By Challenge / Contaminant
Color Removal Wastewater Companies
Color removal solution providers, ozone, coag/floc, adsorption, and membrane processes for textile and dye effluents.
This page is a good fit if you need:
- Automated pH Control Systems or Cartridge Filters capabilities
- Suppliers with manufacturing sector experience
- Providers operating in United Kingdom or China
- Providers
- 52
- Verified
- 6
- Countries
- 14
Can't find the right fit? Post a brief and let qualified suppliers come to you.
Post a projectHow to choose a color removal wastewater provider
Start with providers that clearly operate in your target geography and project footprint.
Look for industry exposure that matches your water challenge, compliance constraints, and deployment context.
Use technologies, service scope, and proof signals to narrow the list before reaching out to suppliers.
Not sure where to start? Our experts can help.
Filter results
Verified providers
6 claimed companies in this category
Country
Industry
Technology
Find a Color Removal Wastewater Provider
Showing 41-52 of 52
52 results from 52 matched providers
Color Removal from Industrial and Municipal Wastewater
Color in wastewater originates from textile dyes (azo, anthraquinone, reactive, disperse), paper-mill lignins and tannins, food/beverage caramels and natural pigments, leather tannery vegetable tannins, and humic acids in landfill leachate. Regulatory targets: 1:40 dilution visibility (EU Best Available Techniques), <50 Pt-Co units (US states variable), <250 ADMI (China textile discharge GB 4287). Color is poorly correlated with COD removal — many residual chromophores persist after biological treatment, requiring physicochemical polishing.
Treatment options: ozonation at 0.5–3 mg O₃/mg color destroys azo bonds and aromatic chromophores (60–95% removal); Fenton oxidation (H₂O₂:Fe²⁺ 5–25:1, pH 3–3.5) achieves 70–95% color removal with simultaneous COD reduction; activated carbon adsorption (PAC 100–500 mg/L or GAC EBCT 15–30 min) for low-color polishing; chemical coagulation with ferric/alum/PAC at acidic pH 4–6 removes 50–80% color via charge neutralization; UV/H₂O₂ AOP at 100–500 mJ/cm² × 50–200 mg/L H₂O₂ for refractory dyes; electrocoagulation (Fe or Al anodes at 5–30 A/m²) for textile and dairy with on-site generation.
Anaerobic-aerobic combination is the proven textile-industry approach: anaerobic reduction cleaves azo bonds (color removal 70–90%) but produces aromatic amines requiring aerobic polishing for full mineralization. Membrane processes (NF at 200–800 Da MWCO) achieve 95–99% color removal but generate concentrate requiring separate management. Standards: EN ISO 7887 for color measurement (Pt-Co, ADMI, spectrophotometric absorbance at 436/525/620 nm). Aguato lists color-removal specialists across textile, pulp/paper, leather, food/beverage, and landfill-leachate sectors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does color persist after biological treatment?
Many synthetic dyes — particularly azo, anthraquinone, and reactive dyes — are designed for color-fastness, making them refractory to aerobic biodegradation. Conventional activated sludge typically removes only 10–40% of textile dye color via adsorption onto biomass, not biodegradation. Anaerobic conditions (sulfate-reducing or methanogenic) cleave azo bonds reducing color 70–90%, but produce aromatic amines (some carcinogenic) requiring aerobic polishing. Always specify color limit separately from BOD/COD limit in industrial permits; biological treatment alone rarely meets <50 Pt-Co.
Is ozone or Fenton more cost-effective for textile color removal?
Ozone: opex $0.30–0.80/m³ at 1–3 mg O₃/mg color, no sludge production, no pH adjustment, suitable for continuous flow >500 m³/day. Fenton: opex $0.20–0.50/m³ at H₂O₂:Fe²⁺ 5–25:1, but requires pH adjustment to 3 then neutralization (2 chemical doses + sludge management), produces 0.5–2 kg Fe(OH)₃ sludge per m³. Choice criteria: ozone for plants with available power and footprint; Fenton for batch operations and lower capex (<$500K vs. ozone $1–3M for 1 MLD); combined ozone-Fenton for high-strength refractory streams >300 ADMI.
Can I meet color limits with chemical coagulation alone?
Coagulation alone (ferric or PAC at 100–400 mg/L, pH 4–6) achieves 50–80% color removal — sufficient for moderate-color streams entering biological treatment, but rarely sufficient for direct discharge meeting <50 Pt-Co. Disperse and direct dyes respond well to coagulation (charge neutralization of hydrophobic dye aggregates); reactive and acid dyes require AOP. Coagulation produces 1–3 kg sludge per kg color removed — sludge management cost is the limiting factor at high color loads. Always include AOP polishing (ozone or Fenton) for textile finishing wastewater.
What is electrocoagulation and when is it cost-competitive?
Electrocoagulation passes DC current (5 to 30 A/m2) through sacrificial Fe or Al anodes, generating coagulant in-situ via Faradaic dissolution at 1.0 to 2.5 kWh/m3. Advantages: no chemical storage or dosing, lower sludge volume (40 to 60% less than conventional coagulation), simultaneous hydrogen generation for upstream pretreatment. Cost-competitive for textile dye houses at 50 to 500 m3/day, dairy at 100 to 1,000 m3/day, and oilfield produced water emulsion breaking. Limitations: electrode replacement every 3 to 18 months at $50 to $200/m2 electrode area, and passive layer formation requires periodic polarity reversal.
A contract dyehouse was discharging at 820 ADMI colour units and COD 1,450 mg/L against a Trade Effluent Consent limit of 200 ADMI and COD 800 mg/L. Biological treatment alone was achieving only 35% colour removal. The EA had issued an enforcement notice requiring compliance within 6 months or face prosecution.
An anaerobic-aerobic sequence was extended with an ozonation polishing step at 2.2 mg O3/mg colour (contact time 15 minutes). Ozone generation capacity was 3.5 kg O3/hour. Following ozonation, a biological activated carbon (BAC) step with EBCT 20 minutes converted ozone-oxidised intermediates to CO2 and water, preventing discharge of potentially harmful aromatic amine by-products.
Final effluent averaged 38 ADMI and COD 185 mg/L, achieving full consent compliance within 11 weeks. Compliance with the EA enforcement notice was confirmed at the 6-month review. Annual ozone operating cost was GBP 48,000. Fines and prosecution costs avoided were estimated at GBP 200,000 to GBP 500,000.
Questions to Ask Shortlisted Providers
- 1
What dye classes are present in our wastewater (reactive, disperse, direct, vat, azo) and what ozone dose have you proven for each class at our colour concentration?
Ozone dose per unit of colour removed varies 3 to 8 times between dye classes. Reactive dyes require lower ozone doses (0.5 to 1.5 mg O3/mg colour) while anthraquinone disperse dyes require 3 to 5 mg O3/mg colour. Incorrect dose sizing wastes capital or fails to meet consent limits.
- 2
Do you include a biological polishing step downstream of ozonation to mineralise aromatic amine by-products, and is it required for our consent?
Ozone breaks azo bonds producing aromatic amines (some carcinogenic, including 4-aminodiphenyl). Without biological polishing or activated carbon downstream, these amines may appear in the final effluent. EA permits for colour removal increasingly require demonstration that AOP by-products are not creating new toxic discharge problems.
- 3
What sludge volume and disposal route do you propose for the physicochemical coagulation stage?
Chemical coagulation for colour removal produces 1 to 3 kg sludge per kg colour removed. At 820 ADMI influent and 2,400 m3/day, this represents significant sludge volumes requiring dewatering and disposal. Disposal as hazardous waste (if dye sludge is classified) costs GBP 80 to GBP 150/tonne. This cost is frequently omitted from vendor proposals.
- 4
What is the EA's position on colour limits for our receiving water body and is our consent limit likely to tighten under the upcoming WFD river water quality classification review?
EA WFD reviews are tightening receiving-water quality standards. Colour limits that seem achievable now may be halved in the next permit cycle. Designing a treatment plant with 50% headroom against current consent reduces the risk of capital reinvestment within 5 to 10 years.
- 5
Can you provide references from UK textile sites with similar dye profiles operating under EA consents for at least 2 years post-commissioning?
Colour removal processes that perform well in laboratory jar tests can fail at full scale due to variable dye combinations and production scheduling. UK references under EA consents are essential: they must demonstrate 12 months of compliance data, not just commissioning performance.
What Drives Cost in This Category
Ozone generation consumes 8 to 15 kWh/kg O3 produced. A 3.5 kg O3/hour plant consumes 30 to 55 kWh/hour. At GBP 0.18/kWh, ozone energy costs GBP 40K to GBP 85K/year. Ozone generator capital is GBP 150K to GBP 500K depending on rated capacity. Life of ozone generation tubes is 8,000 to 15,000 hours before replacement.
Chemical coagulation (ferric at 200 to 400 mg/L) for colour removal from 2,400 m3/day at 800 ADMI generates 1 to 3 tonnes/day wet sludge. Dewatering to 25% DS by centrifuge (GBP 200K to GBP 500K capital) and disposal at GBP 80 to GBP 120/tonne adds GBP 30K to GBP 130K/year operating cost.
Mixed dye-bath streams with highly variable COD and colour require 6 to 12 hours equalisation storage before treatment. Equalisation tank capital for 2,400 m3/day is GBP 120K to GBP 300K. Without equalisation, treatment plant sizing must account for peak loads that are 3 to 5 times the average, dramatically increasing capital cost.
Biological activated carbon (BAC) beds at EBCT 20 minutes for 2,400 m3/day require 800 m3 of media volume. GAC media cost at GBP 1,500 to GBP 2,500/tonne and replacement every 3 to 5 years adds GBP 60K to GBP 120K/year to operating cost, but is necessary to prevent discharge of toxic ozonation by-products.
Key Regulations & Standards
Colour limits in EA Environmental Permits are site-specific and negotiated based on receiving water body sensitivity and WFD classification. Textile effluent colour is increasingly regulated as the EA implements WFD Cycle 3 river basin management plans with tightened quality standards for visual impact and ecological status.
UK REACH restricts use of certain azo dyes that can release carcinogenic aromatic amines (Annex 17, Entry 43). Dischargers must demonstrate that aromatic amine by-products from ozonation or anaerobic reduction are not present in final effluent at concentrations above 30 mg/kg in textile contact goods or at levels detectable in receiving waters.
WFD Cycle 3 river basin management plans (England, 2022 to 2027) set ecological and chemical quality standards for receiving waters. Textile industry discharges causing colour-related aesthetic deterioration or shade-reduction of aquatic light penetration trigger EA improvement notices under Environmental Permitting Regulations.
IFC EHS Guidelines for textiles set effluent colour limits (ADMI below 200 for direct discharge; below 100 for sensitive receiving waters) and chemical oxygen demand below 100 mg/L. These are used as baseline for environmental impact assessment and project finance for new or expanding textile manufacturing facilities in the UK and internationally.











