Zero Liquid Discharge Use Case Companies
ZLD use-case providers showcasing delivered projects, concentration, crystallization, and salt recovery at scale.
23 specialist providers · 62 related · 17 countries
Qualified suppliers come to you.
Filter results
Country
Industry
Technology
Not sure where to start?
Showing 1-20 of 85
Specialists in zero liquid discharge use case
Providers whose services or self-declared specialties match this category.
GEA
Germany
GEA is a German global systems supplier providing advanced separation and environmental technologies for water treatment and wastewater management. The company offers resource-efficient solutions enabling wastewater reuse and resource recovery, supporting sustainability across diverse industries with 18,000+ employees.
Buyer's guide
The buyer's guide to zero liquid discharge use case
ZLD Use Cases: Power Plants, Textiles, Pharmaceuticals, and Mining Applications
Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) is applied across multiple industrial sectors where regulatory requirements, water scarcity, or hazardous effluent characteristics make complete liquid effluent elimination necessary or economically justified. Power plant ZLD: flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) wastewater from coal and gas power plants contains high concentrations of chlorides (10,000 to 80,000 mg/L Cl-), heavy metals (arsenic, selenium, mercury), sulphate, and suspended solids.
US EPA Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) for Steam Electric Power Generating (40 CFR Part 423, 2015 rule, updated 2020): legacy wastewater streams including FGD must meet very low discharge limits (arsenic less than 8 ug/L, selenium less than 10 ug/L, mercury less than 788 ng/L as monthly average) making ZLD one of the preferred compliance strategies for high-chloride FGD effluent. ZLD power plant technology: brine concentrator (MVR or MEE) + crystalliser; or biological treatment (selenium reduction by sulphate-reducing bacteria) + brine concentrator for selenium-containing FGD. Major ZLD power plant projects: China (over 200 coal power plants mandated for FGD ZLD by 2020 MHFW/MEE regulations), US (several ZLD installations at coal plants including Bruce Mansfield, Ohio).
Textile and dyestuff ZLD: India's Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Environmental Standards for Textile Industry (2016) mandate ZLD for dyeing and bleaching units; Gujarat and Rajasthan state PCBs enforce ZLD through environmental permits and Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs). Textile effluent characteristics: TDS 2,000 to 40,000 mg/L (salt-based reactive dye processes use NaCl or Na2SO4 at 40 to 80 g/L); colour (reactive dyes: 100 to 10,000 Pt-Co units); BOD 200 to 2,000 mg/L; pH 8 to 12.
Textile ZLD train: primary treatment (screening, equalisation, pH neutralisation) + biological treatment (activated sludge or MBR for BOD/COD removal) + membrane treatment (MF/UF + RO) + evaporation (MEE) + crystallisation; NaCl/Na2SO4 recovery for reuse in dyeing process (closed loop). ZLD payback for textiles: recovered salt (NaCl/Na2SO4) at 10 to 40 g/L saves purchase cost; recovered water (water scarce Gujarat): USD 1 to 3 per m3 savings; ZLD system typically recycles 90 to 95 percent of water. Pharmaceutical ZLD: India, EU, and US pharmaceutical manufacturers face stringent effluent regulations for hazardous organic compounds; ZLD increasingly specified in environmental permits; organic-rich reject from pharmaceutical ZLD requires incineration (hazardous waste, RCRA).
Mining and produced water ZLD: mining operations (copper, gold, coal, lithium) generate acid mine drainage (AMD, pH 2 to 6, high metals - Fe, Zn, Cu, As, Mn) and general process water requiring ZLD in water-scarce mining regions. AMD treatment for ZLD: neutralisation (lime to pH 8.5 to 10.5, precipitating metal hydroxides) + clarification + ion exchange (heavy metal polishing) + RO brine concentrator + evaporation; metal hydroxide sludge dewatered for landfill or metal recovery.
Lithium brine (South American Atacama salars): evaporation ponds (solar evaporation, 18 to 24 months HRT) concentrate lithium from 0.15 to 0.5 percent Li to 5 to 6 percent Li before chemical processing to lithium carbonate or hydroxide; ZLD concept applied through complete brine concentration; water recovered from evaporation condensate for site use. Oil and gas produced water ZLD: conventional onshore oil fields produce 3 to 10 barrels of water per barrel of oil (BWPD); produced water TDS 5,000 to 350,000 mg/L; offshore: no discharge permits in some jurisdictions require ZLD; onshore: disposal wells (Class II UIC, US) or evaporation ponds are common alternatives to ZLD; high-cost ZLD (USD 15 to 30 per barrel) justified only where disposal well injection is unavailable or where water recovery for reuse is the primary goal.
Frequently asked questions
Which industries typically need ZLD systems?
Industries where ZLD is commonly required or adopted: (1) Power generation (coal-fired): FGD wastewater with very low heavy metal discharge limits (US EPA ELG 2015/2020); India MOEF guidelines for thermal power plants; EU IED BAT conclusions for large combustion plants; (2) Textiles (dyeing and finishing): India CPCB ZLD mandate since 2016 for units with capacity greater than 5,000 tonnes/day production; Bangladesh implementing similar requirements; (3) Pharmaceutical manufacturing: stringent effluent standards for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and organic solvents; ZLD increasingly required in Indian CETP zones; EU IED BREF for pharmaceutical manufacture; (4) Semiconductor and electronics: ultra-pure water systems generate high-TDS reject; clean room and fab facility ZLD for water recovery in Taiwan, South Korea, US; (5) Fertiliser and chemical plants: high-TDS process water, ammonia, nitrate effluent; ZLD for nutrients control; (6) Mining (copper, gold, lithium): AMD treatment and water recovery in water-stressed regions (Chile, Peru, Australia, South Africa); (7) Food and beverage (dairy, brewing): where trade effluent consent is restricted; ZLD for land-locked sites without sewer access; (8) Oil and gas: produced water ZLD where injection is unavailable; offshore platforms; (9) Hospitals (in India): pharmaceutical-content effluent ZLD requirements in some states.
What is FGD wastewater and why does it require ZLD?
Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) wastewater is generated in coal and heavy fuel oil power plants equipped with wet scrubber systems (limestone forced oxidation, LSFO) that remove SO2 from combustion gases to meet air emission standards. Wet FGD process: SO2-laden flue gas is scrubbed with limestone slurry (CaCO3 + SO2 + 1/2O2 yields CaSO4.2H2O, gypsum); gypsum is separated and sold or disposed; the remaining liquid waste (FGD wastewater) is a complex mixture with: TDS 20,000 to 80,000 mg/L; chloride 10,000 to 60,000 mg/L (concentrated from limestone and scrubber water makeup); sulphate 2,000 to 10,000 mg/L; heavy metals: arsenic (1 to 50 mg/L), selenium (0.1 to 10 mg/L), mercury (0.01 to 1 mg/L), boron, lead, cadmium. US EPA ELG (2015/2020 updated rule): FGD wastewater must meet: arsenic less than 8 ug/L, selenium less than 10 ug/L, mercury less than 788 ng/L, TSS less than 50 mg/L as quarterly average. For high-chloride FGD (greater than 40,000 mg/L Cl-): ZLD is technically preferred as selenium and arsenic biological treatment requires low-chloride conditions; high Cl- inhibits selenium-reducing bacteria; ZLD evaporates chloride-concentrated brine to dryness. China MHFW: all coal power plants required to achieve FGD ZLD as part of ultra-low emission standards from 2020.
How is ZLD implemented in the textile industry?
ZLD implementation for textile dyeing and finishing: (1) Effluent characterisation: daily composite sampling for TDS (2,000 to 40,000 mg/L), COD (500 to 5,000 mg/L), colour (reactive dyes 500 to 10,000 Pt-Co), pH (8 to 13); flow rate measurement and mass balance; (2) Primary treatment: screening (2 to 6 mm), equalisation tank (24 to 48 hour HRT), pH neutralisation (acid/alkali), and coagulation/DAF for suspended dye removal; (3) Biological treatment: activated sludge (MBR preferred for high TDS tolerance) or sequencing batch reactor (SBR); reduces BOD5 from 500 to less than 30 mg/L; COD from 2,000 to less than 250 mg/L; colour from reactive dyes partially removed (greater than 60 percent colour removal by biodegradation and adsorption); (4) Membrane treatment: MF/UF removes suspended solids and high MW colour compounds; RO concentrates TDS (salt recovery for reuse in dyeing); typical RO recovery 60 to 75 percent producing salt-rich concentrate at 80 to 120 g/L TDS; (5) Evaporation: MEE (multiple effect evaporation) or MVR concentrates RO reject to 25 to 30 percent TDS; energy input 15 to 30 kWh/m3 evaporated; (6) Crystallisation: produces NaCl/Na2SO4 salt cake; if greater than 95 percent NaCl purity, can be reused in dyeing process (reactive dyes use NaCl or Na2SO4 as dyeing auxiliary at 40 to 80 g/L); (7) Water recovery: greater than 90 percent of influent water recovered for reuse; reduces fresh water demand and trade effluent discharge to near-zero.
Is ZLD cost-effective compared to conventional wastewater treatment?
ZLD is significantly more expensive than conventional wastewater treatment: Conventional activated sludge treatment to trade effluent consent standards: CAPEX USD 500 to 2,000 per m3/day; OPEX USD 0.30 to 1.50 per m3 treated. ZLD (biological + RO + MVR + crystalliser): CAPEX USD 5,000 to 30,000 per m3/day (5 to 15 times conventional); OPEX USD 5 to 20 per m3 treated (5 to 15 times conventional). ZLD is justified when: (1) Water recovery value exceeds incremental treatment cost: in regions where water costs USD 2 to 5 per m3 or more, recovering 90 to 95 percent of wastewater as clean water offsets a significant fraction of ZLD OPEX; for 1,000 m3/day plant: recovering 900 m3/day at USD 3 per m3 = USD 2,700/day savings vs ZLD OPEX USD 10,000/day at USD 10 per m3 - a net cost USD 7,300/day vs conventional USD 1,000/day; (2) Regulatory penalty avoidance: non-compliance fines in India's textile sector can reach INR 1 to 10 lakh per day (USD 1,200 to 12,000/day); plant closure risk for non-ZLD units; (3) Salt recovery value: NaCl recovered from textile ZLD at 40 g/L, 1,000 m3/day treatment: 40 tonnes NaCl/day at USD 30 to 60/tonne = USD 1,200 to 2,400/day partial offset; (4) Corporate sustainability: zero-discharge is a verifiable ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) commitment; some export markets (EU buyers of Indian textiles) require environmental compliance documentation.
Illustrative scenario · Pharmaceutical active ingredient manufacturing, South East England
A composite drawn from typical projects in this category, not a single client engagement. Figures are indicative.
- Challenge
- A pharmaceutical API manufacturer in Surrey generated 85 m3/day of mixed organic and inorganic effluent (TDS 28,000 mg/L, COD 3,400 mg/L from solvent contamination, high chloride). The EA Environmental Permit was varied to prohibit any liquid discharge to the receiving watercourse following a WFD water body status assessment. The company's trade effluent consent with the sewerage undertaker was also restricted due to elevated chloride (1,800 mg/L against a consent limit of 800 mg/L).
- Approach
- The client conducted a detailed ZLD versus near-ZLD (95 percent recovery with managed brine disposal) cost comparison. At GBP 0.22 per kWh electricity and a brine disposal cost of GBP 95 per tonne, the analysis showed that full ZLD (CAPEX GBP 3.4 million, OPEX GBP 38 per m3) had a net present cost over 15 years of GBP 8.8 million, while near-ZLD with managed brine tanker disposal (CAPEX GBP 1.6 million, OPEX GBP 22 per m3 plus brine disposal GBP 12 per m3) had NPC of GBP 6.4 million. Near-ZLD was selected. Water recovery 94 percent; 5 m3/day concentrate tanker-removed to licensed hazardous waste disposal site.
- Outcome
- EA enforcement notice resolved. Trade effluent chloride compliance restored. Total project delivered in 22 weeks. Operating cost GBP 34 per m3 (below the GBP 42 per m3 ZLD alternative). The NPC saving of GBP 2.4 million over 15 years justified the near-ZLD approach, with a contractual option to add a crystallisation stage in year 5 if electricity prices fell or brine disposal costs rose.
Questions to ask shortlisted providers
5
- 01
What is the total cost per m3 treated over the full project life, including CAPEX amortisation, energy, chemicals, maintenance, and solid waste disposal?
ZLD economics are almost always unfavourable on OPEX alone; whole-life cost analysis is the only valid basis for comparing ZLD against near-ZLD or alternative disposal; unsupported headline CAPEX figures are not sufficient for investment approval.
- 02
What regulatory compliance risk does our current discharge represent, and what is the probability and cost of a permit revocation or criminal prosecution scenario?
ZLD justification often rests on regulatory risk avoidance; quantifying the EA civil sanction range (up to GBP 250,000 per incident), criminal prosecution risk, and production shutdown cost creates the business case context.
- 03
Does near-ZLD (95 to 98 percent recovery with managed brine disposal) offer a more cost-effective pathway than full ZLD for our specific waste stream?
Many sites can achieve regulatory compliance with near-ZLD at 30 to 50 percent lower CAPEX and OPEX; full ZLD is only required where the permit prohibits all liquid discharge or where brine disposal is impossible.
- 04
What is your performance guarantee for water recovery and product water quality, and what financial remedy applies if targets are not met?
ZLD performance guarantees must be specific (minimum water recovery percentage, maximum TDS in condensate); vague 'best efforts' clauses expose clients to underperforming systems with no contractual remedy.
- 05
How does the system perform under seasonal feed quality variation, and what operating flexibility is built in for plant turndowns?
Many industrial processes have seasonal production and effluent variation; ZLD systems with minimum throughput requirements above 50 percent of design flow face operational problems during low-production periods.
What drives cost in this category
4
- Full ZLD versus near-ZLD decision
- Near-ZLD at 95 percent recovery reduces CAPEX by 30 to 50 percent and OPEX by 25 to 40 percent versus full ZLD; if regulatory permit and brine disposal logistics permit near-ZLD, this represents the most cost-effective pathway to compliance.
- Electricity price and tariff structure
- MVR evaporation is the dominant energy consumer; at GBP 0.22 per kWh versus GBP 0.12 per kWh (on-site renewable), the electricity cost difference can be GBP 8 to 15 per m3 treated; time-of-use tariffs and demand-response incentives can reduce effective electricity cost by 15 to 25 percent.
- Solid waste classification and disposal route
- Non-hazardous salt cake disposal at GBP 40 to 80 per tonne versus hazardous waste incineration at GBP 300 to 600 per tonne is driven entirely by waste composition; feeds with heavy metals or listed substances increase solid waste cost by a factor of 4 to 8.
- Water value and internal reuse credit
- Sites in water-stressed areas paying GBP 2 to 4 per m3 for mains water can apply recovered condensate value against ZLD OPEX; at 90 percent recovery from 200 m3/day, recovered water value of GBP 3 per m3 represents GBP 197,000 per year partial OPEX offset.
Key regulations and standards
4
- Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 and EA Civil Sanctions
- EPR 2016: EA can impose civil monetary penalties up to GBP 250,000 per prescribed offence; repeat breaches of Environmental Permit discharge conditions carry Crown Court prosecution with unlimited fines; ZLD provides the definitive compliance solution where permit conditions prohibit liquid discharge.
- WFD Environmental Quality Standards
- UK-retained WFD EQS for priority substances (EA Environmental Targets (Water) Regulations 2022): failure to achieve good chemical status in receiving water bodies triggers EA review of contributing permits; EQS-based permit limits for chloride, metals, and organics are tightening under AMP8 WINEP cycle.
- Trade Effluent Consent (Water Industry Act 1991)
- Sewerage undertakers can restrict, revoke, or renegotiate trade effluent consent conditions under WIA 1991, Section 127; high-TDS or high-chloride industrial effluents risk sewer corrosion and sewage treatment plant disruption, triggering consent tightening that may make ZLD the only viable compliance route.
- Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005
- Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/894): solid waste from ZLD crystallisers containing hazardous substances above threshold concentrations must be consigned on a Hazardous Waste Consignment Note; licensed carrier and disposal facility required; waste producer must register as a hazardous waste producer with the EA.