1.

Every batch of the paste produced was pumped to slurry preparation reactor on the second floor.
Steam from inch pipe was used in this process for pipe line clearing for three minutes after
each batch paste was pumped for three minutes. Washing pipe lines after each batch paste
pumping avoids pipe line clogging as paste tends to solidify quite easily.

In this section electrical energy is used by motors for hoisting, mixing and
pumping.

Qam1 = 382.37 ton/yr Qwp1 = 284.46 ton/yr

Paste preparation
Qsp1 = 12.04 ton/yr
Ep1 = 42,296.83 kwh/yr

Qp1 = 764.74 ton/yr

Figure 4.8. Flow diagram for paste preparation

Where:
Qam1 Active matter
Qwp1 Water
Qsp1 Steam
Qp1 Paste
Ep1 Electrical energy input

Raw material transfer for slurry preparation

In RSD the paste prepared had been pumped to second floor where the slurry was prepared. All
solid ingredients, all in sacks, were hoisted to second floor using an electromechanical hook. The

52
solid ingredients are zeolite, STPP, sodium sulphate, sodium chloride, SCMC, photine and STS.
Water from overhead tanker was also used to make the slurry 59% concentrated.

Qp1 = 764.74 ton/yr

Qs1 = 1,261.95 ton/yr

Slurry Preparation Qss1 = 49.50 ton/yr

Qws1 = 455.11 ton/yr

Es1 = 45,795.84 kwh/yr

Qs1 = 2,786.97 ton/yr

Figure 4.9. Flow diagram for slurry preparation

Where:
Qp1 Paste
Qs1 Solid ingredients
Qws1 Water
Es1 Electrical energy input
Qss1 Steam
Qs1 Slurry

In the course of slurry preparation, 7 bar steam was directly injected for 10 minutes. This was
repeated for each batch through a inch pipe. Each slurry preparation batch takes 20 minutes.
The reactor was jacketed and had agitator. Steam was also applied for 3 minutes to clear pipeline
after sending down slurry to ageing tank which was on ground floor. Neither pressure nor
temperature sensors were put in place here. Variation of product quality is inevitable, no matter
how well experienced the operators were. The slurry was kept in ageing tanks with continous
gentle agitators for completing reaction. For ten minutes, twice in a day the pipe lines were
washed thoroughly with steam.

53
Electrical energy was used by motors for preparing the slurry and ageing it by gentle agitation.
The slurry was prepared on third floor while the ageing tank was on ground floor. Therefore no
pump was used.

Filtration and pumping of slurry

The slurry from ageing tank was filtered in a closed sieve with an agitator, on its way to the
spray tower. The agitator facilitates filtration and prevents sieve clogging. This filtration helped
to avoid lumps and solid materials, which if not filtered could block atomizer nozzle orifice and
disrupt regular production procedure. The filter was followed by a homogenizing centrifugal
pump and then by a high pressure reciprocating pump. High pressure was developed in side the
sieve because of the pumps. This high pressure caused slurry bleeding from joints and hinges of
the filter. Water was used to wash the bleedings.

54
 Qs1 = 2,786.97 ton/yr

Qww1 = 1,144.25 ton/yr

Sieve filter
Ef1 = (Electro mechanical)
1,929.6 kwh/yr

Qwf3 = 17.37 ton/yr

Eh1= Homogenizing pump

56,601.6 kwh/yr (Centrifugal pump)
Leakage

Er1= Qwf1= 450.75 ton/yr

47,725.44 kwh/yr

Qwf2 = 676.13 ton/yr

High pressure
(reciprocating) pump

Qs1

Figure 4.10. Flow diagram for filtration and pumping of slurry

Where:
Qs1 Slurry
Ef1 Electrical energy input to filter motor
Eh1 Electrical energy input to homogenizer pump motor
Er1 Electrical energy input to high pressure pump motor
Qwf1 Cooling water leakage from homogenizer pump
Qwf2 Cooling water leakage from high pressure pump
Qwf3 Water used for floor washing
Qww1 Wastewater generated

The homogenizer pump mixed the slurry well after filtration. It also conditioned the slurry for
the high pressure reciprocating pump by providing suction pressure. Pressure gauge is installed

55
for the high pressure pump. It was normally expected to run at 8 bar. The high pressure pump
working pressure determined the quality of atomization, quantity of slurry sprayed, product bulk
density and exhaust air temperature and moisture.

Cooling water from the same tanker was used for both pumps. Part of this cooling water leaked
continuously because the amount of cooling water used was more than required. This leaking
water was mixed with slurry escaping through piston clearance of the reciprocating pump. As a
result the water created foaming. Here the amount of water leaked was measured using the
change in water level in the tanker in a given time.

Electrical energy is used by motors for filter, homogenizing centrifugal pump and high pressure
reciprocating pump.

Spray drying
The spray dryer in RSD was a countercurrent spray dryer and had a plate capacity of 1 ton per
hour. However, actual daily production for a month was 0.583 ton per hour. From measurements
of fuel level in tanker, 0.194 m3 of heavy fuel used to produce 1 ton of powder. The dryer had 4
nozzles of which only two were used at most. When more than two nozzles were used,
distinctively wet product is produced. This accounted mainly for old, rarely inspected,
misaligned and worn nozzles to say the least. The amount of heat contained in the hot air and
moisture content of the slurry also contributed to it significantly. The dryer has a scraper which
was initiated periodically to remove dried slurry on the sidewall of the dryer. These scraps
contaminated product and increased the volume of rework. The volume of scraped product
increases with disorder in any of the nozzles, hot air or slurry. Under this working condition with
two nozzles, the product is dried as low as 3 % moisture content. This is uneconomical for a
product that was packed at 10 % anyway.

Hot air of 12,844.04 m3/h at a temperature of 283OC from furnace is induced by a fan to the
lower part of the dryer and 13,810.80 m3/h air at a temperature of 118OC is exhausted by an
exhaust fan. The exhaust air is cleaned by ten cyclones, five of which were in parallel. Since the
dryer is under depression (300 Pa), 966.76 m3/h of cold air is drawn in from the base of the dryer

56
which was normally product out let. The speed of exhaust air and cold air drawn in were
measured using anemometer. Then air flow rate in both cases were calculated from the cross-
sectional area of openings and speed of the air. Temperature sensors for induced and exhausted
air were put in place. Therefore, one month data was taken and the average was calculated.

The product was at a temperature of 82OC at the time it emerged out from the base of the dryer.
It was then transferred to the air lift for cooling and cleaning by conveyor belt. As packing the
product at 3% moisture content was uneconomical, it was kept in open buggies to take advantage
of its hygroscopic nature. In this process, the product reaches 10 % moisture content.

Air lift and cleaning

The temperature of the powder from the spray dryer was cooled down to 35OC by the air lift and
during flowing down all the way to the storage buggies. The air lift was on the fourth floor of the
building. Therefore the air from the air lift is separated on the fourth floor by a cyclone. Then
coarse powder was separated by vibrating sieve on the third floor. Finally the cleaned powder
was perfumed on the second floor and stored in open buggies on first floor and remains
absorbing moisture from ambient air up to the time of packing.

Electrical energy was used by motors for fans, vibrating sieve, and perfume doser.

57
 Qpr1 = 1,586.68 ton/yr Qpd3 = 50.76 ton/yr

Qpd2 =
Ea1 = 52.66 ton/yr
58,531.2 kwh/yr Air lift Cyclone

Qpc1 = 9.84 ton/yr

Qpr2 = 1,524.18 ton/yr

Vibrating Qpd4 = 1.9 ton/yr

Evs1 = sieve
7,666.94 kwh/yr Qpc2 = 24.27 ton/yr

Qpr3 = 1,499.91ton/yr

Perfume Qp2 = 0.09ton/yr

Ed1 = 11,577.6 kwh/yr dosing
Qpr4 = 1,500 ton/yr

Storage Qm1 = 105.00ton/yr

buggy

Qpr5 = 1,605 ton/yr

Figure 4.11. Flow diagram for air lift and cleaning

Where:
Qpr1 Powder
Ea1 Electrical energy input to air lift
Qpr2 Powder from the air lift
Qpd2 Air loaded with dust to cyclone
Qpc1 Coarse product from the air lift
Qpd3 Air from cyclone loaded with dust
Qpd4 Collected dust from cyclone
Evs1 Electrical energy input to vibrating motor
Qpc2 Coarse product from sieve
Qpr3 Powder from sieve
Ed1 Electrical energy input to perfume dosing motor
Qp2 Perfume
Qpr4 Perfumed powder
Qm1 Moisture absorbed by the powder during storage
Qpr5 Powder to packing

58
Packing
Folding and packing machines were used for powder packing with carton. The folding machine,
with a capacity of 3,000 pieces per hour, made the carton ready for the packing machine. The
packing machine had a capacity of two cartons holding fifty gram per second. Electrical energy
was used for both.

Qc1 = 32.1x106 cartons/yr

Folding
Ef2 = 26,666.88 kwh/yr machine

Packing
Qpr5 = machine Epm1 = 65,300.52 kwh/yr
1,605.00 ton/yr

Packed product
to store

Figure 4.12. Flow diagram for packing

Where:
Qc1 Cartons
Ef2 Electrical energy input to driving motor (folding machine)
Qpr5 Powder to packing
Epm1 Electrical energy input to driving motor (packing machine)

Furnace (hot air preparation)

In RSD heavy fuel, heated by steam to 34OC in fuel tanker, was pumped to heater attached to the
burner. Here the heavy fuel is heated to 50OC. Ambient air was drawn in to the furnace by an
induce fan and this same fan was used to induce hot air into the spray dryer. The temperature of
the hot air produced was on average 283OC. The furnace outer wall was not insulated and on
average the outer wall temperature was 102OC (Appendix 5). Electrical energy was used by the
burner and pump motor.

59
 Qhf1 = 291.19 m3/yr Qsf1 = 108.59 ton/yr

Ehf1 = 1,470.78kwh/yr Heavy fuel

Qaf1 = 39,323.72 ton/yr

Qhf1

Furnace
Ef2 = 90,562.56kwh/yr

Qaf1

Figure 4.13. Flow diagram for furnace (hot air preparation)

Where:
Qhf1 Heavy fuel
Ehf1 Electrical energy input to pump fuel
Qsf1 Steam
Ef2 Electrical energy input to the furnace
Qaf1 Air

Boiler
The boiler in RSD had design capacity of 1ton per hour of 12 bar steam. Thermostat is used to
heat fuel from 23 OC to 48 OC in two stages in fuel tanker and burner. Water at 23 OC in deareator
is heated by direct steam injection. Hot water at 67 OC from deareator was used as feed water. It
was observed that there was burner short cycling which is one of the main symptoms for an
oversized boiler. To find out the scale of over sizing and to determine the extent of process load
on the boiler, steam consumption of the process had to be first known. To measure steam load of
the process was difficult because there was no single steam flow meter in the factory. Therefore,
water flow meter was fixed before boiler water feed tanker (deareator). And it was taken that the
amount of water used by the boiler to be equal to the amount of steam produced. By taking
fifteen days data the process load of the process was found out to be 0.106ton/h including blown
down steam. (Appendix 5)

60
At this stage steam was used to heat boiler feed water. Electrical energy was used by the burner,
to pump water to deareator, to pump fuel to tanker in the boiler room, to heat fuel by thermostat
and to feed hot water to the boiler.

Qw8 = 242.50 m3/yr

Qsh2 = 172.91 ton/yr

Boiler feed water
Qsd = tanker
31.52 ton/yr (deaerator)
Steam Header

Qhw = 274.03 m3/yr Qsh1 = 46.31 ton/yr

Qsh1 = Qts = 219.22 ton/yr

7.19 ton/yr

Heavy fuel Boiler

Qhf2 = tanker Qhf2
19.29 m3/yr
Ehf1 = Eb = 1,418.64 kwh/yr
156.75 kwh/yr Qbd = 18.87 ton/yr

Figure 4.14. Flow diagram for boiler

Where:
Qw8 Water
Qsd Steam for water heating
Qhw Hot water to boiler
Qsh1 Steam for fuel heating
Qts Total steam produced
Ehf1 Electrical energy input for pumping
Qsh1 Steam loss through header steam trap
Qsh2 Steam to the process
Qbd Steam blow down
Eb Electrical energy input to boiler
Qhf2 Heavy fuel

61
4.6.2. Liquid Detergent (Largo) Production Quantitative Data
In RSD, on the second floor of the building, liquid detergent is produced in a reactor with a
gentle mixer. Water flowmeter was used to know the volume of water added. The other
ingredients were weighed by a balance. Every batch was 1.65 ton and it took an hour to prepare
it. Which means 24 batches could be produced in a day. However, only three batches were
produced in a day. Although the company claimed to enjoy wide domestic market for its liquid
detergent product, it uses only 12.5% of its nominal capacity.

The liquid detergent after produced on the second floor flew down by gravity to ground floor
where it was packed manually in jerrycans. During manual packing, a little bit of largo was
wasted on each of the jerrycans. The jerrycans filled and packed were collected and washed for
each batch. The jerrycans were then dried, labeled and taken to store by a fork lift lorry. 88.34 m3
of water was used per year to wash jerrycans.

Electrical energy is used by mixer motor.

Qw2 = 909.81 m3/yr

Qbs = 290,185.23 ton/yr

Mixer Em1 = 2,167.26 kwh/yr

QL1 = 1,200.00 ton/yr

Largo manual
packing

Largo to packing
Figure 4.15. Flow diagram for Largo production

Where:
Qw2 Water
Qbs Solid ingredients
Em1 Electrical energy input
QL1 Liquid detergent (Largo) ready for packing

62
4.6.3. Bar Detergent (Ajax) Production Quantitative Data
In RSD all liquid and solid raw materials transferred manually were well mixed in a sigma
mixer. Then it was manually transferred to a miller, and a duplex plodder. Then it was allowed to
pass through a cutter. Finally the product was packed and taken to store by a lorry.

The amount of water used for cooling was determined by measuring change in water level in a
give time. This circulating water was stored on a tanker on the ground and then pumped to
overhead tanker from which cooling water was used by the miller and plodder. Electrical energy
was used by motors for mixer, miller, plodder, cutter and cooling water pump.

63
 Qw10 = 235 m3/yr
EmL = 437.50ton/yr

Em2 = 37,494 kwh/yr

Sigma mixer
Qbs2 = 2,765 ton/yr

Qbs3 = 3,000 ton/yr

Em3 = 109,982.40 kwh/yr

Miller Qw11 = 3,600 m3/yr

Qw11

Ecc = 24,996 kwh/yr

Qbs4
EpL = 47,992.32 kwh/yr

Plodder
Cutter
Qw12 = 3,600.00 ton/yr

3,000 ton/yr packed

Qw12 product to store

Figure 4.16. Flow diagram for bar detergent (Ajax) production

Where:
Em LABS
Qw10 Water
Em2 Electrical energy input to mixer motor
Qbs2 Solid ingredients input
Qbs3 Mixture to miller
Em3 Electrical energy input to miller motor
Qw11 Circulating cooling water for miller
Qbs4 Mixture to plodder
EpL Electrical energy input to screw drive motor
Qw12 Circulating cooling water for plodder
Ecc Electrical energy input for cutter drive motor

64
4.6.4. Summary of Results
The total raw materials used in RSD for powder, bar and liquid detergent production to produce
1500 ton powder, 3000 ton bar and 1200 ton liquid detergents is listed below in table 4.2.

Table 4.2. List of raw material to be used for powder, bar and liquid detergents
No Raw material used Amount (ton/yr)
1 LABS 1,024.79
2 Sodium Hydroxide (36%) 147.17
3 Zeolite 438.41
4 STPP 268.86
5 Sodium Sulphate 1,229.41
6 Sodium Carbonate 1,167.71
7 Sodium Silicate 503.78
8 Sodium Chloride 46.82
9 SCMC 30.58
10 Photine 3.87
11 STS 23.72
12 Monstral Blue 2.50
13 Triethaloamine 10.91
14 Perfume 12.27
15 Water 1,884.38
Total 6,795.18

65
Electrical energy and fuel required to produce detergents using the raw materials given above are
listed below in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Electrical energy and fuel consumption

Electrical energy Heavy fuel

No Unit Operation/ Section consumption consumption
(kwh/yr) (m3/yr)
1 Paste preparation unit 42,296.83
2 Slurry preparation unit 45,795.84
3 Slurry filtration and pumping 106,256.64
4 Spray drying unit 101,625.60
5 Section of air lift 77,775.74
6 Hot air generator unit 92,033.34 291.19
7 Boiler unit 1,575.39 19.29
8 Folding machine 26,666.88
9 Packing machine 65,300.52
10 Bar detergent unit 231,662.93
11 Liquid detergent unit 2,167.26
12 Lighting 15,284.55
Total 808,441.52 310.48

In RSD both bar and liquid detergents did not use steam. In table 4.4, steam consumed and
wasted by the processes of powder detergent production is given.

66
Table 4.4. Steam consumed and wasted by the processes

No. Unit operation Steam Steam Total steam

and/or section consumption wasted taken Remark
(ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr)
Steam was used to heat
1 Heavy fuel heating 115.78 115.78 the fuel.
Direct steam was used
2 Paste preparation 12.04 12.04 for pipe line washing
Direct steam was
3 Slurry preparation 49.50 49.50 injected on the slurry.
Deareator ( boiler The loss accounted for
4 feed water heater) 25.00 6.53 31.53 un-insulated heater
Steam trap fixed to the
5 Steam header 46.31 46.31 header has failed.
6 Boiler blow down 18.87 18.87
Total 202.32 71.71 274.02

Service water used by the powder, liquid and bar detergent production is given in table 4.5 and
wastewater generated by the processes is presented in table 4.6 consecutively.

Table 4.5. Service water used in the processes

No. Unit operation/section Service water Remark

used (m3/yr)
1 Paste preparation 284.46 This includes water for caustic soda
dilution.
2 Slurry preparation 455.11 The slurry was 41% water
3 Liquid detergent 909.82 727.27 batches and 1252 kg water per
(Largo preparation) batch
4 Bar detergent (Ajax 235.00 12500 batches and 18.8kg water per batch
preparation)
Total 1,884.39

67
Table 4.6. Wastewater generated in the process

No. Section Wastewater Remark

3
generated, m /yr
1 Largo jerrycans washing 88.34 During manual packing Largo flows over
jerrycan body
2 Cooling water leakage 1,126.89 Cooling water amount was not
slurry pumps optimized.
3 Water used to wash 6.00 Most of the time the place is kept untidy
spillage from slurry filter and stagnant water lying over the floor.
and chemical overflow (1st
floor)
4 Toilet waste water 3,784.32
5 Laboratory 255.13 24 tests each about 5 minutes lab
materials washing not mentioning hand
washing (each hand washing takes
sometime because of foaming)
6 Slurry filter leakage, pipe 17.36 Every day washing of spillages, leakages
line washing spillage, and powder dust on the ground.
powder dust blowing
(ground floor)
7 Boiler blow down 18.87
8 Clothes washing 596.84
9 Canteen washings 86.40
Total 5,980.168

68
 5. DISCUSSION
In chapter four, the Cleaner Production opportunity assessment in RSD has gone through steps
from initial check list to assessment stage. Therefore, upto this stage a set of cleaner production
options were investigated. Hence, in this chapter the technical, financial and environmental
feasibility of the cleaner production options will be dealt with.

5.1. Good Housekeeping and Staff Training

In RSD Good Housekeeping and Input substitution can be undertaken to improve
productivity, obtain cost savings, and reduce the environmental impact of operations. The
adoption of Good Housekeeping practices does not require major investments in cleaner
technologies. This can be achieved by: changing Organizational Culture, creating Problem
Awareness, Information Dissemination and taking Simple Actions Such as rational use of
resources and optimizing production processes [55].

5.2. Heavy Fuel Loss

In RSD 310.50m3 fuel was used by the furnace and boiler. The furnace consumed 93.79% of the
total fuel used in the factory.

5.2.1. Furnace
The efficiency of furnace was determined by using the total heat in put from the fuel and the heat
supplied to heat air from 23 OC to 283OC. From this calculation, in RSD the furnace was 49.60%
efficient. This implied loss of 146.77 m3 of fuel per year. This amounts to birr 1,083,161.42 per
year. The losses accounted for: heat loss due to evaporation of moisture present in fuel, loss due
to evaporation of water formed due to hydrogen in fuel, heat loss through openings and doors,
radiation heat loss from surface of furnace, heat storage loss, loss of furnace gases around
charging door and opening, heat loss by incomplete combustion, loss of heat by conduction
through hearth, and loss due to formation of scales. Among the many losses heat loss from
furnace surface can be prevented by insulating the furnace. The total heat loss from furnace
surface was 186,330.58 MJ/yr. The cost of furnace insulation with fibreglass is 130 birr/m2. The
total surface area of the furnace is 19.22 m2. Hence, the total insulation cost would be birr
2,498.18. Equation (5-1) and (5-2) were used for calculating heat loss from furnace with

69
insulation and with out insulation respectively [40]. From the calculations, insulation would save
161,135.50 MJ/yr. This equals 4.05 m3 heavy fuel per year (birr 29,872.90 per year). The
payback period would be 0.08 year. Moreover, by insulating the duct to the spray tower and
induce fan birr 25,359.73 can be saved per year with a payback period of 0.07 year.

2L Ti T
q (5-1)
1 ri 1
ln
k ro ri h

q = 2rh (Ti To).. (5-2)

Where: L Furnace length

Ti Furnace wall temperture
T Ambient air temperature
To Ambient air temperature
ro Furnace outer diameter with insulation
r = ri Furnace outer diameter with out insulation
k Thermal vonductivity
h Convective heat transfer coefficient

5.2.2. Spray Dryer

The spray dryer in RSD was well insulated. It used a hot air from furnace that consumed 93.79%
of the total fuel used in the factory. Hence, energy optimization at this unit operation was
important. Fifteen days wall temperature measurement with thermometer showed that the
temperature was 42OC on average. And from temperature sensors, induced and exhausted air
temperatures were 283 OC and 118 OC on average repectively. From measurements made by
anemometer and pipe area calculation, the cold air (23 OC) drawn in from the base of the tower
was 7% of the total gas. It is convenient to consider that the total mass of gas drawn through the
tower and to allow for the cold portion in assessing the corrected, inlet temperature, tc.

tc = (0.93 x 283) + (0.07 x 23) = 264.8 OC

70
The quantity of heat supplied in the furnace to heat 93% of the gas from 23 OC to 283 OC is the
same as that which would be required to heat 100% of the gas from 23 OC to 264.8 OC.

From the wall temperature and corrected temperature of the hot gas, the lagging efficiency of the
tower was 92.14%. Hence, the final exhaust temperature of the tower under adiabatic condition
becomes 128 OC instead of 118OC.

283O C 42O C
100 % 92.14%
283O C 23O C

The heat supplied for various values of tc equals mass of gas x specific heat of gas x (tc-23). The
heat used to achieve drying equals mass of gas x specific heat of gas x (tc -128). [14] Therefore,
with a tc of 264.8 OC, the thermal efficiency of RSD equaled 56.58%. This means, out of all the
fuel spent only 56.58% is used to drying the slurry. The effective amount of fuel (losses
deducted) used by furnace was 140.62m3 per year. Hence, the amount of fuel loss was 61.06m3
per year. This loss amounts to 450,594.19birr/yr. By increasing the thermal efficiency, the
amount of fuel used to dry same amount of slurry can be decreased.

Table 5.1. Thermal efficiencies for various possible hot gas temperatures in RSD

Inlet gas Gas temperature (after Thermal efficiency Thermal efficiency

temperature, admixture with 7% cold air t 128
C
t 100
C
O
C at 23 OC), tc tC 23 tC 23
450 420.11 73.56 80.61
400 373.61 70.05 78.04
350 327.11 65.47 74.68
300 280.61 59.24 70.11
283 264.80 56.58 68.15
250 234.11 50.26 63.53
200 187.61 36.21 53.22

From the above analysis, the energy loss was so big that optimization of energy utilization was a
necessity. Efficiency in RSD can be improved widening the gap between inlet and outlet
temperatures. This reduces the specific energy consumption of the process. This is because a
smaller mass of gas is required to achieve a given amount of drying; and this gas, which leaves at

71
a temperature substantially independent of the inlet temperature, carries with it less heat than
mass of gas used when the inlet temperature is lower. Inlet temperatures of hot air can be raised
to 400OC and outlet temperature can be lowered as low as 90-100OC [14, 15, 41].

Therefore, from table 5.1, the thermal efficiency can be improved in RSD simply by increasing
the inlet temperature (by optimizing the air volume and correcting nozzle spraying) up to 350 OC
and decreasing the outlet temperature down to 100 OC. This yields 74.68% thermal efficiency.
Therefore saves 25.45 m3 liters fuel oil per year or 187,834.04 birr per year.

Table 5.2. Parts water evaporated to produce a part of powder

Water content of Parts water to be evaporated to produce 1 part of powder

slurry, (%) Powder 10% water Powder 7% water Powder 3% water
50 0.80 0.86 0.94
45 0.64 0.69 0.76
41 0.52 0.58 0.64
40 0.50 0.55 0.62
35 0.39 0.43 0.49
30 0.29 0.33 0.39

From one month total material balance in the factory, loss of powder in the spray dryer was
6.4%. This accounts for product carried away with the air, spillages and losses during raw
material handling.

Simple arithmetic shows the importance of the water content of slurry in relation to the quantity
of water to be evaporated; and hence its effect upon both fuel consumption and plant capacity.
On the average moisture content of the slurry in RSD is 41% water and 59% other ingredients,
described as solids, dried to powder which contains 3% water (from one month quality control
data sheet).

Therefore, 100 parts slurry contains 59 parts solids plus 41 parts water. They produce
59*(100/97) = 60.82 parts powder. This contains 60.82-59.00=1.82 parts water. Hence water
evaporated = 41.00-1.82 = 39.18 parts; equivalent to 39.18/60.82 = 0.64 parts water evaporated
per part powder produced. Table 5.2 summarizes the results of similar calculations for slurries

72
with various possible water contents dried to produce powders of 10%, 7% and 3% moisture
contents. A selection of the best scenario can be made that suits most for the existing condition in
RSD.

Table 5.3. Benefits to be obtained on the tower

Thermal Fuel saved Electrical Economic Increase
Activity efficiency (m3/yr) energy saving: in Spray
(%) saved electrical tower
(kwh/yr) and fuel capacity
(birr/yr) (%)
Change in Inlet 350OC
hot air 74.68 25.45 187,834.04
temperature Outlet 100OC
Change in Slurry 35%
moisture 46.12 253,231.18 487,258.44 49
content Powder 7%

Total 74.68 71.57 253,231.18 675,092.49 49

To lower the amount of water evaporated per part of powder produced, the amount of moisture
per cent in the slurry can be decreased. Conventional heavy duty powders are usually dried to
about 10% moisture content. At least in part this is because removal of water from sodium tri
polyphosphate hexahydrate, which these powders normally contain in substantial proportions,
results in undesirable decomposition of the tripolyphosphate. For economic reasons it may be
unnecessary to retain a certain amount of residual water in the powder. As the powder must of
necessity be free flowing, this water can only be present as water of crystallization and not as
surface moisture. Generally a spray dried powder containing a fair proportion of inorganic salts
can be expected to pick up moisture on storage. However, the absorption will be slower the
closer the moisture content of the powder is adjusted to that of the stable form. If a powder must
be stored in ambient relative humidity exceeding 60 per cent, the risk of lump formation can be
minimized by discharging the powder from the spray-tower with at least three-quarters of the
stable moisture content. It is economically unsound to dry a powder to 1 per cent moisture

73
content when the powder must revert to, say, 7 percent. The operation would be a lot more
efficient if the powder were dried to 7 per cent in the first place [14, 15].

In Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co, if we are to make the slurry 35% moisture content instead of
41% and dry it to 7% instead of 3% ( because it was packed 10% anyways), the fuel
consumption per tone of powder with 35% water is about 0.43/0.64 = 67.2% of that with a 41%
water slurry. Also, as this case was not limited by ancillaries in RSD, the productive capacity of
a plant is 0.64/0.43 = 1.49 times as great. This shows that even a small change in slurry
concentration has a significant effect.

Benefits to be obtained from this cleaner production opportunity on the tower are presented in
table 5.3. As it can be seen from the table 675,092.49 birr per year can be saved on the tower
with few operational changes (good housekeeping) and with out any additional investment.

5.2.3. Boiler
The boiler in Repi soap and detergent share company (RSD) had design capacity of 1ton of 12
bar steam per hour. The steam load of the process was measured to be 0.106ton of 7 bar steam
per hour and 274.03 ton steam per year. The measurement was conducted in winter to estimate
the highest steam load of the process. For fifteen days: fuel consumption of the boiler was
measured by taking change in fuel level in the tanker; the working pressure was read from boiler
pressure gauge and then the average was calculated. The temperature of feed water from the
deareator was measured to be 67OC on the average. The efficiency of the boiler was calculated to
be 76.52% using the formula shown below [21].

The process in RSD was in instantaneous load demand mode; where by a large volume of steam
is required for a short period of time. In such a case a boiler with large energy storage reserve,
such as a firetube, is appropriate [42].

Oversized boilers waste fuel and, because of short cycling, ultimately shorten the life of the
system. A boiler cycle consists of a firing interval, a post surge, an idle period, a pre-purge, and a
return to firing. Boiler short cycling occurs when an oversized boiler prematurely satisfies
process demand and shuts down until heat is again required. Efficiency decreases when short

74
cycling occurs because heat demand is smaller than the boiler output. The decrease in efficiency
occurs in part because fixed energy losses are magnified under lightly loaded conditions.

Heat output
Boiler efficiency 100%
Heat input

Q hg h f
100% . (5.3)
q GCV

Where:
Q Quantity of steam generated per hour (0.106ton/h)
Q Quantity of fuel used per hour (0.0075ton/h)
GCV Calorific value of the fuel (10,392Kcal/kg of fuel)
Hg Enthalpy of saturated steam in kcal/kg of steam (659.69)
hf Enthalpy of feed water in kcal/kg of water (99.72)

For example, if the radiation loss from the boiler enclosure is 1% of the total heat input at full
load, at half load the losses increase to 2%: and at one quarter load, the loss is 4%. Hence, over
sizing of the boiler in RSD could intensify losses [43].

% Oversized
oversize proper size .. (5.4)
propersize

Using equation (5.4), the boiler in RSD was 838.88% oversized. This increases the radiation loss
eight folds. However, for typical oil fired new boiler on full load the efficiency is 80% and on
low load the efficiency is 72% [57]. Therefore, the efficiency (76.52%) in RSD is within the
acceptable range. However, the capacity of the boiler can be used for any future expansion in the
factory. In doing so, the efficiency of the boiler can be increased.

75
5.3. Steam Loss
5.3.1. Boiler Steam Header
The steam header in RSD was well insulated. However, steam trap installed to it released 0.95m
plume length steam into the atmosphere. This is caused by an over used steam trap failure that is
connected to the steam header with 7.0 bar average working pressure. The steam loss is
determined to be 46.31ton/yr (fig 3.1) which amounted to 168,569.87birr/yr. The cost of steam
was 3.64 birr per kg of steam produced (equations 3-1 and 3-2). This loss can be minimized by
changing the stream trap. The pay back period for the steam trap is 34.14 hours.

5.3.2. Deareator
The dearator in RSD used 31.53ton steam per year to heat 274.03 m3 boiler feed water. The
steam loss at the dearator was 20.71% which amounted to 23,765.74 birr per year. This loss was
mainly caused because the deareator was not insulated. When it is insulated with fiberglass
21,512.62 birr will be saved per annum. The payback period is 0.09 year.

5.4. Condensate Loss

Condensate was formed from heavy fuel heating by steam coil. However, it was not recovered.
The total amount of condensate wasted was 115.78 ton/yr. When this amount of condensate was
wasted, equal amount of make up water at 23OC was heated to 67 OC in the deareator.

The amount of heat required for heating water equal in amount to lost condensate in RSD
(calculated using Q = mcpt) was 21,324.09 MJ/yr. In RSD the boiler was 76.52% efficient.
Therefore, the energy supplied to heat the lost amount of condensate amounted [(21,324,086.78
kJ/yr) / (43,031kJ/kg) (0.920 kg/m3) (0.7652)] = 0.70 m3 of heavy fuel. This amounted to
5,194.96 birr/yr.

5.5. Service Water Loss

Service water lost by washing of jerricans during liquid detergent packing process amounted to
88.35 m3/yr. This water could be reused for liquid detergent production, as long as the jerricans
were clean in the first place. Therefore, if this water was to be recycled, wastewater generation
can be reduced by 1.48% and 24.74 kwh can be saved.

76
Pump cooling water used for homogenizer and high pressure pumps was overflowing. This was
because of the amount of water used for cooling was more than required. This water is amounted
to 1,126.89 m3 per year. By supplying just the right amount of cooling water controlled by valve,
the service water loss can be eliminated. By doing so, 915.03kwh (530.72birr/yr) can be saved
per year. And this decreases the volume of wastewater from the factory by 18.9%.

Water used to wash slurry spillages from sieve filter in the first floor amounted to 6.00 m3 per
year. Spillages could be avoided by putting covering metal. By doing so, 0.1% of the waste water
generated can be reduced. Rare overflowing of water, caustic and LABS from storage tankers
could be avoided by installing pump switch next to tankers instead of remote switch.

Water used to wash slurry spillage during pipe line washing with steam and occasional slurry
bleeding from filter amounted to 17.37 m3 per year. This could be eliminated by avoiding
spillage (covering with metal), and tightening bolts of the filter. This saves 0.29% of the
wastewater generated.

5.6. Laundry wastewater

Laundry wastewater in RSD is not high in quantity. However, its potential impact on the
environment was seen in light of experimental results and current global view on the subject. In
RSD the waste from the factory mixed with toilet waste water was used to grow vegetables in the
factory. When excess it was stored in an open pond and over flew on the grass land.

5.6.1. Replacing STPP with Zeolite A

It is evident that STPP can contribute to eutrophication problem in surface waters due to its
phosphorus content. On this basis, although the debate of going completely to zeolite based
detergents continues, practically many rich countries, as described in chapter two, have decided
to shift from STPP based to zeolite based detergents since the 1970s at least in some of their
seriously affected localities. According to studies conducted by the European Environment
Directorate [44], most of the debates focused on the long run environmental impact of ingredients

77
(polycarboxylates) added with zeolite to replace STPP completely. Detergent reformulation and
change in the cost of detergents during reformulation was also one of the concerns.

In RSD already more amount of zeolite than STPP was used in the formulation and no
polycarboxylate was used. Although it might be expected that some of the larger formulators
would find it relatively easy to substitute one phosphate detergent with a comparable zeolite
detergent currently marketed elsewhere, the situation becomes more complex where there are
smaller formulators like RSD serving only the domestic market with phosphate detergents. A
change in formulation may well place RSD at a disadvantage leading to a loss of its market share
to the large international companies like Zahara and Aerial because in Ethiopia there is limited, if
not none, experience of zeolite based detergent formulation. However, it is worth noting that the
current co-existence of phosphate and zeolite detergents in many countries suggests that there
would be a limited impact on the costs of detergent products to consumers. In other words, there
is not a significant price differential between phosphate and zeolite detergents [1].

According to studies conducted, there may also be costs in terms of increased risks to people and
to the environment associated with the increased use of those ingredients used in zeolite based
detergents. Because polycarboxylates are a mixture of compounds, it has not been possible to
trace their fate in the environment. As with Zeolite A, there appears to be no reason to fear toxic
effects. And it is unlikely that a move from phosphate to zeolite based detergents would lead to a
significant increase in risks to people and the environment [1, 44].

The key benefit associated with moving from phosphate to zeolite detergents is reducing the
phosphorus load to the environment which, in turn, will reduce problems of eutrophication. In
qualitative terms, the greatest benefits would accrue in those countries with a high phosphate
detergent use and existing severe problems of eutrophication. On the other hand, countries with
limited phosphate detergent use would obtain few benefits from any future requirement to move
to zeolite (or other phosphate-free) detergents. According to Louis Ho Tan Tai (2000), in Africa
detergent consumption is below 0.002ton per person per year and in North America it is 9.8kg
per person per year [1, 44].

78
In Ethiopia soap is used as main cleaning aid and the amount of detergents used is meager.
Hence, it is possible that the impact of using STPP based detergents on surface waters in
Ethiopia has not yet been felt. In RSD or in the nearby river no occurrence of major
eutrophicaton problem was observed. Therefore, under the conditions prevailing, not only that
RSD did not have enough reason to shift from STPP to zeolite based detergents but also did not
have legal basis to do so. The Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia states that a detergent
must contain a minimum of 10% STPP (Appendix 6). However, the agenda will be on the table
one day in the future, in fact when consumption becomes significant. And that is what happened
in the developed part of the world.

5.6.2. Laundry Wastewater for Irrigation Purpose

According to FAO irrigation and drainage paper number 47, properly planned use of municipal
wastewater alleviates surface water pollution problems and not only conserves valuable water
resources but also takes advantage of the nutrients contained in sewage to grow crops. The
availability of this additional water near population centers will increase the choice of crops
which farmers can grow. The nitrogen and phosphorus content of sewage might reduce or
eliminate the requirements for commercial fertilizers. It is advantageous to consider effluent
reuse at the same time as wastewater collection; treatment and disposal are planned so that
sewerage system design can be optimized in terms of effluent transport and treatment methods.
However, from the point of view of health, a very important consideration in agricultural use of
wastewater, the contaminants of greatest concern are the pathogenic micro- and macro-
organisms. Even if toxic materials are not present in concentrations likely to affect humans, they
might well be at phytotoxic levels, which would limit their agricultural use [45].

Therefore, wastewater reclamation for irrigation purpose and discharging wastewater require
scrutiny to prevent their impact on the environment and human health. In RSD wastewater
(laundry and toilet) are mixed and used to grow vegetable and grass in the factory compound.
Six samples of this wastewater taken from two spots in a judgmental sampling method were
analyzed at the Addis Ababa EPA laboratory. The level of pollution of the wastewater was seen
and studied in light of Ethiopian EPA, WHO and FAO standards according to their relevance.
Laboratory results with corresponding results are listed in table 5.4.

79
Table 5.4. Comparative presentation of RSD wastewater laboratory results along with standards
RSD factory wastewater Ethiopian EPA standards
Parameters before and after mixing FAO of effluent application to:
with toilet wastewater standards
Before After Lands Inland
mixing mixing waters
PH 9.6-10.2 9.4-9.7 6.5-8.4 5.5 - 9 6-9
Conductivity, ms/cm 2.2-5.3 2.0-3.4 7-30
Chloride (cl-) 75.8-79.0 62.8-66.6 4-10 1000 1000
Sulphate (SO42-), mg/L 200-210 200-300 1000 1000
Phsphate (PO43-), mg/L 99.0-113.5 68.5-78 10
Nitrate (NO3), mg/L 14.4-124.6 108.4- 5-30 20
117.2
Nitrite (NO2-), mg/L 0.059-0.987 0.206-
0.209
COD, mg/L 800-1426 500-960 250
Alkalinity (as HCO3), 119.6-237.7 237.6-
mg/L 406.4
Total Nitrogen (as N), 1.0-4.0 26.8-29.2 80
mg/L
BOD5 at 200C, mg/L 58-132 102-136 500 80
Sodium (Na), mg/L 481.25- 397.50-
1190.00 725.00
Potassium (K), mg/L 3.53-17.87 14.05-29.5
Calcium (Ca), mg/L 0.276-1.07 0.545- 100
3.920
Magnesium (Mg), mg/L 0.51-1.17 1.17-2.31 100
SAR 960.75 318.64 0.2 - 5.0
Coliforms Total 14Ex5 - 17 Ex5 - 400
MPN/100mL 17Ex5 35Ex5
Fecal 14Ex5 22Ex5 -
33Ex6

WHO (1989): Water to be used for irrigation purpose

Fecal Coliforms (geometric mean number per 1000mL : 1000)

Pathogenic bacteria will be present in wastewater at much lower levels than the coliform group
of bacteria, which are much easier to identify and enumerate (as total coliforms/100 mL).
Escherichia coli are the most widely adopted indicator of faecal pollution and they can also be
isolated and identified fairly simply, with their numbers usually being given in the form of fecal
colifoms (FC)/100 mL of wastewater [45]. Therefore, coliforms were used to investigate the level
of health risk that the wastewater in RSD posed on all that might be in touch with it in some way.

80
In the course of mixing factory and toilet wastewaters, some compositions increased while others
decreased. This accounted for composition of both streams and the effect of dilution. Nutrient
surplus such as phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are major causes of eutrophication and algal
bloom if high amount of these nutrients are discharged into water bodies. As mentioned in
previous section (Chapter 2) N concentration is not considered to be a major problem with
laundry water reuse due to its low concentration in soils. Instead, laundry water is more likely to
have a problem with elevated P content. Phosphorus from detergents does not pose a major
problem when disposed to land since it is normally required as a nutrient for plants. However,
soil may become phosphorus saturated if the application rate is higher than the plants uptake
rate. Hence there is a potential for leaching to groundwater or transport via runoff to a
watercourse if laundry water is used for irrigation with high concentration of these nutrients.

Laundry water samples in this study exhibited higher values of P than the maximum limit
mentioned in the Ethiopian standard for in land water. The elevated P levels observed in these
laundry water samples might be due to the STPP in the detergent formulation.

A comparison of laundry water quality obtained in this study with the water quality
recommended for irrigation in the above standards showed that chemical parameters, such as pH,
BOD, COD, sodium, nitrate, phosphate, SAR and coliforms reached unacceptably high levels at
which the irrigation with this water could pose a potential hazard to trees, soils, groundwater and
may also have health impact on farmers and consumers. Therefore, direct laundry water reuse for
irrigation in RSD needs to be approached with some care and that specific irrigation practices or
treatment methods might be required to overcome problems associated with the elevated levels
of these quality parameters. However, the levels of total dissolved salt estimated from EC values,
calcium, sulphate, chloride, nitrite and total nitrogen in the wastewater in RSD were found to be
quite reasonable with the quality requirement for irrigation. This indicates that laundry water
may not cause severe salinity or nitrogen pollution related problems if it is used for irrigation.

The elevated sodium concentration in laundry water can lead to sodicity problem which cause
damage to plants after a long period of application. The soil structure may also be affected by the
use of high sodium content laundry water, such as soil particle dispersion, reduction in filtration

81
rate and soil pore blockage. However, more information on the soil properties is required in
order to conclude whether or not laundry water severely impacts on the soil structure stability.

According to WHO (1989) directions, low cost interventions could include information on
hygiene behavior for farmers, wearing of shoes and gloves while working in wastewater irrigated
fields.

The idea of reclaiming wastewater for irrigation purpose has a longstanding history and it is
commendable to use wastewater in RSD for same purpose so long as it is safe for use. As it can
be seen from the table 5.4, neither discharging to surface water nor using the wastewater for
irrigation purpose was advisable even for one reason alone. The coliforms far exceed all
standards that its use can result in spreading of some epidemic diseases according to guide lines
given by WHO (1989). To make things even worse, the water is used to irrigate vegetables that
are eaten uncooked. Therefore this puts the health of the farmers and consumers at stake.

The groups potentially most at risk from wastewater reuse in agriculture are the farm workers,
their families, crop handlers, consumers of crops, and those living near wastewater-irrigated
areas. The approach required to minimize exposure depends on the target group. Farm workers
and their families have higher potential risks of parasitic infections. Protection can be achieved
by low-contaminating irrigation techniques (as above), together with wearing protective clothing
(e.g. footwear for farmers and gloves for crop handlers) and improving levels of hygiene both
occupationally and in the home can help to control human exposure. Provision of adequate water
supplies for consumption (to avoid consumption of wastewater) and for hygiene purposes (e.g.
for hand washing) is important. Consumers can be protected by cooking vegetables, and by high
standards of personal and food hygiene [27].

In RSD the wastewater quantity can be reduced 84.28% and its quality can be improved by
keeping toilet wastewater in the septic tank and implementing cleaner production opportunities
in the factory. Improving housekeeping, developing formal operating procedures and training
staff in cleaner production techniques presented a very low-cost opportunity to provide
substantial annual savings. The feasibility of Cleaner Production in RSD is summarized below in
table 5.5.

82
Table 5.5. Technical, Economic and Environmental Feasibility in RSD
No. Estimated Estimated Payback Technical Economic Environmental
Action cost (birr) annual benefit period feasibility feasibility feasibility Priority
(birr) (years)
1 Spray tower thermal 187,834.04 Very good Very good Very good 1
efficiency improvement
2 Slurry moisture reduction 487,258.43 Very good Very good Very good 1
3 Furnace insulation 2,498.18 29,872.90 0.08 good good good 2
4 Duct and fan insulation 1,775.18 25,359.73 0.07 good good good 2
5 New steam trap installation 330.00 168,569.86 0.0019 Very good Very good Very good 2
6 Dearator insulation 1,936.14 21,512.62 0.09 good good fair 2
7 Condensate recovery 1,075.00 5,194.96 0.21 good fair fair 2
8 Recycling jerrycans good Very good 1
washing water
9 Optimizing pump cooling 530.72 Very good fair Very good 1
water
10 Tightening bolts and nuts Very good Very good 1
for slurry filter
11 Covering slurry filtering Very good good 1
sieve
12 Halting toilet wastewater Very good Very good 1
discharge

83
5.7. Implementation and Monitoring
Now a list of options has been studied with their feasibility. Hence, its time to implement them.
To get the best out of the cleaner production assessment, the Cleaner Production Implementation
Plan in RSD should be integrated into the companys business and operating plans. Resources
needed for these initiatives need to be provided in the companys budgeting process.

The options to be implemented first should be those involving operational or procedural changes
with least cost (priority 1 in Table 5.5). This will provide speedy results and greater impetus for
implementing other options. This approach will also highlight the need for a new discipline in
the operations, and the need to establish a cleaner production culture in the business. Without
this cultural change, isolated measures (such as installing equipment or instruments) will not be
fully effective, and will not yield long-term improvement [10].

Cleaner production assessment is not a one-time-task. Once Cleaner Production is implemented

in RSD, it is a process that should be monitored and undertaken continuously. Then, the
company will benefit a lot from it continuously. The summary of the cleaner production
opportunities in RSD is given in Table 5.6.

84
Table 5.6. Summary of Cleaner Production (CP) Opportunities for Repi Soap and Detergent Share Company
Amount saved Electrical Fuel saved Economic
No. Problem area CP opportunities (ton/yr) energy saved (m3/yr) benefits Qualitative
(kwh/yr) (Birr/yr) benefits
I Heavy fuel loss 1.Spray tower thermal 25.45 187,834.04
efficiency improvement
2. Slurry and powder 253,231.18 46.12 487,258.43
moisture content change
3. Furnace outer wall 4.05 29,872.90
insulation
4. Duct and fan 25,359.73
Insulation
Sub total 253,231.18 75.62 730,325.10
II Steam loss 1. Steam header steam 46.31 168,569.86
trap change
2. Deareator insulation 6.19 22,536.66
Sub total 52.22 190,082.48
III Steam condensate Condensate recovery 115.78 5,194.96
loss
IV Service water 1. Recycling jerrycans 88.35 24.74 14.35
loss washing water
2. Optimizing pump 1,126.89 915.03 530.72
cooling water
3. Avoiding spillage, 17.37 14.10 8.18
slurry bleeding from
filter
4. Prevent slurry spillage 6.00 4.87 2.82
(1st floor)
Sub total 1,238.60 958.74 556.07
V Wastewater for 1. keeping toilet 3,784.32 Meets
irrigation wastewater in septic tank environmental
standards and
prevents health
risks
Grand total 254,189.92 75.62 926,158.61

85
 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
From the result and discussion chapters, Cleaner Production options in RSD are technically,
financially and environmentally feasible. And, the economic and environmental benefits that can
be obtained from implementing cleaner production are substantial. As a result, prevents
pollution, rewards the company financially, creates good company image, and enables the
company to meet environmental standards.

In RSD the idea of using wastewater for irrigation purpose can be encouraged. However, the
wastewater having the quality that exceeds safety limits in light of both local and international
standards should not be released to surface water nor be used for irrigation purpose because of its
potential hazard to the public and the environment. After cleaner production opportunities
forwarded in this paper are implemented, the source of wastewater will be only laboratory
wastewater, canteen wastewater serving few people and cloth washing wastewater. Therefore,
the quantity and pollution level of the water will be significantly reduced as the main sources of
pollution were wastewaters from factory and toilet. Nevethless, even after implementation of
these cleaner production opportunities, the quality of water should be checked periodically
whether to use it for irrigation purpose or release it to the nearby river.

From the cleaner production assessment in RSD: by controlling operating parameters and
manipulating hot air temperature and slurry moisture on the spray dryer 253,231.18kwh/yr
electrical energy and 75.62m3/yr fuel can be saved. This amounts to 730,325.10 birr/yr. By
avoiding steam loss at the deareator and boiler steam header 190,082.48 birr/yr can be saved. By
recovering condensate 5,194.96birr/yr can be saved. Also by just undertaking good house
keeping 1,238.60m3/yr service water can be saved moreover discharge of wastewater can be
reduced by 84..28%.

86
Therefore, it can be concluded that RSD can obtain wide financial and environmental rewards, if
it implements and continues to implement Cleaner Production. From this Cleaner Production
Assessment in RSD, it is recommended that:

1. RSD release no toilet wastewater nor should it use the wastewater for irrigation purpose
by mixing it with factory wastewater or whatsoever. By so doing, it can meet
environmental standards and prevent health risk on consumers and farmers.

2. RSD shall use water for irrigation purpose by taking all precautionary measures to
prevent health risk both to the farmers and consumers. In addition, avoid damage to soil,
plants and water.

3. RSD implement the proposed cleaner production opportunities continually. As a result,

obtain economic and environmental benefits.

4. The standard requirements for detergents formulation in Ethiopia needs to be adjusted to

enable it protect the environment from eutrophication problem especially in relation to
the standard requirement of phosphates in builders such as STPP.

5. In this study of cleaner production opportunity assessment for RSD, the methodologies
and procedures taken to assess the processes, pinpoint problem areas and addressing them
can also be used in industries similar to RSD, when there is analogy in the processes.

87
 REFERENCES
1. Risk & Policy Analysts Limited (RPA): prepared for the European Commission, (2006).
non-surfactant organic ingredients and zeolite-based detergents, London, UK
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/legislation/detergents/studies/non_surfactant_org
anic_ingredients_and_zeolite_based_detergents.pdf, ( March 7, 2008)
2. Manushani Pillay. Detergent Phosphorus in South Africa: Impact on eutrophication
with specific reference to the Umgeni catchment, University of Natal, Durban, South
Africa. http://www.nu.ac.za/department/data/WRC465.pdf, (May 2, 2008)
3. Hoovers: A D&B Company, (2008). Industry Review: Soap and Detergent Manufacture,
Boulevard Austin, U.S.A. http://www.hoovers.com/soap-and-detergent-manufacture/--
ID__223--/free-ind-fr-profile-basic.xhtml, (April 12,2008)
4. Louis Ho Tan Tai, (2000). Formulating detergents and personal care products: A guide to
product development, AOVS press, Lambersart, France
5. Rene Van Berkel, (2000). Cleaner Production for Process Industries, Curtin University of
Technology, Western Australia
http://www.cleanerproduction.curtin.edu.au/ , (March11,2008)
6. Dr. Jonathan Khler, (2001). Detergent phosphates and detergent Ecotaxes:: a policy
assessment, University of Cambridge, UK
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20080628/html/regle2-e.html, (March 3,2008)
7. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA 547/04), (2004). The Disposal of Soaps and
Detergents, Adelaide, South Australia. www.epa.sa.gov.au/pdfs/soaps_detergents.pdf,
(May5, 2008)
8. Minh Nhat LE, (2005). Investigation on Reuse Potential of LaundryWater for Household
Garden Irrigation in Toowoomba, University of Southern Queensland Faculty of
Engineering and Surveying, Australia.
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/503/1/Final_Thesis_MINH_NHAT_LE.pdf, (March13, 2008)
9. UNEP CP, (2001). Cleaner Production Assessment in Industries, Paris, France
10. NSW Environment Protection Authority, (2000). Cleaner Production: A Self-Help Tool
for Small to Medium-Sized Businesses, Sydney South NSW, Australia.
(http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/cleaner_production/selfhelptool.htm, (May2, 2008)

88
11. Mariette T. Johnson and Barbara Marcus, (1996). Competitive implications of
environmental regulation:in the laundry detergent industry, Washington, D.C.
12. Douglas M. Cosidine, (1974). Chemical and Process technology encyclopedia, McGraw-
Hill, New York, U.S.A.
13. Gir Raj Prasad, (1996). Manufacture of Perfume, Cosmetics and Detergents: 7th edition,
SiRi publication division, Delhi, India.
14. Edgar Woollatt, (1985). The manufacture of Soaps, other Dteregents, and Glycerine, Ellis
Horwood Ltd, Great Britain.
15. A. Davidsohn and B.M. Milwidsky, (1978). Synthetic Detergents, 6th edition, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
16. Wolfgang Gerhartz, (1987). Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Graphiscer
Betrieb konrad Triltsch, Germany
17. BETE Fog Nozzle, Inc., (2005). BETE Spray Dryer Manual.
www.bete.com/pdfs/BETE_SprayDryManual.pdf, (April 9, 2008)
18. Vikram Shabde, B.E., (2006). Optimal design and control of a spray drying process that
manufactures hollow micro-particles, Texas tech university , U.S.A.
http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd11062006115730/unrestricted/Shabde_Vikram_
Diss.pdf, (May 11, 2008)
19. Stephen Zehr, (1997). Process energy efficiency improvement in wisconsin cheese plants,
university of Wisconsin, Madison.
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/7763/Zehr.pdf?sequence, (March 24,
2008)
20. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, (1993). Industrial Energy Efficiency,
Washington,D.C.,U.S.A
www.theblackvault.com/documents/ota/Ota_1/DATA/1993/9330.PDF, (March 28,2008)
21. Office of Energy Efficiency, (2002). Energy Efficiency Planning and Management
Guide, Ottawa, Canada.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/cipec/efficiency/pre.cfm?text=N&print
vie, (May16, 2008)

89
22. Missouri Industrial Assessment Center, (2007). Industrial Energy Audit Workshop,
College of Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia.
http://iac.missouri.edu/Workshop_presentation.pdf, (March 13,2008)
23. United Nations Environment Programme. Water and Wastewater Reuse: an
environmentally sound approach for sustainable urban water management, Osaka, Japan.
www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Water_Sanitation/wastewater_reuse/Booklet-
Wastewater_Reuse.pdf, (April 4, 2008)
24. S.Vigneswaran and M.Sundaravadivel, (2004). Recycle and reuse of domestic
wastewater, Sydney, Australia. www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%20Chapters/C07/E2-14-
01.pdf, (March 2, 2008)
25. Sabiena Feenstra, Raheela Hussain and Wim van der Hoek, (2000). Health risks of
irrigation with untreated urban wastewater in the southern Punjab, Pakistan.
www.iwmi.cgiar.org/health/wastew/R-107.pdf, (March 19, 2008)
26. A. Andreadakis*, E. Gavalaki, D. Mamais and A. Tzimas, (2001). WASTEWATER
REUSE CRITERIA IN GREECE, Ermoupolis, Syros island, Greece.
www.gnest.org/journal/Vol5_No1.asp?url=Vol5_No1/02_Andreadakis.pdf, (May 17,
2008)
27. Dr Ursula J. Blumenthal, Dr Anne Peasey, Prof. Guillermo Ruiz-Palacios and Prof.
Duncan D. Mara, (2000). Guidelines for wastewater reuse in agriculture and aquaculture:
recommended revisions based on new research evidence, London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine, UK WEDC, Loughborough University, UK.
www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/well-studies/full-reports-pdf/task0068i.pdf, (April 9,
2008)
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (2004). Guidelines for Water Reuse, Municipal
Support Division Office of Wastewater Management Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf, (May 4, 2008)
29. EPA Victoria information bulletin: publication 812.2, (2006). Domestic wastewater
management series: reuse options for household wastewater, Australia.
www.emro.who.int/ceha/clearingh_waterdemand/portals/waste/scen2_off_on.doc,
(May17, 2008)

90
30. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Centre For
Environmental Health Activities, (2006). Overview of greywater management Health
considerations, Amman, Jordan.
31. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Research and Development, (2001). Guide
to Industrial Assessments for Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, U.S. http://www.p2pays.org/ref/19/18351.pdf, (April 11, 2008)
32. Jean-Jacques bimbeneta, pierre schuckb*, michel roignantc, grard brulc and serge
mjeanb, (2002). Heat balance of a multistage spray-dryer: principles and example of
application, 91744 Massy, France.
http://lait.dairyjournal.org/articles/lait/pdf/2002/04/16.pdf, (March 27, 2008)
33. Office of energy efficiency, (2004). Energy Efficiency Planning and Management Guide,
Canada.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/cipec/efficiency/2_01.cfm?text=N&pri
ntvie, , (May16, 2008)
34. Gilbert A. McCoy, Todd Litman and John G. Douglass, (1993). Energy Efficient Electric
Motor Selection Handbook, Olympia, Washington.
www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOE/TECH/ce0384.pdf, (April 19, 2008)
35. Spirax Sarco, (2005). Methods of Estimating Steam Consumption: Module 2.
www.devlieger-
belgium.com/Brochures/Steam%20Heat%20Consumption%20Calculations.pdf, (April
6, 2008)
36. U.S. Department of Energy. How to calculate the true cost of steam: A best practices
steam technical brief. www.p2pays.org/ref/40/39595.pdf, (May, 19)
37. Bureau of Energy Efficiency. Furnaces and Refractories.
www.energyefficiencyasia.org/docs/ee_modules/workshop%20exercise%20-
%20Furnaces%20andrefractories.pdf. (May 3, 2008)
38. GTZ - Pilot Programme for the Promotion of Environmental Management in the Private
Sector of Developing Countries (P3U), (1998). Good Housekeeping Guide for Small
& Medium Sized Enterprises, Wachsbleiche 1, 53111 Bonn, Germany.
www.ecoparc.ch/smene_f/pdf/good_HK_guide.pdf, (April 27, 2008)

91
39. R. K. Sinnott, (1993). Coulson & Richardsons Chemical Engineering volume 6:
Chemical Engineering Design, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Great Britain
40. J.P. Holman, (2001). Heat Transfer: 8th edtion, McGraw-Hill, Singapore
41. Stewart Gibson, (1999). Improving Spray Drying Efficiency: APV Americas, U.S.A.
www.process-
heating.com/Articles/Feature_Article/cdb76053d9268010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0,
(April 3, 2008)
42. Boiler Selection Considerations.
www.boilerspec.com/speci-fire_pdf/i1-boiler_selection-4-10.pdf, (June 25, 2008).
43. Henery Manczyk, (2001). Optimal boiler size and its relationship to several efficiency,
New York. www.energy.rochester.edu/efficiency/optimal_boiler_size.pdf,
(May 5, 2008)
44. EU environment directorate, (2002). Phosphates and alternative detergent builders final
report, Wiltshire.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/pollution/phosphates/pdf/phosphates.pdf,
(February 24, 2008)
45. M.B. Pescod, (1992). Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture: FAO irrigation and
drainage paper 47, Rome.
46. Roy C Baker, Kenneth G. Oiver Joseph A. Parker, (1985).Basics of industrial steam
utilization for plant maintenance and operating personnel, Parker Press, Los Angeles,
U.S.A

92
Appendix 1 - Laboratory Analysis Method, reagent and apparatus required
The Physico-Chemical analysis of the wastewater in RSD was conducted in the Addis Ababa
Environmental Protection Authority Laboratory.

1. Alkalinity
Method: titration method
Reagent
a) Sodium carbonate solution,
b) Standard sulfuric acid or nitric acid both 0.1N and 0.02N,
c) Bromcresol green indicator solution,
d) Mixed bromcresol green-methyl red indicator solution,
e) Metacresol purple indicator solution,
f) phenolphthalein solution, alcoholic, PH 8.3 indicator,
g) sodium thiosulfate, 0.1N
Apparatus
a) Electrometric titrator
b) Titration vessel
c) Magnetic stirrer
d) Pipets, volumetric
e) Flsks, volumetric, 1000-, 200-, 10-mL.
f) Burets, borosilicate glass, 50-, 25-, 10-mL.
g) Polyolefin bottle, 1-L

2. 5-Day BOD Test

Apparatus:
1. Incubation bottles, of 300mL capacity, having a ground-glass stoper and a flared mouth.
Bottles are cleaned with a detergent, rinsed thoroughly and drained well before use.
2. Air incubator, with a thermostatistically controlled temperature of 20 1oC.
3. Magnetic stirrer, with TFE stirring bar.
4. Membrane electrode DO meter, Model 90-D. The meter was calibrated according to
manufacturers instruction

93
5. Volumetric Pipettes, with 1000-5000 L capacity.
6. Analytical balance with capacity of weighing to 0.1 mg.
7. Aluminium foil

Reagents
1. Phosphate buffer solution: dissolve 8.5 g KH2PO4; 21.75 g K2HPO4; 33.4 g
Na2HPO4.H2O and 1.7 g NH4Cl in about 500 mL distilled water and dilute to 1 L.
2. Magnesium sulphate solution: dissolve 22.5g MgSO4.7H2O in distilled water and dilute to1L.
3. Calcium chloride solution: dissolve 27.5 g CaCl2 in distilled water and dilute to 1L solution.
4. Ferric chloride solution: dissolve 0.25 g FeCl3.6H2O in distilled water and dilute to1 L.
5. Acid and alkali solutions: 1N for neutralisation of caustic and acidic samples.
Acid solution: slowly add 28 mL concentrated H2SO4 acid while stirring to distilled water
and dilute to 1 L. Alkali solution: dissolve 40 g NaOH in distilled water and dilute to 1 L.
6. Sodium sulphate solution: dissolve 1.575 g Na2SO3 in 1L distilled water
7. Nitrification inhibitor: 2-chloro-6-(trichloro methyl) pyridine
8. Glucose-glutamic acid solution: dry reagent-grade glucose and reagent-grade glutamic-grade
acid at 103oC for 1 hour. Add 150 mg glucose and 150 mg glutamic acid to distilled water
and dilute to 1 L.
All reagents are prepared in advance except sodium sulphate and glucose-glutamic acid
solutions, which need to be prepared immediately before use. However, depending on
characteristics of water or wastewater samples, only certain reagents are used for BOD5 analysis.

Procedure
Prepare dilution water by adding 1 mL each of phosphate buffer, MgSO4, CaCl2 and FeCl3
solutions to each litre of distilled water. Each sample needs approximately 3 L of dilution
water.
Before use bring dilution water to temperature by storing in the incubator at 20oC.
Saturate with DO by shaking in partially filled bottle or by aerating with organic free filtered
air.
Bring samples to about 20oC before making dilutions.
Using graduated cylinders or volumetric flasks to prepare solution.

94
 Dilute samples with dilution water in different concentrations so that residual DO of at least 1
mg/L and a DO uptake of at least 2 mg/l after 5 day incubation. For laundry water, use the
following dilutions: 2 mL/300 mL bottle, 6 mL/ 300 mL bottle and 20 mL/ 300 mL bottle.
Prepare dilutions directly in BOD bottles using a wide tip volumetric pipet to add the desired
sample volume to individual 300 mL bottles. Fill bottles with enough dilution water so that
insertion of stopper will displace all air, leaving no bubbles.
Determine initial DO on the bottle of each dilution using membrane electrode DO meter while
stirring. Time period between preparing dilution and measuring initial
DO should not exceed 30 minutes.
Replace any displaced contents with dilution water before capping.
Stopper tightly, water seal with aluminium foil and incubate for 5 days at 20oC.
Determine final DO on the bottle after 5 day incubation.
Rinse DO electrode between determinations to prevent cross contamination of samples.

3. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Method: Reactor Digestion Method *; USEPA approved for reporting waste water analysis.

Table 1. Required reagents and Apparatuses for COD analysis

No Description Quantity required per test Unit Cat. No
1 Required reagent
High range, 0 to 1,500 mg/L COD 1 to 2 vials 25/pkg 21259-25
Water, deionized Varies 4L 272-56
2 Require apparatuses
Blender, 2-speed, 240 V 1 each 26161-02
Cap Tool, COD 1 each 45587-00
COD Reactor, 120/240 Vac 1 each 45600-00
Cod vial Adapter, Dr/2010 1 each 44799-00
Pipet, tensette, 0.1 to 1.0 mL 1 each 19700-01

Pipet, volumetric, class A, 2 mL 1 each 14515-36

Pipet filler, safety bulb 1 each 14651-00

95
Other apparatus
Other apparatus other than the above includes Flask bottle for dilution of sample. I used 500
mL and 1000 mL class A bottles.

4. Nitrite
Method: Diazotiztion method ( USEPA approved for reporting wastewater analysis)
Apparatus: Spectrophotometer
Model: DR/2010
Manufacturer: HACH
Reagent: NitriVer 3

5. Nitrate
Method: Cadmium reduction method ( USEPA approved for reporting wastewater analysis)
Apparatus: Spectrophotometer
Model: DR/2010
Manufacturer: HACH
Reagent: NitriVer 5

6. Phosphates
Method: Persulfate UV oxidation method
Apparatus: Spectrophotometer
Model: DR/2010
Manufacturer: HACH
Reagent: Potassium persulfate

7. Sulfate
Method: SulfaVer 4 method ( USEPA approved for reporting wastewater analysis)
Apparatus: Spectrophotometer
Model: DR/2010
Manufacturer: HACH
Reagent: SulfaVer 4 sulfate

96
8. pH and EC Determination
Method: potentiometric method
Apparatus: pH meter

Apparatus
1. pH meter: Model pH 330i
Manufactured by WTW Pty Ltd, capable of reading to the nearest 0.01
1. EC meter: Model pH/CON 510 series
Manufactured by OAKTON Pty Ltd, capable of reading to the nearest 1 S/cm
2. Glassware

Procedure
1. pH meter calibration: calibrate the temperature electrode of pH meter against the temperature
measured by the good quality mercury thermometer. Then calibrate the meter against the pH
buffer solutions obtained from the manufacturer. All calibration standard procedures follow
the manufacturers instructions.
2. EC meter calibration: Calibrate the temperature electrode against the temperature of the good
quality mercury thermometer. Then calibrate the meter against the EC buffer solutions
obtained from the manufacturer. All calibration standard procedures follow the
manufacturers instructions.
3. Warm the chilled samples to room temperature of about 20oC
4. Stir the samples in glass beaker thoroughly before taking the reading
5. pH meter will provide a direct reading of sample pH on the pH screen at 20oC
6. EC meter will read and convert EC values of samples at 20oC into those at 25oC
automatically and will display it on screen of EC the meter. Therefore, the results given by
EC meter are sample EC at 25oC

97
9. Total Nitrogen (0 to 0.25 m/L N)
Method: TNT Persulfate Digestion Method.
Table 2. Required reagents and Apparatuses for total nitrogen analysis
No Description Quantity Unit Cat. No
required / test
1 Required reagent
Total Nitrogen Hydroxide reagent vials 0.1 N 2 vials 25/pkg 26717-25

Total Nitrogen persulfate reagent powder pillow 2 Pillows 100/pkg 26718-49

Total Nitrogen reagent A powder Pillows 2 Pillows 100/pkg 26719-49

TN reagent powder pillow 2 Pillows 100/pkg 26720-49

TN Reagent C vials 2 vials 25/pkg 26721-25

Water, Deinized varies 4L 272-56
Require apparatuses
COD Reactor, 115/230, North American plug 1 each 45600-00
COD Vial Adapter, DR/2010 1 each 44799-00
Funnel, micro 3 each 25843-35
Test tube cooling rack 1-3 each 18641.00

10. Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca) and Magnesium (Mg) were analyzed by using
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (Analytik Jena) and the model was: novAA 400-/ novAA
300. Standard solution reagents were used for each one of them respectively

11. Coliforms (Total and fecal)

Method: Membrane filtration (MF method)
Model: ELE paqualab 50
Reagent: Lauryl Sulfate

98
Appendix 2 - Experimental Analysis Result
Parameter Analysed Sampling Point
1U 2U 3U 1M 1M 1M
pH 9.6 9.8 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.7
Conductivity, mS/cm 2.2 3.0 5.3 3.1 2.0 3.4
Chloride (Cl-), mg/L 76.4 75.8 79.0 66.6 62.8 65.4
Sulphate (SO42-), mg/L 200 200 210 200 300 300
Phosphate (PO43-), mg/L 106.5 99.0 113.5 68.5 78 69
Nitrate(NO3-), mg/L 124.6 14.4 87.0 117.2 112.8 108.4
Nitrite(NO2-), mg/L 0.059 0.062 0.987 0.206 0.209 0.206
COD, mg/L 800 1426 1320 960 500 680
Alkalinity (as HCO3), 237.7 153.4 119.6 368.0 406.4 237.6
mg/L
Total Nitrogen (as N), 4.0 1.0 2.2 28.0 29.2 26.8
mg/L
BOD, mg/L 80 58 132 136 102 130
Sodium (Na), mg/L 481.25 661.25 1190.00 725.00 465.00 397.50
Potassium (K), mg/L 17.875 14.750 3.525 25.250 29.500 14.050
Calcium (Ca), mg/L 1.070 0.826 0.276 0.746 3.92 0.545
Magnesium (Mg), mg/L 1.17 1.05 0.508 1.35 2.31 1.17
Coliforms, Total 17x105 14x105 17x105 33x105 34x105 35x105
MPN/100 mL Fecal 14x105 14x105 13x105 22x105 33x105 28x106

U Wastewater from factory before it was mixed with toilet wastewater

M Wastewater after factory and toilet wastewater are mixed

99
Appendix 3 - Resource Consumption and Wastewater generation
Description Service Wastewater Steam Steam Electrical Heavy NaOH, STPP, Zeolite, LABS, Solid
water used, generated, utilized, wasted, energy fuel ton/yr ton/yr ton/yr ton/yr ingredients,
m3/yr m3/yr ton/yr ton/yr consumed, utilized, ton/yr
kwh/yr m3/yr
1. Powder 2,241.99 1,169.12 227.72 71.71 539,326.78 310,500 122.08 143.86 188.41 358.20 929.68
detergent
Production
1.1. Paste 362.59 12.04 42,296.83 122.08 358.20
preparation unit
1.1.1. NaOH 78.13
dilution
1.1.2. Mixing and 284.46 42,296.83 122.08 358.20
pumping
1.1.3.Pipe line 12.04
washing
1.2. Slurry 1,605.37 1,150.26 49.50 152,052.48
preparation unit
1.2.1. Mixing 455.11 37.46 45,795.84 143.86 188.41 929.68
1.2.2. 1st 6.00 6.00
filtration spillage
and leakage
washing
1.2.3. 2nd 1,144.26 1,144.26
filtration and
Pump cooling
1.2.4. Filtration 106,256.64
and pumping
1.2.5. pipe line 12.04
washing
1.3. Spray drying 101,625.60
unit
1.3.1. exhausting 95,193.60
air
1.3.2. Powder 6,432.00
scraping
1.4. Air lift 77,775.74

100
1.5. Packing 91,967.40
1.6. Hot air 108.59 92,033.34 291,210
generator unit
1.6.1. Fuel 108.59
heating
1.7. Boiler unit 274.03 18.87 32.19 71.71 1,575.39 19,290
1.7.1. Feed water 274.03 25.00 6.53
heating
1.7.2. Fuel 7.19
heating
1.7.3. Steam 46.31
header loss
1.7.4. Steam 18.87 18.87
blow down
2. Liquid 998.17 88.35 2,167.26 25.09 229.09 36.01
detergent
production and
lighting
2.1. Mixing 909.82 2,167.26 25.09 229.09 36.01
2.2. Manual 88.35 88.35
packing and
jerrycan washing
3. Bar detergent 240.70 231,662.93 125.00 250.00 437.50 1,952.50
production
3.1. Sigma mixer 235.00 38,993.76 125.00 250.00 437.50 1,952.50
3.2. Milling 2.85 109,982.40
3.3. Plodding 2.85 47,992.32
3.4. Cutting 36,194.21
4. Laboratory 255.13 255.13
5. Clothes 596.84 596.84
washing
6. Wastewater 86.40 86.40
from canteen
6. Toilet septic 3,784.32
tank
7. Ground water 2,742.41
pumping
Total 4,419.23 5,980.17 202.32 71.71 795,899.38 310,500 147.17 268.86 438.41 1,024.79 2,918.19

101
Appendix 4- Process parameter measurements
Boiler Furnace surface Hot air duct surface Hot air Exhaust Coldair Exhaust Induce fan Dearator Boiler
temperature at three points to spray hot air From air from surface surface feed
steam temperature at three
(OC) tower from tower spray temperature temp. water
production points, (OC) (OC) spray base, tower (OC) (OC) (OC)
(ton/h) tower (m/s) (m/s)
(OC)
0.068 106 118 108 90 96 90 280 115 10.2 11 147 43 72
0.100 95 96 86 92 80 100 300 125 10.8 11 140 39 69
0.162 104 120 91 94 84 93 253 103 9.3 12 164 38 78
0.088 104 118 102 90 100 96 276 128 10.9 9.3 175 43 66
0.119 98 106 91 94 93 94 300 106 8.3 10 178 46 73
0.125 103 109 101 92 98 93 287 116 8.8 13 164 42 69
0.118 102 117 88 88 94 97 293 133 9.7 12 155 42 67
0.088 104 111 93 91 83 98 258 145 9.6 11 161 38 50
0.093 95 103 103 95 92 91 284 101 10.2 12 171 43 71
0.102 98 97 99 93 84 87 287 108 8.9 10.7 163 37 64
0.154 105 121 103 92 98 90 300 113 9.8 12 146 40 68
0.079 103 109 106 89 87 95 285 106 10.7 11 162 41 57
0.107 99 116 102 92 90 90 258 123 10.1 11 171 44 63
0.083 107 113 93 95 95 98 299 140 10.4 12 179 38 73
0.108 102 124 82 93 89 93 285 108 9.5 11.5 173 42 65
0.106 101.67 111.2 96.5 92.0 90.83 93.67 283 118 9.81 11.3 161.33 41.06 67

- The numbers in bold are the average quantity

102
Appendix 5 - Steam Pipe Capacities
Pounds per hour of saturated steam at 7 bar and in pressure drops per 100 feet of pipe

Steam at 7.0 bar

Pressure Loss
Pipe size 1/2 1.00 1.5
65 100 125
1 130 200 250
1-1/4 290 400 500
1-1/2 400 600 750
2 800 1,200 1,500
2-1/2 1,300 2,000 2,400
3 2,300 3,400 4,000
4 4,600 7,000 8,400
6 13,000 21,000 25,000
8 27,000 42,000 50,000
10 50,000 75,000 90,000

Notes on the use of the steam pipe capacity chart given above:

1. The column headings 1/4,1/2,1, etc refer to the pressure drop, in pounds per square inch for
100 feet of pipe or equivalent piping.
2. When three columns are given from which to choose, the highest may be used fro branch run-
outs, the middle for average main runs and the lowest for special cases.
3. A safety rule to follow is that the total pressure drop throughout a main run of 5% to 10% of
the available boiler pressure may usually be tolerated [46].

103
Appendix 6- Standard Requirements for Detergents in Ethiopia
Ser. Characteristics tested Standard Requirements
No. (%)
1 Moisture and volatile matter, % by mass 15.0 max
2 Ethanol insoluble matter, % by mass 76.0 max
3 Phosphates content, % by mass 10.0 min
4 Hydrogen-ion concentration measured in pH 9 to 11
5 Non detergent organic matter, % by mass 6.0 max

Remark: The result for phosphate content is calculated as the total phosphorus expressed as tri-
poly phosphate percent by mass of the ethanol insoluble matter.

Source: Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia test result notification sheet for RSD (2007)

104
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM

Cleaner Production Opportunity Assessment of Soap and Detergent Factory:

the case of Repi Soap and Detergent S.Co.

BY:
Mulugeta Yilma Tsegayea

Approved by the Examining Board:

_Dr. Ing. Zebene Kifle ___________________

Chairman, Departments Graduate Committee

_Dr. Ing. Nurelegne Tefera ___________________

Advisor

_Dr. Ing. Belay Woldeyes __________________

Internal Examiner
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis entitled Cleaner Production Opportunity Assessment
of Soap and Detergent Factory: the case of Repi Soap and Detergent S. Co. is my original
work, has not been presented for a degree in this or any other University, and that all sources of
materials used for the thesis have been acknowledged.

Name: Mulugeta Yilma Tsegayea

Signature:

Place: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Date of submission: January, 2009