Addressing wastewater challenges in the dairy industry: a focused case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This Research Paper addresses the hypothesis that wastewater characteristics in the dairy industry vary with product type and operational procedures, and that current treatment methods face limitations in managing such variability. The study examined raw and clean-in-place (CIP) wastewater from a Serbian dairy plant over three years. Physico-chemical and microbiological analyses included pH, protein, fat, carbohydrates, total solids, total microorganisms, E. coli , Enterobacteriaceae, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and dissolved oxygen (O 2 ).Dairy plants produced 0.2–10 L wastewater per litre of milk. Protein content ranged 0.07–0.31 g/100 ml, fat 0.01–0.19 g/100 ml, and carbohydrates up to 1.37%. Total solids were 0.13–2.95%. pH varied from 4.41 to 12.76, affected by lactic fermentation and cleaning agents. COD values (529–12,476 mg/l) indicated strong organic loads. Microbiological counts were highly variable, with E. coli up to 10 3 cfu/ml and total microorganisms up to 1 × 10 8 cfu/ml. Nitrogen ranged 36–104 mg/l and phosphorus reached 10.91 mg/l, sometimes exceeding limits. Principal component analysis (PCA) explained 61.86% of variance, driven by N, pH, P, E. coli , Enterobacteriaceae, and oxygen content. Seasonal patterns were identified: higher TSS during spring and summer, and increased microbial loads, COD, and oxygen fluctuations in autumn and winter. The findings demonstrate that dairy wastewater is complex and variable, requiring adaptive treatment strategies. Optimised management, including pH control, nutrient removal, and combined biological and advanced technologies, can improve treatment efficiency, support reuse, and mitigate environmental impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".