Next Article in Journal
Collaborative Watershed Modeling as Stakeholder Engagement Tool for Science-Based Water Policy Assessment in São Paulo, Brazil
Next Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Analysis of Lab-Scale Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Industrial Wastewater and Landfill Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste: A Comparative Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Fish Biomonitoring and Ecological Assessment in the Dianchi Lake Basin Based on Environmental DNA
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energetic Potential from Solid Waste Landfills in Jordan: A Comparative Modelling Analysis
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Environmental Compliance through the Implementation of Effluent Treatment Plant at a Company in the Cosmetics Sector

Geraldo Cardoso de Oliveira Neto
Sergio Yoshiyuki Nakamura
Luiz Fernando Rodrigues Pinto
2 and
José Carlos Curvelo Santana
Business Administration and Industrial Engineering Post-Graduation Program, FEI University, Tamandaré Street, 688–5 Floor, Liberdade, Sao Paulo–SP 01525-000, Brazil
Department of Industrial Engineering, Vergueiro Campus, Nine July University, Rua Vergueiro, 235/249-Liberdade, Sao Paulo–SP 01504-001, Brazil
Department of Production Engineering, Polytechnic School, University of São Paulo, Professor Luciano Gualberto Avenue, 1380, Butantã, Sao Paulo–SP 05508-010, Brazil
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(3), 400;
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 14 January 2023 / Published: 18 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Management of Solid Waste and Wastewater Treatment)


The current water crisis is a governmental and a third sector reason for concern. The government tends to intensify its regulatory power mainly on companies that use water as raw material and generate wastewater from the production process. The search for loss reduction on consumption and water treatment alternatives and reuse has been of increasing importance in the cosmetics sector. Thus, a case study was conducted with the aims of evaluating the environmental and economic benefits of the adoption of wastewater and water treatment plant to a cosmetics company and analyzing environmental compliance regarding water quality for release into the environment after the treatment process. The results indicate feasible economic gain from investment and operation costs with the adoption of a wastewater treatment plant. Additionally, environmental compliance regarding the existing regulations due to reduction of the environmental impact was recognized. Therefore, the cosmetics industry company must implement the wastewater treatment plant to avoid legal penalties and also be capable to operate it.

1. Introduction

Environmental issues have become increasingly critical and frequent, mainly due to population growth and increased industrial activity. This degradation scenario can be seen by changes in the quality of soil, air and water [1,2,3].
In particular, contamination of natural water has received greater attention from modern society. In response to this problem, authorities have taken actions through laws and regulations to reduce water consumption; thus, water saving in production processes has gained special attention because of the value that has been assigned to the asset through principles, such as paying consumers and recently incorporated in our legislation, polluter pays [4,5,6,7].
However, the effluent treatment techniques used in Brazil are old and inefficient due to the importation of technologies that were optimized for companies located in countries with a non-tropical climate. In general, aerobic or anaerobic bioreactors are the most used technologies. However, in the last decade, technologies such as membrane separation processes and advanced oxidative processes have been tested, as they are very efficient in eliminating contaminating substances from water [5,6].
In this context, the implementation of an industrial wastewater treatment plant for reuse can provide economic and environmental gains, as already demonstrated in [4,5,6,7]. Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the environmental and economic gain from the adoption of a wastewater and water treatment plant for a cosmetics company and analyze the environmental compliance with respect to water quality for release into the environment after the treatment process. In this case study, a company installed a kit of microfiltration membranes that are applied at the end of the treatment of its effluents. After the traditional treatments with bioreactors, the effluents passed through a system of filtering membranes and the quality of the permeated effluent was evaluated in relation to Brazilian environmental standards [8,9,10].

2. Background

2.1. Wastewater Treatment Implementation as a Practice of Cleaner Production

In this section the importance of wastewater treatment implementation in the manufacturing plant will be reported, showing a practice of cleaner production to minimize pollution.
Cleaner production (CP) is the application of the technical, economic and environmental integrated with processes and products in order to increase efficiency in the use of raw materials, water and energy by non-generation, minimization and recycling of generated waste and emissions for environmental, occupational and economic health [1,2,11,12]. According to [13,14], the cleaner production practice has been greatly advocated in the industrial field, including for the sewage treatment process. In this context, the implementation of the wastewater treatment industry of focus on proper disposal in the sewer is intended to improve the quality of the effluent, allowing its reuse, which can be characterized as a CP technique [11,12,13,14].
Effluent is classified into two groups: sanitary effluent or sewage, which is derived from water use in cities, and industrial effluent, which is treated according to the physical, chemical and biological characteristics, according to the nature of the pollutants to be removed and/or the unit operations used for the treatment. The ideal process is indicated by the polluting load and the presence of contaminants [5,15]. Thus, the industry that generates the liquid waste that contaminates the effluents needs to implement a wastewater treatment plant on site in order to remove the chemical contaminant elements, among them heavy metals, not to impair the wastewater treatment process, making it possible to minimize water and energy consumption through the application of CP in order to evaluate the economic and environmental benefits [6,15,16].
On the other hand, the adoption of industrial wastewater treatment allows reuse of water at a lower cost in the wastewater treatment process, which contributes to the water crisis regarding the rational use of water [6,15]. Membrane filtration process is one of the most recent techniques to be used in the treatment of effluents and can be defined as a separation process that uses semi-permeable membranes to divide the flow into two portions: retentate or concentrate and permeate in order to separate the solid particles from the water [5,8,16,17,18,19].
In São Paulo, according to Brazilian Water Agency (ANA—Agência Nacional de Águas) [20], the consumptive use of water was divided as follows: 37% urban, 37% industrial, 22% irrigation, 3% animal and 1% rural use. In addition, 11% of its population in 2008 was not served by sewers and 38% of the volume of sewage collected was untreated, which represents a potential contamination vulnerability for water resources.
Thus, the release of industrial waste and untreated sewage causes water contamination and due to this many countries are developing legislation through public policies with an environmental focus on water scarcity [5,6,15].

2.2. Membrane Separation Process

Three recent separation process are aqueous two-phase system extraction, membrane separation and fluidized bed sorption [8,18,19].
Membrane separation process is an existing alternative among separation processes in recent years. A membrane is defined as a barrier to separate two phases with various chemical species transporting them between phases [8,18,19].
Figure 1 shows the types of membrane separation processes classified according to the pressure range or the pore size of the membrane. As noted, any substance can be separated in an aqueous medium simply by choosing the pore size according to the size of the molecules to be separated. In the membrane separation process, the feed flow containing the target molecules from the process is forced to pass through a highly porous medium (membrane) which separates by molecular size, allowing only molecules smaller in size to pass through the membrane pore. The liquid that passes through the membrane (or filtrate) is called permeate, while the liquid retained by the membrane is the concentrate layer (or cake) [8].
Processes with membranes become viable at an industrial scale with the adequate choice of membranes for the processing of each determined product. Therefore, its use in effluent treatment has been intensified in recent decades as already shown by [5,8,15].

2.3. Brazilian Environmental Laws about Consumption and Use of Water

Resolution No. 430 of the Brazilian Council for the Environment (Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, CONAMA) presents the conditions and standards for the discharge of effluents in its Section 2—Conditions and Standards for Effluent Release. It determines in Article 16 that effluents from any polluting source can only be released directly into the receiving body provided that (a) there is (A) pH between 5 to 9; (B) temperature less than 40 °C; (C) sedimentable materials: up to 1 mL/L in a 1-h test in an Inmhoff cone; (D) discharge system with maximum flow rate of up to 1.5 times the average flow of the daily activity period of the pollutant, except in cases allowed by the competent authority; (E) oils and greases: mineral oils up to 20 mg/L and vegetable oils and animal fats up to 50 mg/L; (F) absence of floating materials; and (b) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5 days at 20 °C) with a minimum removal of 60% of BOD, and this limit can only be reduced if there is a self-purification study of the water body that proves meeting the targets of the receptor body [21,22]. Table 1 shows the required standard for effluent discharge.
The companies that generate liquid waste pollutants must comply with these parameters according to Decree n° 3.179 of 21 September 1999, aiming for the appropriate environmental conduct of the company with risk of penalties stated in Section 3—Sanctions applicable to pollution and other environmental infractions, focusing on Article 41, which determines a fine of BRL 100,000 to BRL 5,000,000,000 for companies that do not comply with the standard established by CONAMA [21,22]. In the first paragraph, a company that causes water pollution is negligent in relation to the discharge of effluents, making an area, urban or rural, unfit for human occupation, including the prohibition of public beach, and especially when the company does not adopt measures of precaution in case of risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage. In the second paragraph, it is stated that fines and other penalties will be applied after a technical report prepared by a competent environmental agency identifies the extent of the damage resulting from the infraction [21,22].
Furthermore, the infringing company may be subject to Law No. 9605 of 12 February 1998, which is associated with the generation of pollution and environmental crimes by companies through Article 54, which provides for control over human health and the mortality of animals or destruction of flora. The penalty consists of imprisonment from one to four years and a fine. In the first paragraph, it is verified if the crime is indicted. If it is, the penalty provides for detention from six months to a year and a fine. It is covered in Section 2 that the company that pollutes water effluents that make an area, urban or rural, unfit for human occupation, including the contamination of beaches for bath, may be penalized with imprisonment of the owner of one to five years. Section 3 incurs the same penalties provided for in the previous paragraph, for those which fail to adopt, when required by the competent authority, precautionary measures in case of risk of serious or irreversible environmental damage [21,22].
Therefore, the implementation of a water treatment station (WTS) and effluents treatment station (ETS) by companies considered to be major consumers of water and generators of sanitary and industrial effluents become an important and obligatory factor for the preservation of the ecosystem.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is classified as of an empirical and exploratory nature, aiming to obtain information about the object of the study. The approach is quantitative since the analyzed variables are expressed in measurable values. The method adopted is the case study, developed for a cosmetics company. The empirical character of a case study stands out in the investigation of contemporary phenomena [13,14,23,24].
Data collection was performed through semi-structured interview and direct observation, appropriate means to obtain the necessary information for the research, both for understanding of the required data collection and for the visualization of the facts and actions related to the researched process. For the calculations of the economic and environmental evaluations Oliveira Neto’s methodology [14,25,26] was applied.
In order to evaluate the economic advantage, we used (i) the return on investment (ROI), which represents the return for a given investment in a given period and (ii) the discounted payback, which provides the recovery period for the initial investment made available and updated by the minimum attractiveness rate (MAR) [2,3,7]. All economic parameters were calculated over a ten-year horizon. Equations (1) and (2) show how the return on investment (ROI) and payback were calculated:
ROI = (Annual net income/realized investment)
Payback = Investment/ΣProfits to investment payment
The evaluation of the environmental advantage was obtained using the methodology for calculating Mass Intensity Factor (MIF) adapted from the Wuppertal Institute [25] using Oliveira Neto’s methodology [11,12,13,23,24]. MIF is calculated by considering the entire life cycle of products and represents the total material input that individuals move or extract from nature for the production of goods and the delivery of services. MIPS is measured in kg per service unit. The calculation of the MIF evaluates the positive or negative impact on the compartments (i) abiotic—the factors that influence living beings, such as light and solar radiation, temperature, wind, water, soil composition, pressure and others; (ii) biotic—representing living beings; (iii) water; and (iv) air [11,12,13,23,24,27].
The project started in January 2013 and ended in December 2022, so the feasibility calculations were based on data from that time. To measure the savings with water, energy and chemical consumptions, the prices charged by the Basic Sanitation Company of the State of São Paulo (SABESP), National Electricity Entity (ENEL) and the cosmetic company were used as references. According to SABESP [28], water was sold at BRL 24.09/m3 in 2013 (currently it is BRL 50.00/m3). According to ENEL [29], energy was sold at BRL 0.194/kWh in 2013. According to the cosmetics company from this case study, the average price of chemical products used in water treatment (Al2(SO4)3, CaO, etc.) had an average cost of BRL 707/t in 2013 (dollar exchange rate was USD 1 = BRL 1 in 2013).
The methodology for calculating Mass Intensity Factor (MIF) was adapted from the Wuppertal Institute [25] with Oliveira Neto’s methodology [11,12,13,23,24]. The environmental impact was calculated as follows: (i) the Intensity Factors (IF) described in Table 2; (ii) the Mass Intensity Factors (MIF), according to Equation (3); (iii) the Mass Intensity per Compartment (MIC), according to Equation (4) the sum of the MIF of each compartment is measured; and (iv) Mass Intensity Total (MIT), using Equation (5), measuring the total sum of the compartments.
MIF = M × IF
MIC = ∑ MIF of each compartment
The economic gain index (ECGI) and environmental gain index (ENGI) were obtained by division of the sum of the total materials saved (MTE) for economic gain (EG) using the following equations:
MTE is the total mass of each resource that is not consume in internal processes and consequently, not extracted from nature, processed, delivered, used and depleted.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Case Study

The studied company is in the cosmetics manufacturing industry located in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. All water used in the company’s facilities goes through the effluent treatment station (ETS) before being returned to the environment within the standards required by Brazilian environmental legislation shown in Table 1. Figure 2 illustrates the company’s water cycle, which is initiated in groundwater and followed by treatment at the water treatment station (WTS); distribution through the company’s facilities; treatment at the effluent treatment station (ETS); preliminary treatment of industrial effluent; treatment of organic effluents; and reuse of water.
In this stage a survey was conducted to verify the amount of emissions, residues or materials to be reduced or reused in the processes. It should be noted that 55% of the total effluent of the industrial plant, after passing through the membrane separation process (permeate), is reused as reuse water and 45% is returned to nature (river) in accordance with the effluent discharge standards [22].
The WTS of the company surveyed meets the requirements of CONAMA, as shown in Table 3, in addition to reusing water for toilets and remanufacturing of purified water in the production system. The effluent has two closed cycles: the sanitary and industrial effluents, which are sent to be processed in the ETS. Effluent derived from consumption in the company’s internal processes were considered as industrial effluents and those generated in external facilities (bathrooms, cleaning, etc.) as sanitary effluents, as classified in [21,22].
Solid waste generated in the process, called physical-chemical sludge, is destined for the appropriate landfills. The results show that the permeate generated after the membrane separation process meets the main requirements of the resolutions that deal with the quality of the aquifers and CONAMA’s conditions and effluent standards. It should be noted that the use of the membrane separation process was essential for the effluents to have their indexes in line with the standards and standards requirements [21,22].
Based on the amounts presented in Table 4 and CONAMA’s standards for effluent releases, a quantitative projection of substances that could be released back into the environment was made.
Results of the analyses of sanitary and industrial effluents and the annual amount of each chemical parameter are shown in Table 4. The results show that the parameters were already lower than required by the CONAMA resolution, but the use of this effluent as reuse water could still be considered. After the treatment of the effluents by the membrane separation process, the results obtained from the analysis of the permeate performed show the improvement of the indices in Table 4.
The difference between the values of each effluent parameter (industrial and sanitary) to the permeate is expressed in the penultimate column of Table 4. These differences correspond to the amounts that are no longer discarded in the environment. The difference between the values of industrial and sanitary effluents in relation to those obtained in the permeate is expressed in the penultimate column of Table 4 when compared to the indexes that could be released according to CONAMA standards [21,22]. These differences correspond to the amounts that are no longer discarded in the environment, exceeding 99% of the initial value.

4.2. Economic Evaluation

From the survey of electricity consumption and costs in the water and sewage treatment processes (Table 5) and the expenses with products in the treatment of water (Table 6), it was possible to perform the calculations, mainly because the company captures and treats its water demand and still reuses water generated by sewage treatment.
The results measure annual energy, chemical and water savings and add up to an economic gain of BRL 1.176 million/year. The initial investment for the deployment of WTS and ETS was around USD 3 million (1 USD = BRL 3.10), which is equivalent to BRL 9.3 million. Based on this information, 7.9-year payback was achieved with a 15% ROI. It should be noted that the surveyed company does not focus on the economic gain with the adoption of ETS and WTS in the production system, but is concerned about the fines and prohibition of the company before the public agencies according to Article 41, which determines a fine from BRL 1000.00 to BRL 50,000,000.00 for companies that do not meet the standard established by CONAMA [21,22].

4.3. Environmental Assessment

Table 7 shows the results of the environmental impact, summarizing the non-pollution of 66,066,081.69 kg, denoting that the cosmetics company contributes to sustainable development through the adoption of ETS in the manufacturing plant.

4.4. Comparison of Economic and Environmental Gain

A comparison between the economic gain index (ECGI) and the environmental gain index (ENGI) was obtained by dividing the sum of the total materials saved (MTE) by the economic gain (EG) and by dividing the total intensity of materials (MIT) by economic gain (EG), respectively, according to Table 8.
The results show that the environmental gain index obtained surpasses the economic one. However, if we evaluate the absence of adoption of ETS and WTS by the company and the aggregated risks due to non-compliance with legislation, a consensus can be reached that, even at first glance, environmental gain is the most relevant factor, investment is essential, and the company needs to dilute costs in marketing the products and services.

5. Conclusions

The current water crisis that the state of São Paulo is undergoing causes measures to be taken to mitigate the risk of lack of water for human consumption. Of the total water treated in the state, only 37% is destined for residential and commercial consumption, even volume that is directed to the industries. It is added that 38% of the sewage collected is not treated, increasing the vulnerability of contamination of water resources.
The scenario of incentive to the treatment of sewage, mainly with the perspective of improvement of its effluent so that it can be reused, is more than a necessity; it is a duty for the whole company that seeks to be guided by environmental strategies in tune with their business strategies. Obtaining quality reuse water that can partially replace industrial or irrigation consumption, or even increase availability for human consumption, should be one of the priorities of Brazil and the world.
The results indicated that it was possible to meet the legal requirements for effluents to be discharged by a company in the cosmetics sector through the adoption of an ETS in the production system in addition to reducing the environmental impact to 66,066,081.69 kg, preventing the discharge of a large quantity of substances into nature. Although the initial investments to make water and sewage treatment possible are high, gains to the company’s image, preservation of the environment and compliance with current legislation, avoiding sanctions by the responsible entities, means that cleaner production process implementations of this nature will become attractive.
The case study application can be considered a limitation of this research and for future studies because it is suggested to know the production system in more detail with the objective of implanting other CP practices.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed as follows: conceptualization, S.Y.N. and L.F.R.P.; methodology, G.C.d.O.N., S.Y.N. and J.C.C.S.; formal analysis, G.C.d.O.N., S.Y.N. and L.F.R.P.; resources, S.Y.N., L.F.R.P. and G.C.d.O.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Y.N., J.C.C.S. and L.F.R.P.; writing—review; editing; G.C.d.O.N., J.C.C.S. and L.F.R.P.; supervision, G.C.d.O.N. and J.C.C.S.; project administration, G.C.d.O.N. and J.C.C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) funded number 302979/2021-2 and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) funded number PQ-2 09/2020—Process: 305272/2020-9.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


The authors thank CNPq and CAPES for their financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Miranda, A.C.; Santana, J.C.C.; Yamamura, C.L.K.; Rosa, J.M.; Tambourgi, E.B.; Ho, L.L.; Berssaneti, F.T. Application of neural network to simulate the behavior of hospitalizations and their costs under the effects of various polluting gases in the city of São Paulo. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 2091–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Santana, J.C.C.; Miranda, A.C.; Souza, L.; Yamamura, C.L.K.; Coelho, D.D.F.; Tambourgi, E.B.; Berssaneti, F.T.; Ho, L.L. Clean Production of Biofuel from Waste Cooking Oil to Reduce Emissions, Fuel Cost, and Respiratory Disease Hospitalizations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Santana, J.; Miranda, A.; Yamamura, C.; Filho, S.; Tambourgi, E.; Ho, L.; Berssaneti, F. Effects of Air Pollution on Human Health and Costs: Current Situation in São Paulo, Brazil. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Santana, J.; Ehrhardt, D.D.; Tambourgi, E.B. Optimizing of alcohol production from manioc starch. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 30, 613–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Passarini, K.C.; Gamarra, F.; Vanalle, R.M.; Santana, J.C.C. Sewage reuse in plant irrigation and soil recovery. Inf. Tecnol. 2012, 23, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rosa, J.M.; Guerhardt, F.; Júnior, S.E.R.R.; Belan, P.A.; Lima, G.A.; Santana, J.C.C.; Berssaneti, F.T.; Tambourgi, E.B.; Vanale, R.M.; de Araújo, S.A. Modeling and optimization of reactive cotton dyeing using response surface methodology combined with artificial neural network and particle swarm techniques. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2021, 23, 2357–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Santana, J.C.C.; Gardim, R.B.; Almeida, P.F.; Borini, G.B.; Quispe, A.P.B.; Llanos, S.A.V.; Heredia, J.A.; Zamuner, S.; Gamarra, F.M.C.; Farias, T.M.B.; et al. Valorization of Chicken Feet By-Product of the Poultry Industry: High Qualities of Gelatin and Biofilm from Extraction of Collagen. Polymers 2020, 12, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gamarra, F.M.C.; Santana, J.C.C.; Llanos, S.A.V.; Pérez, J.A.H.; Flausino, F.R.; Quispe, A.P.B.; Mendoza, P.C.; Vanalle, R.M.; Carreño-Farfan, C.; Berssaneti, F.T.; et al. High Retention and Purification of Bromelain Enzyme (Ananas comosus L. Merrill) from Pineapple Juice Using Plain and Hollow Polymeric Membranes Techniques. Polymers 2022, 14, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lopes, F.L.G.; Sbruzzi, D.; Barros, K.V.G.; Ferreira, J.F.; Santana, J.; De Souza, R.R.; Tambourgi, E.B. Viability in the production of a drug extracted from Ananas comosus by a flat membrane system. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2012, 55, 465–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fileti, A.M.F.; Fischer, G.A.; Santana, J.C.C.; Tambourgi, E.B. Batch and continuous extraction of bromelain enzyme by reversed micelles. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 1225–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gomes, M.G.; Da Silva, V.H.C.; Pinto, L.F.R.; Centoamore, P.; Digiesi, S.; Facchini, F.; de Oliveira Neto, G.C. Economic, Environmental and Social Gains of the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence at Dam Operations toward Industry 4.0 Principles. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Leite, R.; Amorim, M.; Rodrigues, M.; Neto, G.O. Overcoming Barriers for Adopting Cleaner Production: A Case Study in Brazilian Small Metal-Mechanic Companies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. de Oliveira Neto, G.C.; da Silva, P.C.; Tucci, H.N.P.; Amorim, M. Reuse of water and materials as a cleaner production practice in the textile industry contributing to blue economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oliveira Neto, G.C.D.; Tucci, H.N.P.; Correia, J.M.F.; da Silva, P.C.; da Silva, V.H.C.; Ganga, G.M.D. Assessing the implementation of Cleaner Production and company sizes: Survey in textile companies. J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 2020, 15, 1558925020915585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Passarini, K.C.; Pereira, M.A.; Farias, T.M.D.B.; Calarge, F.A.; Santana, C.C. Assessment of the viability and sustainability of an integrated waste management system for the city of Campinas (Brazil), by means of ecological cost accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, X.; Wei, Y.; Pan, H.; Xiao, H.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Y. The comparison of performances of a sewage treatment system before and after implementing the cleaner production measure. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lopes, F.L.G.; Júnior, J.B.S.; de Souza, R.R.; Ehrhardt, D.D.; Santana, J.C.C.; Tambourgi, E.B. Concentration by membrane separation processes of a medicinal product obtained from pineapple pulp. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Severo Júnior, J.B.; Oliveira, L.S.D.S.; Sardeiro, F.S.; Souza, R.R.D.; Lopes, F.L.G.; Santana, J.C.C.; Tambourgi, E.B. Response surface methodology to evaluation the recovery of amylases by hollow fiber membrane. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2007, 50, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Severo, J.B., Jr.; Almeida, S.S.; Narain, N.; Souza, R.R.; Santana, J.C.C.; Tambourgi, E.B. Wine clarification from Spondias mombin L. pulp by hollow fiber membrane system. Process. Biochem. 2007, 42, 1516–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. ANA. Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico, Conjuntura dos Recursos Hídricos No Brasil: 2021. Brasília–DF. Available online: (accessed on 14 December 2022).
  21. Câmara dos Deputados. Decreto 3.179 de 21 de Setembro de 1999–Sanções Aplicáveis às Condutas e Atividades Lesivas ao Meio Ambiente. Available online: (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  22. Câmara dos Deputados. Lei 9.605 de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998–Sanções Penais e Administrativas Derivadas de Condutas e Atividades Lesivas ao Meio Ambiente. Available online: (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  23. Oliveira Neto, G.C.D.; Souza, M.T.S.D.; Silva, D.D.; Silva, L.A. An assessment of the environmental and economic benefits of implementing reverse logistics in the textured glass sector. Ambient. E Soc. 2014, 17, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Oliveira Neto, G.C.; de Sousa, W.C. Economic and Environmental Advantage Evaluation of the Reverse Logistic Implementation in the Supermarket Retail. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 439, pp. 197–204. [Google Scholar]
  25. WUPPERTAL. Institut. Material Intensity of Materials, Fuels, Transport Services, Food. Available online: (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  26. Gemechu, E.; Kumar, A. A review of how life cycle assessment has been used to assess the environmental impacts of hydropower energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, X.; Zheng, X.; Wu, L.; Deng, S.; Pan, H.; Zou, J.; Zhang, X.; Luo, Y. Techno-ecological synergies of hydropower plants: Insights from GHG mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 853, 158602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. SABESP. Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo (Basic Sanitation Company of the State of São Paulo). Tarifas de água (Water tariffs). Available online: (accessed on 12 January 2023).
  29. ENEL. AESEltropaulo Electricity Prices in 2013. Available online: (accessed on 12 January 2023).
Figure 1. Separation membrane characteristics [18,19].
Figure 1. Separation membrane characteristics [18,19].
Water 15 00400 g001
Figure 2. Process of the water cycle of the cosmetics company. Source: Company data.
Figure 2. Process of the water cycle of the cosmetics company. Source: Company data.
Water 15 00400 g002
Table 1. Standard for effluent disposal in sewage [21,22].
Table 1. Standard for effluent disposal in sewage [21,22].
Inorganic ParametersMaximum Values
Total Arsenic0.5 mg/L As
Total Barium5.0 mg/L Ba
Total Boron (not applicable for saline water release)5.0 mg/L B
Total Cadmium0.2 mg/L Cd
Total Lead0.5 mg/L Pb
Total Cyanide1.0 mg/L CN
Free Cyanide (distillable by weak acids)0.2 mg/L CN
Copper dissolved1.0 mg/L Cu
Hexavalent Chromium0.1 mg/L Cr+6
Trivalent Chromium1.0 mg/L Cr+3
Total Tin4.0 mg/L Sn
Dissolved Iron15.0 mg/L Fe
Total Fluoride10.0 mg/L F
Manganese dissolved1.0 mg/L Mn
Total Mercury0.01 mg/L Hg
Total Nickel2.0 mg/L Ni
Total Ammonia Nitrogen20.0 mg/L N
Total Silver0.1 mg/L Ag
Total Selenium0.30 mg/L Se
Sulfide1.0 mg/L S
Total Zinc5.0 mg/L Zn
Organic ParametersMaximum Values
Benzene1.2 mg/L
Chloroform1.0 mg/L
Dichloroethene (sum of 1.1 + 1.2cis + 1.2 trans)1.0 mg/L
Styrene0.07 mg/L
Ethylbenzene0.84 mg/L
Total phenols (substances that react with 4-aminoantipyrine)0.5 mg/L C6H5OH
Carbon tetrachloride1.0 mg/L
Trichloroethene1.0 mg/L
Toluene1.2 mg/L
Xylene1.6 mg/L
Table 2. Factor of intensity of the materials involved in the process.
Table 2. Factor of intensity of the materials involved in the process.
BariumApprox. Calcium, limo2.46 11.650.09
BoronApprox. Boric acid7.61 16.151.08
LeadPrimary18.12 135.82.28
CooperPrimary348.47 367.161.6
Trivalent chromiumApprox. Chrome Iron21.58 504.865.07
Dissolved ironApprox. Iron Manganese16.69 193.762.23
Total fluorideApprox. Fluorite2.93 7.920.06
Manganese dissolvedApprox. Iron Manganese16.69 193.762.23
Nickel 141.29 233.3440.83
ZincElectronic22.18 3432.28
Total phenolsApprox. Benzene4.32 28.232.19
ElectricityPublic network3.150.0457.640.514
Aluminum polychlorideApprox. Aluminum Chloride8.61 110.631.15
Aluminum sulfateApprox. Aluminum Chloride8.61 110.631.15
Ferric Chlorine SulphateApprox. Chlorine3.84 100.91.09
Polymer (acrylamide)Approx. Aluminum Chloride8.61 110.631.15
Crud limestoneApprox. Calcium, limo2.46 11.650.09
Chlorine 3.84 100.91.09
Fluosilicic acidApprox. Quartz Sand1.42 1.430.03
Potable water 0.01 1.30
Table 3. Comparison between the results of each stage of the effluent treatment process according to the CONAMA standard [21,22].
Table 3. Comparison between the results of each stage of the effluent treatment process according to the CONAMA standard [21,22].
AnalysisProcess StepAverage of Monitoring AnalysesFreshwater Class 2Effluents/Sewage
pHBioreactor A7.047.116.856.656.786 a 95 a 9
Bioreactor B6.987.026.746.526.69
OD, mg/L O2Bioreactor A.1.150.911.050.700.55>5
Bioreactor B1.
Temperature, °CBioreactor A.37.0237.0036.7936.6035.57
Bioreactor B36.9737.1536.7936.6135.99<40 ± 3 °C
BOD5; mg/L O2Sanitary1527.401798.001446.001445.001433.505Max. 120 mg/L or efficiency ≥ 60%
Industrial treated8194.202839.252538.002412.331977.00
N; mg/LSanitary134.00163.00876.53560.96189.503.7, for pH ≤ 7.520.0
Industrial treated 3.835.362.0, for 7.5 < pH ≤ 8.0 1.0, for 8.0 < pH ≤ 8.5
Permeate17.8816.1316.5323.2017.200.5, for pH > 8.5
P; mg/LSanitary P60.7569.70399.8054.97151.90up to 0.050
Industrial treated 0.240.29
OG; mg/LSanitary184.45136.00114.20132.88211.50virtually absent100
Industrial treated31.6034.8051.6046.23226.60
Turbidity; NUTIndustrial treated 4.646.38up to 100
Permeate Turbidity 4.353.28
Table 4. Indices obtained by the permeate difference with the possible launching according to legislation.
Table 4. Indices obtained by the permeate difference with the possible launching according to legislation.
ParameterSanitary EffluentIndustrial EffluentPermeate
Result (mg/L)Annual Mass (Kg)Result (mg/L)Annual Mass (Kg)Result (mg/L)Annual Mass (Kg)Difference (Kg)Efficience (%)
Cr III0.06843.3510.0744.811<0.054.40883.7595.00
Note: Source: Company data.
Table 5. Annual costs (BRL) with electric energy.
Table 5. Annual costs (BRL) with electric energy.
Annual Costs of Electric Energy Involved in the Process
Water collection in wells124,000.00
Water treatment 78,864.0015,299.62
Industrial effluents generated44,811.00
Sanitary effluents generated43,351.00
Total effluents88,162.00
Effluents treatment 31,385.676277.13
Annual Value of Energy Saved
Used as reuse water48,489.1030,839.075982.78
Table 6. Annual costs (BRL) with water treatment product.
Table 6. Annual costs (BRL) with water treatment product.
Consumption of Chemical in Plants
Volume (m3)Average Chemical Consumption (kg/m3)Average Cost (BRL/m3)Annual Consumption (kg/m3)Annual Cost (BRL/m3)
88,162 −3001.92−2122.35
Economics of Water Treatment Product by Reuse
Reuse water (m3) Average cost (BRL/m3) Annual cost (BRL/m3)
48,489.1 24.09 −1168,102.42
Table 7. Analysis of environmental impact reduction.
Table 7. Analysis of environmental impact reduction.
ComponentMass (kg)AbioticBioticWaterAir
B431.991062.7 5032.7338.88
Bo439.933347.85 7104.84475.12
Pb35.26639 4788.9680.4
Cu83.7529,185.72 30,751.08134.01
Cr III83.751807.41 42,283.99424.63
Fe1295.9821,629.93 251,109.362890.04
F405.551188.25 3211.9224.33
Mn85.521427.28 16,569.8190.7
Ni161.3422,795.23 37,646.256587.37
Z434.649640.29 149,081.06990.98
Phenols37.03159.96 1045.381.09
AlCl30.050.45 5.730.06
Al2(SO4)30.97.78 99.921.04
FeClSO400 0.130
Polymer (acrylamide)00 0.060
Limestone0.310.76 3.60.03
Cl0.210.81 21.360.23
Fluosilicic acid0.170.25 0.250.01
Potable water48,489,100484,891 63,035,8300
MIC 674,927.741233.5665,362,150.1927,770.2
MIT 66,066,081.69
Table 8. Indexes of economic and environmental gain.
Table 8. Indexes of economic and environmental gain.
Comparison of Economic and Environmental Gain
ECGI = MTE/EG6785.66
ENGI = MTI/EG9238.87
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira Neto, G.C.d.; Nakamura, S.Y.; Pinto, L.F.R.; Santana, J.C.C. Environmental Compliance through the Implementation of Effluent Treatment Plant at a Company in the Cosmetics Sector. Water 2023, 15, 400.

AMA Style

Oliveira Neto GCd, Nakamura SY, Pinto LFR, Santana JCC. Environmental Compliance through the Implementation of Effluent Treatment Plant at a Company in the Cosmetics Sector. Water. 2023; 15(3):400.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira Neto, Geraldo Cardoso de, Sergio Yoshiyuki Nakamura, Luiz Fernando Rodrigues Pinto, and José Carlos Curvelo Santana. 2023. "Environmental Compliance through the Implementation of Effluent Treatment Plant at a Company in the Cosmetics Sector" Water 15, no. 3: 400.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop