IntechOpen
IntechOpen

Open access peer-reviewed article

Microbial and Physicochemical Approaches in Sustainable Management of Sugar Mill Effluent

Rahul Kumar Nigam
Prateek Singh
Jay Shankar Singh

This Article is part of Environmental Engineering & Clean Technologies Section

Version of Record (VOR)

*This version of record replaces the original advanced online publication published on 19/01/2026

aligned with united nations sdgs

UN SDGs
Related Goals:

aligned with united nations sdgs
aligned with united nations sdgs
aligned with united nations sdgs

Article metrics overview

46 Article Downloads

View Full Metrics

Article Type:

Date of acceptance: January 2026

Date of publication: February 2026

DoI: 10.5772/geet20250125

copyright: ©2025 The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

Table of contents

Graphical Abstract
Introduction
National and International Status of Sugarcane Production
Problems in SME Management
Impact of SME on Microbial Community, Crop Production, Human Health, and Aquatic Life
Sustainable Management of SME
Practices to Reduce SME Generation
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Funding
Ethical statement
Data availability statement
Conflict of Interest

Abstract

Sugar mill effluent (SME) is a major industrial pollutant characterized by high organic load, dark coloration, and elevated nutrient and metal concentrations, collectively posing risks to environmental quality and human health. Untreated SME disrupts aquatic ecosystems, degrades water quality, and alters soil physicochemical properties, ultimately impairing native microbial communities and reducing agricultural productivity. While numerous physicochemical treatment methods exist, their high cost, sludge generation, and limited sustainability have prompted growing interest in biological alternatives. In response to this issue, research has focused on sustainable microbial-based strategies for SME remediation, with particular emphasis on an under-explored yet highly promising methanotrophs as soil microbial communities. Methanotrophs offer a distinct dual-function advantage due to their metabolic versatility and broad-spectrum methane monoxygenase enzyme, enabling co-metabolic degradation of SME-derived pollutants, while simultaneously oxidizing methane, a potent greenhouse gas emitted during the anaerobic decomposition of untreated effluent discharge. Though numerous research investigations describe the role of methanotrophs in mineralization and degradation of many inorganic, organic, and hydrogenated persistent pollutants from soil, the role of soil methanotrophs community composition in degradation and detoxification of SME discharged pollutants has not been investigated so far. Therefore, it is expected that involving methanotrophs into SME discharged soil system might be a viable option to mineralize and detoxify the complex pollutants. This review outlines the application of methanotrophs to the SME polluted soils and treatment systems, as a low-cost, environmentally aligned, and eco-friendly approach to detoxify SME pollutant load that generate good soil health and long-term safe agricultural crop productivity.

Keywords

  • global warming

  • greenhouse gas

  • methane emission

  • methanotrophs

  • sugar mill effluent

Author information

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

The sugar industry is a significant contributor to environmental degradation, generating substantial amounts of pollution discharges [1] and producing large quantities of sugar mill effluent (SME) and solid waste, including bagasse, press mud, and filter cake [2]. The industry has struggled significantly in the effective management of large volumes of effluents and associated pollution load [3]. Sugar mills produce approximately 1,000 ton of effluent per ton of crushed cane [4]. Effluent generated during sugar production contains grease and suspended particles, high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and a variable pH [5-7]. In India, the use of SME in irrigation has led to the accumulation of toxic heavy metals in plant tissues, soil, and groundwater [3]. This practice leads to ecological disturbances, affecting soil systems, microbial processes, and aquatic bodies [8], and poses a health risk to both humans and animals [9, 10]. Farmers often use untreated SME unscientifically, resulting in reduced plant growth, crop yield, and soil health [11–13].

Discharge of SME also led to climate disturbances through methane (CH4) emissions – a potent greenhouse gas liberated during anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in untreated SME [4, 14, 15]. During decomposition of untreated SME, the anaerobic methanogens actively produce CH4. SME can enhance the population of methanotrophs (CH4-oxidizing bacteria) more effectively in the rhizosphere zone. A comprehensive understanding of CH4 emission and methanotrophic-mediated CH4 consumption dynamics (Figure 1) in SME-affected environments is essential for mitigation. This requires a thorough exploration of the complex relationship between CH4 emission and oxidation, as well as comprehensive research aimed at understanding the mechanisms responsible for CH4 emissions in paddy fields.

Figure 1.

Schematic presentation showing the production of CH4 in SME discharge and CH4 oxidation by methanotrophic communities present in paddy soil.

Significant research focusing on creating multifunctional CH4-utilizing microbial consortia could simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and enhance plant growth. Effective mitigation of these emissions requires proper SME treatment, either utilizing CH4 as an electron source or preventing its formation at the initial stages through strategies such as anaerobic digestion and improved waste management. Previously, several reports have been published on microbial detoxification of SME, but the potential role of methanotrophs possessing broad-spectrum methane monooxygenase (MMOs) in SME degradation has not been reported. Given their ability to oxidize CH4, it is reasonable to expect that methanotrophs may also contribute to the degradation of SME-derived pollutants, offering a cost-effective, dual-benefit solution for pollution control and crop productivity.

The sugar industry faces ongoing environmental challenges due to insufficient SME management because of limited technical knowledge, financial constraints, and inadequate wastewater infrastructure. Addressing these issues requires coordinated efforts between industry and regulatory bodies to develop sustainable and economical solutions. Significant research gaps persist in the management of SME. Few studies have evaluated the capacity of methanotrophs to degrade SME-specific pollutants, such as melanoidins and phenolic compounds, and their interactions with soil physicochemical properties following SME application remain unexplored. Furthermore, limited attention has been given to the influence of edaphic factors on methanotrops-mediated remediation, and a standardized framework for integrating methanotrophs-based approaches into conventional SME treatment systems is still lacking.

Accordingly, this review examines the environmental and agronomic impacts of SME, including its effects on microbial communities, crop productivity, plant physiology, human health, and aquatic ecosystems. It further evaluates existing biological and physicochemical treatment methods and proposes sustainable directions for future management, emphasizing the potential of methanotroph-mediated remediation as a dual-benefit, low-cost, and climate-positive strategy.

National and International Status of Sugarcane Production

Most of India’s sugar production originates from sugarcane, which is the second-largest agricultural sector in the country [6]. Sugarcane, the principal raw material for sugar production, has witnessed substantial expansion in its cultivation area, growing from1.7 million hectares in 1950–1951 to 5.74 million hectares in 2023–2024 [16].Sugarcane yield has also seen a notable increase, rising from 33 ton per hectare in 1950–1951 to around 78.9 ton per hectare in 2023–2024 [16]. This substantial growth has propelled India to become the world’s second-largest sugar producer [17, 18]. The top 10 global sugarcane-producing countries for the year 2023–2024 have been presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Top 10 sugarcane-producing countries across the globe during, FY 2023–2024. Source: adapted from data based on FAOSTAT [19].

About 86% of the world’s sugar production comes from sugarcane [20]. Brazil, India, Thailand, and China are giant sugarcane producers globally [19]. India produced 453 million ton (Mt) of sugarcane during 2023–2024. In India, the top sugar-producing states are Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, with Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra accounting for 70.98% of the nation’s total sugar output in 2022–2023 [16]. In India, 534 working sugar mills produced 19.1% of global sugar production in the 2022–2023 season [16]. Sugarcane production in India during 2016–2023 is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Sugarcane production during 2016–2023 in India. Source: adapted from data based on GOI [16].

Problems in SME Management

The environmental impact of sugar industries is particularly pronounced in developing nations, due to inadequate effluent management systems [21]. In India, pollution control norms allow maximum effluent discharge of 200 L per ton of cane crushed [22]. However, many sugar mills claim to provide proper treatment, but the discharged wastewater often exceeds permissible limits [23, 24]. SME possesses a high organic load due to chemical usage during processing. These include poly-electrolytes for coagulating and gelling impurities during defecation and carbonation, sulfur dioxide (SO2) for decolorization, and NaOH/Na2CO3 for cleaning [25]. Moreover, the effluents contain organic compounds, macro- and micronutrients, heavy metals, and toxic components in dissolved or suspended forms, which adversely affect the physical, chemical, and physiological conditions of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [26, 27]. Table 1 represents the SME distribution across different units of a typical sugar plant.

Effluent units(Cubic meter/day)
Mill house55–85
Boiling house150–200
Boiler house (blow down)45–55
Excess condensate20–30
Lime hydrator14–16
Sulfur furnaces14–25
Pump cooling water80–110
Spray pond overflow400–500
Final effluent400–500

Table 1.

Amount of SME generated from various units in the sugar industry [28].

Despite the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, sugar mills continue to pollute due to a lack of consciousness, environmental neglect, and the pursuit of economic gain. This has severely compromised water quality, notably in the sacred Ganga River, which flows through key sugar-producing regions in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and neighboring states, and is heavily polluted by SME discharge [29]. The high oxygen demand of SME degradation leads to anaerobic conditions, resulting in low dissolved oxygen (DO), the release of unpleasant odors, the formation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and black iron sulfide deposits, creating an inhospitable environment for aquatic life [30]. Although water quality improves with distance from the discharge source, indicating a reduction in pollution levels [10]. However, these practices contribute to the destruction of natural habitats, excessive use of water resources, and degradation of water, soil, and air quality, even beyond sugar-producing areas.

Water Pollution by SME

The untreated SME leads to pollution of both terrestrial and aquatic environments with the release of foul odor into the atmosphere if managed improperly. SME is characterized by low pH, high temperature, turbidity, electrical conductivity, alkalinity, and elevated levels of BOD, COD, total acidity, total solids, total hardness, sulfate, phosphate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, total dissolved solids (TDSs), and total suspended solids (TSSs) [31–33]. It also contains a significant concentration of dissolved inorganic and organic matter [9, 34], nutrients, carbonates, heavy metals, and many other pollutants [24, 31].

Due to limited access to freshwater sources, some farmers experience water scarcity and are often led to use SME for irrigation, as a readily available and cost-effective alternative. However, its excessive coloration in water bodies hinders light penetration, impairing the growth of phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish population, and reducing the DO level [35]. When highly contaminated SME is stored in ponds or nearby water bodies, toxic metals can leach into groundwater through seepage. This leads to widespread contamination, nutrient overloading, eutrophication, and low DO levels, resulting in widespread fish mortality [24, 36–39]. Untreated wastewater contains nitrogen mainly as ammonia and organic nitrogen, in soluble and particulate forms [40]. A major health concern associated with nitrate-contaminated water is methemoglobinemia [41], where nitrites oxidize iron in hemoglobin, forming methemoglobin and impairing oxygen transport. This condition becomes fatal when methemoglobin levels exceed 10%. Consuming nitrates through drinking water can increase N-nitroso compounds, raising cancer risk, birth defects, thyroid dysfunction, etc [42]. Studies have reported that untreated SME exceeded set Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and ISI irrigation standards, with elevated levels of color, total solids, COD, BOD, fluoride, alkalinity, and heavy metals (Table 2) [43–45]. Government regulations for SME in India have been progressively tightened through updates to CPCB standards and Environment (Protection) Rules, with stricter limits on BOD, COD, TDS, TSS, pH, and oil and grease, and reduced discharge norms now targeting ~200 L of effluent per ton of cane crushed and lower under Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) frameworks. Although sugarcane production has increased over the years, historical data show that untreated or poorly treated effluent often exceeded permissible limits.

ParametersSME Concentration*CPCB limits for land disposal
pH6.5–8.85.5–8.5
Temperature25–35°CLess than 5°C above the receiving water temperature
EC2.3–5.8 dS/m-
Phosphorus60 mg/L5 mg/L
Calcium180 mg/L-
Chlorides18–40 mg/L1 mg/L
Sulfate40–70 mg/L2 mg/L
Oil and grease60–100 mg/L10 mg/L
Total solids870–1,950 mg/L-
Total volatile solids1,300 mg/L-
TDS400–2,100 mg/L2,100 mg/L
TSS220–3,550 mg/L30 mg/L
DO0.18–0.25 mg/L-
COD1,360–2,000 mg/L250 mg/L
BOD300–3,250 mg/L100 mg/L

Table 2.

Average SME concentration and CPCB acceptable limits of physicochemical characteristics [8, 28, 46].

*Industry-specific differences exist in these SME average range metrics


A total of 380 billion m3 of wastewater is produced each year globally, and it is projected to rise by 24% (470 billion m3) by 2030 and 51% (574 billion m3) by 2050 due to population growth and urbanization. Asia accounts for the largest share, generating 42% (159 billion m3) of global wastewater [47]. Therefore, proper management of SME is crucial before its discharge into the environment or use in agriculture to prevent groundwater contamination and safeguard the ecosystem and human health.

Soil Pollution by SME

Open discharge of SME alters soil profile, texture, and properties [36]. SME contains dissolved or suspended pollutants that can disrupt the chemical, physical, and biological balance of the ecosystems [48]. Its application deteriorates soil quality, hinders plant growth, and disrupts essential microbial communities [49]. A significant consequence is the accumulation of toxic metals in soil, subsequently taken up by plant tissues [50], resulting in unsuitable conditions for cultivation [51]. Prolonged use of untreated SME results in a decline in soil health and crop yield due to contaminants like chloride, sulfate, phosphate, magnesium, and nitrate [52]. Furthermore, it increases the accumulation of organic carbon and heavy metals, elevating the risk of contaminants in the food chain through geo-accumulation, bio-accumulation, and bio-magnification, posing serious environmental and health risks [53, 54]. SME can increase organic carbon levels, but the high concentrations of inorganic elements such as potassium and sulfur pose toxicity risk to soil health as well [55].

Impact of SME on Microbial Community, Crop Production, Human Health, and Aquatic Life

The use of SME as fertilizer and soil amendment is increasing in agriculture. However, if not managed properly, it can contaminate irrigated land, damage crops, and disrupt aquatic ecosystems [56, 57]. Furthermore, SME alters microbial communities, adversely affects crop production, and poses potential threats to both human and environmental health.

Impact of SME on Microbial Community

Soil provides habitat for a diverse array of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, algae, viruses, and protozoa [58, 59]. These microbes are vital for ecosystem sustainability due to their wide distribution, genetic diversity, catabolic versatility, and stress tolerance [60]. These drive chemical transformations, nutrient cycling, and maintain soil fertility. Factors such as pH, temperature, nutrient availability (carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen), and heavy metal concentrations significantly influence microbial activity and abundance. The application of SME in soil at varied concentrations can disrupt these processes, potentially hindering plant growth [58, 61].

Elevated TDS concentration in SME has been shown to disrupt microbial population in agricultural soil [3, 51]. The impact of SME on microbial communities is complex and concentration dependent. SME can negatively affect certain groups, like vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi, with fewer VAM spores in contaminated soil due to increased levels of micronutrients and heavy metals [62]. Studies have also reported beneficial effects at lower concentrations, like diluted SME concentration (5%–25%) increased the yields of Phaseolus vulgaris [63]. The microbial population, including bacterial, fungal, and yeast populations, was significantly higher (P < 0.001) in SME irrigated soils at 50%–75% SME concentration [64, 65]. These findings reveal that the changes in the concentration of SME in affected soil vary the microbial population accordingly. Therefore, it becomes crucial to evaluate how microbial population dynamics are influenced by altering SME concentrations and to recognize that plant responses may also differ based on species-specific tolerance levels. Future efforts should focus on optimizing SME application rates and leveraging microbial consortia for sustainable SME management in agriculture.

Impact of SME on Crop Production and Plant Physiology

The application of SME on agricultural land can provide essential nutrients but also a vector for toxic elements. While soil management practices involving various metals can benefit plants, elevated concentrations of these elements may be toxic, impacting seed germination, seedling development, and ultimately crop yields [34]. Likewise, undiluted SME can disrupt soil fauna and adversely affect seed germination and plant growth [23, 66]. An increase in SME concentration decreased germination rate, and germination values were observed in seeds of Vigna angularis, Vigna cylindrical, and Sorghum cernum [67] (Table 3). Similarly, detrimental effects in maize plants and reduction in maize growth were reported with an increase in SME concentration [68].

SME concentrationSME concentration characteristicsObserved effectsReferences
Untreated SMEVery high BOD/ COD, heavy metals (Zn, Fe, Cu, and Pb) contentStrongly toxic, high organic load and heavy metals, inappropriate for irrigation, risk to aquatic life and soil health[24, 69]
Moderate untreated SMEElevated BOD/COD, low DOAquatic stress due to low DO, the mortality of sensitive aquatic organisms[70]
SME irrigation at 10% concentrationMixed but acceptable physicochemical parameters; moderate nutrient and organic loadEnhanced seed germination, seedling growth, and soil fertility compared with the control. Potential as nutrient-rich irrigation water[23, 69]
SME irrigation at ≥25%–50% concentrationElevated EC, TDS, salts, possible heavy metals accumulation, high BOD/COD, disturbed soil pH, and salinityDecreased germination %, chlorophyll, biomass, root and shoot elongation. Increased phytotoxicity, soil degradation, and risk of heavy metal accumulation[23, 69, 71]
Repeated SME irrigation at 100% concentrationMarked rises in soil EC, salinity, heavy metal content, and alkalinity. Low moisture-holding capacity, disturbed soil structureSoil fertility loss, reduced crop productivity, potential heavy-metal toxicity to soil biota and plants, and long-term soil degradation[70, 71]

Table 3.

Representing different SME concentration ranges and corresponding observed environmental or biological effects.

However, numerous studies demonstrate that appropriately diluted SME can serve as a beneficial organic amendment. Seeds of mustard (Brassica nigra) and fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum) achieved maximum germination rates of 95% and 80%, respectively, at 10% SME concentration, while higher concentrations declined in these morphological parameters [72]. At 25% SME, chickpeas showed improved germination, seedling growth, and biochemical traits, while 100% SME was inhibitory [73]. Furthermore, 75% SME concentration, particularly when combined with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), improved growth and yield in maize by optimizing key characteristics such as chlorophyll content, fresh weight, and kinetic growth rate; however, these benefits declined at a full 100% concentration [74, 75]. Similarly, cultivation of Chlorella vulgaris (PSBDU06) in 10% SME with KNO3 resulted in higher biomass (6.85 ± 0.34 g L⁻1) and photosynthetic pigments (2.87 ± 0.14 µg L⁻1), indicating effective nutrient removal and potential of large-scale algal production [76]. Moreover, the maximum yield of Agaricus bisporus (158.42 ± 8.74 g per kg fresh substrate), biological efficiency (105.61 ± 3.97%), and the shortest spawn-running time were observed at 75% SME enrichment, while 100% concentration showed negative effects on such parameters [77]. These studies suggest that diluted SME can potentially be used as an organic fertilizer and valuable compost in agricultural fields to enhance crop growth, production, and reduce soil toxicity.

Impact of SME on Human Health

The discharge of Untreated SME is a significant source of groundwater contamination in surrounding areas, rendering water resources unsuitable for human consumption [8, 39]. Through seepage and leaching, harmful impurities from SME enter into aquifers, causing serious health issues in exposed populations, including hyperkeratosis, peripheral vascular disease, restrictive lung disease, hypertension, and gangrene [78]. Farmers using SME for irrigation reported dermatological problems, such as itching and blistering, as well as physical injuries to hands and legs [79]. Furthermore, high concentrations of TDS and TSS in SME have been potentially linked to increased cancer rates [51]. These health impacts are widespread, for instance, in the Badin district, where residents exposed to SME reported skin problems, asthma, and eye infections, while livestock deaths were attributed to the consumption of contaminated water [80]. The problem of groundwater contamination is often most severe near the source, as demonstrated near Setabganj Sugar Mills Limited in Bangladesh, where pollution was more significant at proximal sites than the distant ones [81].

The presence of elevated levels of toxic Pb2+ metal ions in effluents, soil, surface water, and groundwater [70]. Notably, elevated levels of toxic heavy metal ions can accumulate in the human body through SME contaminated groundwater and food chain, causing damage to bones and other vital organs, resulting in various health issues like diarrhea, cancer, renal, and neurological disorders.

Impact of SME on Aquatic Life

SME rich in sugar, other organic compounds, and toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium significantly impact aquatic ecosystems. These toxins can kill aquatic organisms directly and may also enter the human body through the consumption of contaminated aquatic animals. The high organic load present in SME provides nutrition to microbes, and its decomposition results in rapid depletion of DO levels, creating anoxic conditions, resulting in unpleasant odors, H2S gas, and death of aquatic organisms [82]. This H2S reacts with iron to form black sulfide, causing unsightly pollution [23]. Currently, pollutants, such as phosphate, magnesium, nitrate, chloride, and sulfate, contribute to eutrophication, further negatively impacting the survival of aquatic life and water quality [83]. Elevated BOD levels indicate intense oxygen consumption by microbial activities, stressing or suffocating fish and other aerobic organisms [70]. This degradation of aquatic habitat also reduces wetland biodiversity and marine fauna [80]. Fish mortality increased with longer exposure periods and higher effluent concentrations, indicating the toxic effects of xenobiotics present in SME. Mortality was likely caused by disruptions in metabolic processes caused by the effluent. The toxicity level varies with factors such as species, weight, concentration, exposure duration, chemical form, etc. [84]. Ultimately, the expansion of the sugar industry, coupled with urbanization and a growing population, exacerbates the pollution of water bodies and disrupts the integrity of aquatic ecosystems.

Sustainable Management of SME

In response to stringent environmental regulations, such as CPCB guidelines, sugar industries are required to implement ZLD systems to prevent the release of untreated effluents [34]. Effective treatment begins with a comprehensive analysis of wastewater characteristics to determine the necessity for primary (e.g., filtration and sedimentation), secondary (biological), and tertiary (polishing) treatment stages, as well as disposal (Table 4, Figure 4). This analysis is crucial for designing an efficient process, setting residue limits, establishing validation protocols, and assessing final effluent toxicity [6].

Treatment stageTreatment processContaminants removed
Primary (Mechanical)Sedimentation, Screening/Grit Chamber, Filtration, Skimming tank.Coarse and fine particles, oil and grease.
Secondary (Biological)Trickling filter, Advanced sludge process, Aerated lagoon, Oxidation pond, Membrane bioreactor.Biodegradable organic matter, soluble and particulate (suspended) BOD.
TertiaryDisinfection, Ozonation, Reverse Osmosis, Adsorption, Electrodialysis, UV Irradiation, Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASBR), Constructed wetlands, Coagulation.Organic/Inorganic pathogens.

Table 4.

List of contaminants removed through treatment processes under different treatment phases of wastewater treatment.

Figure 4.

The various possible sustainable methods for SME treatment.

Filtration and sedimentation are commonly used in the sugar industry [85], but the traditional physical and chemical processes for managing wastewater from the sugar industry are costly and can lead to secondary pollution, prompting to shift toward eco-friendly and cost-effective biological treatment methods [30]. The COD/BOD ratio is a key indicator for selecting an appropriate wastewater treatment process. A low ratio (<2.5) indicates a high fraction of biodegradable content, making biological treatment the recommended choice. Conversely, a high ratio (>4.0) suggests a significant portion of inert, non-biodegradable compounds. In such cases, biological treatment is not recommended, and the feasibility of chemical treatment systems should be evaluated [86].

Biological Method of SME Treatment

Microbial treatment is a sustainable and economical approach utilizing natural processes to transform hazardous pollutants into non-toxic or less toxic forms [87]. Due to the inherent ability of microbes to degrade a wide range of complex substances, microbes have been widely employed for the biodegradation of hazardous compounds in various industrial wastes [88]. The biological wastewater treatment (BWT) is an effective method in treating highly contaminated SME, protecting living organisms, and promoting environmental sustainability [89]. Integration of BWT with processes like the Activated Sludge Process (ASP) enhances treatment efficiency of the plant [90]. Designing an effective wastewater treatment system requires an initial estimation of the SME concentration to combine biological and physicochemical processes based on the final specifications of treated water. BWT depends upon microbial activity to eliminate pollutants, including technologies such as up-flow anaerobic sludge blankets (UASB), fluidized bed reactors, lagoons, aerated ponds, and hybrid aerobic and anaerobic systems [91]. Since SME is rich in sugars and volatile fatty acids that are readily biodegradable, both anaerobic and aerobic biological treatment processes are suitable for its management [92]. Aerobic degradation effectively treats most SME components, excluding oil and grease contents, as they release CH4 during hydrolysis. While anaerobic process partially breaks down nutrients (except oil and grease), energy-intensive aerobic processes can effectively remove organic matter in combined systems [93, 94]. Bioremediation is preferred over physicochemical approaches for its effectiveness in SME treatment [30].

Bioremediation of SME

Bioremediation employs beneficial microorganisms like bacteria, fungi, or yeast to remove or neutralize contaminated soil and water through immobilization, detoxification, or alteration of harmful contaminants. This approach offers a cost-effective and eco-friendly alternative to conventional techniques [95, 96]. Although conventional techniques are effective, they are labor-intensive and time-consuming. Significant scientific advancements have been made in both in-situ and ex-situ bioremediation strategies [97]. Microbes facilitate remediation by breaking down complex organic waste into simpler compounds by transforming organic materials generally into CH4, H2S, CO2, H2, H2O, and energy, supporting their growth during remediation [98]. Among these, PGPR plays a critical role by interacting with plant roots, producing beneficial compounds, enhancing nutrient uptake, and protecting plants [99]. PGPR can occur naturally at the contaminated site (intrinsic bioremediation) or be introduced externally (bioaugmentation) [100]. A study employing PGPR and fungal isolates (Aspergillus niger and Penicillium spp.; Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp.) in SME contaminated soil showed reduced pollutant levels through microbial accumulation [101]. Biological treatments such as phycoremediation, bioaugmentation, constructed wetlands (CWs), and biochar-based systems effectively reduce the high organic load of SME. Combined phycoremediation and bioaugmentation degrade about 80% of organic pollutants and remove up to 90% of heavy metals, offering an economically viable option. Biochar-based treatments similarly achieve around 80% reduction in organic content [102].

CWs, particularly when enhanced with biochar or other adsorbents, provide an effective decentralized treatment option for SME. A 2024 lab-scale study using a horizontal subsurface flow wetland planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis attained removal efficiencies of COD (88%), BOD (97%), total nitrogen (96%), and sulfate (95%), even at high influent loads (COD 3,800 mg/L; BOD 2,470 mg/L) [103]. These results validate the strong potential of CWs to treat SME and produce effluent safe for seed germination and aquatic life.

Biochar-amended CWs (or biochar-filled filter media) significantly enhance adsorption and microbial degradation processes. Although most biochar–wetland research focuses on municipal wastewater, recent findings show that biochar eliminates the organic pollutants, nutrients, and even antibiotic-resistant bacteria by strengthening both adsorption and microbial activity [104, 105]. Considering the high concentrations of recalcitrant compounds in SME (e.g., melanoidins and phenolics), biochar-enhanced CWs and filtration systems represent a low-cost, low-maintenance, and scalable treatment strategy for the sugar industry.

Phycoremediation is yet another highly promising bio-based strategy for SME treatment. A recent study showed that C. vulgaris reduced COD (~6,000 mg/L) by over 80% within 144 hours while producing energy-rich biomass, highlighting the dual benefits of treatment and resource recovery [106]. Furthermore, a 2024 study reported ≥90% COD removal through microalgae-bacteria or microalgae-yeast consortia, outperforming monocultures [107]. Supporting this, a recent review found that algae-integrated CWs achieve average removal efficiencies for COD (~75%), total nitrogen (~74%), and total phosphorus (~79%) [108], indicating strong potential for hybrid algae–wetland systems in simultaneous pollutant removal and biomass generation. Microalgae-bacteria (Chlorella sorokiniana A7, Rhodococcus sp. B009, Bacillus sp. B010, and B013) and microalgae-yeast (C. sorokiniana A7 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Y2) consortia significantly enhanced COD removal from wastewater. Co-cultivation with C. sorokiniana and selected microbes achieved ≥90% COD reduction, demonstrating a feasible, efficient biological treatment for SME. A co-culture of Chlorella sp. with Aspergillus sp. was highly effective for treating SME [109]. The fungal activities also positively impacted wastewater decolorization and enhanced the removal of suspended solids.

Melanoidin, a complex polymer present in wastewater, darkens water, inhibits sunlight penetration, hinders aquatic photosynthesis, and elevates COD levels. Exiguobacteriumacetylicum strain QD-3, Bacillus cereus strain H3, Enterobacter cloacae strain CPO 4.14C, and Enterobacter sp. LY402 are capable of degrading synthetic melanoidin [30, 110]. Moreover, Enterobacter aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and B. cereus have been reported in the effective removal of SME contamination [111]. Specific microbes have shown high efficacy in SME treatment; for instance, A. niger showed effective SME bioremediation, reducing pH (38.63%), EC (18.76%), TDS (18.74%), BOD (47.62%), and COD (44.68%) [112]. S. aureus and Bacillus subtilis also lowered pH, BOD, and COD levels [98]. A bacterial consortium comprising B. subtilis, Serratia marcescens, and Enterobacter asburiae effectively reduced BOD, COD, TDS, TSS, and heavy metals through aerobic treatment. Conventional methods are often expensive and environmentally harmful, whereas biotreatment offers a cost-effective, efficient, and eco-friendly alternative [113].

Various microbial communities have been reported to degrade and detoxify the SME toxins. Similarly, methanotrophs containing MMOs [114–116] may also possess the ability to decontaminate or reduce the SME toxicity. However, the impact of SME on the soil methanotrophic population in paddy fields remains not investigated (Figure 1). The SME-affected paddy soil may create favorable conditions, encouraging the growth of methanotrophs populations or altering the bacterial community structure. The paddy plant enhances oxygen transport into the rhizospheric zone, potentially leading to the proliferation of methanotrophs. Furthermore, the application of anaerobic and aerobic methanotrophs should be explored as an innovative strategy for mitigating CH4 in anthropogenically influenced ecosystems. This approach holds significant promise for enhancing wastewater treatment processes and facilitating resource recovery from organic waste streams. Plant-microbe interactions play a crucial role in advancing sustainable agriculture [117]. Moreover, treated SME can serve as a valuable source of irrigation water and nutrients. This approach not only reduces costs but also significantly contributes to maintaining soil fertility in modern farming systems, thereby decreasing dependence on synthetic chemical fertilizers and providing other valuable benefits (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Application of methanotrophs in paddy agriculture and environmental sustainability.

Recent advances in bio-based treatment technologies highlight new opportunities for sustainable SME management. Bio-electrochemical systems, such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs), have shown strong potential for treating high-organic wastewaters while recovering energy. Reduced graphene oxide (PKS-rGO) anodes achieved up to 87% formaldehyde removal, with microbial sequencing revealing the dominance of Bacillus siamensis and Bacillus velezensis strains, highlighting their key role in enhanced bioremediation performance [118]. In a recent study, MFCs bioremediation efficiencies for heavy metals of 89.12% for Cu2+, 84.43% for Cd2+, and 89.58% for Pb2+ were reported [119]. These technologies provide an effective basis for developing hybrid treatment systems that combine pollution reduction with resource recovery.

Thus, an integrated treatment strategy combining phycoremediation, targeted bioaugmentation, CWs, biochar-based systems, and MFCs, along with methanotrophic co-cultures/consortia, offers an efficient, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable resolution for eliminating complex and recalcitrant contaminants from SME. Ultimately, the success of this approach depends on the strategic selection of specialized microbial consortia and the design of treatment systems tailored to the specific chemical and organic profiles of effluent streams, enabling both effective detoxification and resource recovery.

Aerobic Process

Aerobic microbes break down organic matter by oxygenases and peroxidases into CO2, H2O, and biomass while deriving energy, carbon, and essential nutrients during the process [30]. Sugar mills employ aerobic microbial treatment processes like the ASP, trickling filters, membrane bioreactors (MBRs), stabilization ponds, CWs, etc., for wastewater management [30, 120]. The ASP is a highly effective method and treats wastewater through adsorption and biological oxidation. It effectively reduces organic matter and removes nitrogen and phosphorus, preventing eutrophication in water bodies [121, 122]. However, elevated TSS and TDS can lower its efficiency, requiring proper effluent characterization and pretreatment. Many sugar industries face challenges with high levels of TDS, especially due to the presence of sulfates in effluent, which can be mitigated through calcium precipitation [3, 123]. A trickling filter system comprises of bed containing materials such as rocks, gravel, slag, peat moss, or plastic. SME is distributed over the top of the bed and flows downward, coming into contact with microbial biofilm (slime layer) that adsorbs and aerobically oxidizes organic compounds from the wastewater [30]. The moving-bed biofilm sequencing batch reactor (MBSBR), an aerobic system combining an MBSBR, is effective for treating SME, requiring no sludge recirculation and smaller reactor. Vols. 87% BOD and 84.2% COD removal were achieved, along with stable mixed liquor suspended solids (3,639 mg/L) and mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (2,909 mg/L) levels [124].

The MBR process integrates microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes with a suspended growth bioreactor. This method resembles ASP; it utilizes an activated sludge consortium but replaces secondary clarification with membrane filtration. This allows MBRs to operate at higher concentrations of suspended solids wastewater, enabling a smaller reactor footprint while maintaining higher loading rates and producing superior quality of effluent [30, 125, 126]. The innovative Aged Refuse Filled Bioreactor effectively treats SME by removing organic matter, COD, and color, eliminating the need for further purification [127]. Stabilization ponds treat wastewater through bacteriological oxidation and algal photosynthesis, where microbes such as Achromobacter, Proteus, Alcaligenes, Pseudomonas, Thiospirillum, and Rhodothecae can degrade organic matter and are often considered an optimal solution for wastewater stabilization [38]. CWs remove pollutants through different fillers supporting microbial communities crucial for treatment. The dominant bacterial groups include Proteobacteria, Spirochaetota, Bacteroidota, Desulfobacterota, and Chloroflexi. Lemna minor L. combined with brick rubble has shown high efficiency in treating SME, achieving removal rates of 72.19% BOD, 74.82% COD, 78% TDS, 74.1% total nitrogen, 81.07% total phosphorous, 72.90% TSS, 79.62% NH₄⁺-N, 77.84% NO₃⁻-N, and 87.73% ortho phosphorous [128]. Aerobic treatment is a vital and powerful component in the sustainable management of SME. While its standalone use is energy prohibitive, its role as a polishing step following anaerobic pretreatment creates a synergistic system that is both economically viable and environmentally sound. This combination ensures regulatory compliance, protects water resources, and contributes to the overall sustainability of the sugar industry by enabling water reuse and minimizing ecological impact.

Anaerobic Process

Anaerobic microbes decompose organic material into CH4, CO2, and biomass, offering an efficient solution for treating SME with a high organic load. Anaerobic digestion is a technically viable, cost-effective, and highly efficient treatment method [30, 129]. This method offers several benefits over aerobic processes, including lower energy requirements, producing CH4 as a byproduct of organic matter decomposition (which can be harnessed as an energy source), and generating less sludge [130, 131]. Widely used high-rate anaerobic digesters include UASB reactors, anaerobic sequencing batch reactors (ASBR), anaerobic fluidized bed reactor (AFBR) and anaerobic filters [24, 126].

The UASB reactor is an effective high-rate anaerobic microbial digestion method, operating under neutral pH conditions and mesophilic temperature range presents a practical and effective method for reducing SME pollution [132]. ASBR technology offers greater flexibility than conventional biological treatments and has demonstrated promising results, achieving COD removal efficiencies of 81%–91% while treating SME at an inlet load of 0.25 g COD/L/day [133]. In AFBR, fine particle-sized sand, activated carbon, or similar materials are used as media to provide surfaces for microbial attachment and proliferation. These materials are maintained in a fluidized state by drag forces generated by the upward flow of wastewater. In SME treatment, an AFBR operating at 55°C achieved up to 71% COD removal at an organic load of about 24 g DCO/L/d [134]. This technology has challenges, including substantial energy demands for fluidization and instability of biofilms due to shear forces [135, 136].

Anaerobic filters are fixed-film systems where microbes form biofilm on support medium, enabling organic matter degradation and solid retention as the effluent passes through the filter. This offers several advantages, including simpler construction, lower mechanical maintenance, greater stability at higher loading rates, resistance to toxic shock loads, and no need for recycling or separation [135, 137]. Using the same technology, 65% COD removal at 10 g/L was achieved [24], while about 75% COD removal from SME using anaerobic filters was reported [138]. Although anaerobic filters are effective, but they cannot completely remove pollutants from SME. Integrated anaerobic-aerobic treatment systems hold significant potential, leveraging the biodegradability of wastewater, but microbial populations can exhibit inconsistent bioremediation performance. To mitigate this, bioaugmentation of UASB reactors with defined, high-performance strains could improve efficiency. However, challenges include the formation of long-chain fatty acids during the hydrolysis of oils and fats, and incomplete removal of nutrients and organic compounds [24]. Consequently, anaerobically treated effluents often require additional treatment. Managing untreated effluent discharge requires a comprehensive approach that integrates physical, chemical, and biological methods. However, research on advanced bioremediation combined with anaerobic-aerobic treatment systems is also limited, and further investigation is required to optimize their potential.

Physicochemical Methods of SME Treatment

Advanced methods for treating SME include modern physicochemical treatment methods, such as advanced oxidation processes, membrane technology (nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, and microfiltration), electrochemical techniques [139], electro-coagulation [140], and ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system [141]. Advanced Oxidation Processes involve oxidants such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, or ultraviolet radiation to generate free radicals to eliminate pollutants present in wastewater. Adsorption is a cost-effective physicochemical method, particularly effective after bio-methanation in the sugar industry [24]. It effectively removes organic compounds and offers advantages such as cost-effectiveness, versatility, efficiency, low installation costs, operational flexibility, ease of use, resistance to toxic contaminants, and no hazardous by-products [142]. The reusing potential of adsorbents enhances the sustainability of the process, making adsorption a technically effective, economically viable, and environmentally friendly solution for wastewater management [143–145]. Membrane processes use pores of varying sizes to separate pollutants from SME, effectively removing dissolved and suspended solids to produce high-quality water. However, they are energy-intensive and require frequent cleaning and maintenance to prevent fouling and scaling [146].

The electrochemical process is a novel approach that encompasses electro-oxidation, electro-coagulation, and electro-flotation [30]. EC has proven highly effective for SME treatment, achieved removal of COD (80.74%) from SME using a batch reactor with a RuO₂-coated titanium anode and a stainless-steel cathode [139]. Similarly, coupling EC with an adsorption-enhanced treatment revised in approximately 92% COD removal from SME and improved effluent biodegradability [147]. Moreover, electro-coagulation and flotation is highly efficient, making alternative to traditional physicochemical methods [148], with a recent study reporting 75.98% COD removal from SME [149]. Electrochemical oxidation (ECO), an advanced oxidation process, offers clean and versatile treatment by generating hydroxyl radicals in situ without toxic by-products. Hybrid systems, including coagulation–flocculation/ECO/ozone, achieved 90.65% fluoride removal, while Fenton oxidation–adsorption significantly removed 97% total organic carbon [150]. Electro-oxidation combined with coagulation-flocculation removed COD and NH₄⁺-N from wastewater using a low-cost graphite anode, achieving 100% removal of both COD and NH4⁺-N, demonstrating the suitability of this hybrid technology for industrial applications [151]. In addition, the coupling of electro-coagulation and ultrasonication achieves a COD removal of approximately 84% from 1,680 mg/L to 270 mg/L from SME [140].

Flocculation and coagulation are fundamental processes to eliminate suspended, dissolved, and colloidal solids from wastewater, commonly used in preliminary treatment stages [92]. It effectively removes impurities, particularly colloidal particles, through mechanisms such as destabilization, polymer bridging, and sweep coagulation [152]. This involves adding coagulants with opposite charges to neutralize suspended particles, destabilizing them and allowing them to aggregate into larger, removable flocs [30, 153]. For example, a coagulation-flocculation method using lime with poly diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride achieved removal efficiencies of 97% for turbidity, 92.8% for TSS, 95.5% for TDS, and 90.5% for COD [154]. The most commonly used chemical coagulants in wastewater treatment are aluminum sulfate (Al2[SO4]3), ferric sulfate (Fe2[SO4]3), aluminum chloride (AlCl3), and ferric chloride (FeCl3). However, studies have also highlighted the effectiveness of natural alternatives. Recent study demonstrated that natural coagulants could remove color (99.28%), EC (60.39%), turbidity (97.67%), chloride (69.23%), and TDS (60.42%) at a concentration of 0.25 g/L when treating effluent from the sugar industry, showcasing effectiveness that is comparable to or even superior to traditional chemical coagulants [152].

Innovative hybrid models have also been proposed, combining preliminary, primary, and secondary treatment with ultrasonication and nanoparticles for enhanced treatment [155]. Here, ultrasonication combined with silver nanoparticles serves as a tertiary treatment to eliminate residual contaminants after solid removal. Water quality is monitored at each stage, and treated water meeting purification standards can be utilized for irrigation purposes [156]. Physicochemical treatment is not a replacement for biological processes in SME management but rather a crucial complementary technology. When integrated intelligently into a treatment process, typically following biological stages, it ensures the production of a high-quality, clear, and environmentally safe effluent, capable of meeting the most rigorous regulatory standards for discharge or reuse. Its use is essential for advancing toward ZLD and sustainable water management in the sugar industry. Ultimately, a hybrid system integrating membranes with aerobic/anaerobic and/or physical-chemical methods offers a promising and comprehensive approach for achieving high-quality reuse in the sugar industry.

Practices to Reduce SME Generation

In 2025, CPCB [157] introduced “Charter 2.0” to strengthen water conservation and pollution control in the sugar industry. Unlike the 2016 norms that focused primarily on effluent discharge and water-use limits, Charter 2.0 emphasizes continuous water-use monitoring, efficient operation of effluent-treatment plants, water reuse/recycling, and regular audits of water abstraction and disposal to ensure stricter environmental compliance. SME generation can be reduced through several key measures, like installing centralized grease-lubrication systems to prevent oil contamination and spillage, while minimizing juice and water leakages through better control of gland leakages and proper collection/treatment of spills supports recycling. Moreover, maintaining dry mill-house floors and prioritizing dry cleaning over water washing further limits effluent formation. Establishing a strong cleaning schedule and coordination with the Environment Department improves maintenance efficiency. Also, installing DSM/rotary/static screens to remove bagasse and foreign materials enhances effluent quality and reduces temperature, improving overall treatment efficiency.

Conclusion

Effective management of SME is crucial for protecting environmental quality, socio-economic interests, and public health. A thorough understanding of SME properties enables the design of efficient treatment systems, setting residue criteria, and ensuring process validation. Integrated approaches that combine primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment with recycling can significantly reduce pollution, conserve freshwater, and restore ecosystem balance. Incorporating effective microbial systems, including methanotrophic consortia, further enhances treatment by degrading toxic compounds and reducing CH4 emissions from paddy fields, thereby supporting sustainable agriculture. However, several challenges remain, such as high organic loads, fluctuating wastewater characteristics, operational instability of biological processes, high capital and maintenance costs for advanced technologies, inadequate technical expertise, and poor compliance in seasonally operated sugar mills. Addressing these limitations requires future research focused on optimizing low-cost biological and hybrid treatment systems (e.g., MFCs, anaerobic–aerobic combinations), improving automation and monitoring, strengthening nutrient and energy recovery, and promoting industry-wide adoption of reduce, reuse, and recycle principles. Policy support, capacity building, and long-term performance monitoring will be essential to ensure sustainable SME management and maximize environmental and economic benefits for soils, agro-ecosystems sugar mills and local farmer community.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Head of the Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, for providing infrastructural support to conduct the research work. Rahul Kumar Nigam is also thankful to the University Grants Commission, Government of India, for the NFSC (No. F. 82-1/2018 [SA-III]) grant to support the research program.

Author Contributions

Rahul Kumar Nigam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization; Prateek Singh: Conceptualization, Data curation; Jay Shankar Singh: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Supervision. All correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Jay Shankar Singh.

Funding

This study has received funding from the University Grants Commission, Government of India, for NFSC (No. F. 82-1/2018 (SA-III)).

Ethical statement

Not applicable.

Data availability statement

Source data not available for this article.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sarfraz S, Siddique A, Qamar F, Majeed A, Raza S. A perspective review on methodologies for treating sugar industry effluents. Int J Environ Sci Nat Resour. 2019;21(4):117–122. doi:10.19080/IJESNR.2019.21.556067.
  2. 2.
    Razia M, Nallal VUM, Sivaramakrishnan S. Agro-based sugarcane industry wastes for production of high-value bioproducts. In: Krishnaraj Rathinam N, Sani RK, editors. Biovalorization of wastes to renewable chemicals and biofuels. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. p. 303–316.
  3. 3.
    Verma DK, Mandal P, Singh P, Chand D. Quality and treatment of sugar industry effluent: a study. J Indian Assoc Environ Manage. 2021;41(1):1–7.
  4. 4.
    Yadav M, RK Y, Gole VL. Sugar industry wastewater treatment: current practices and advances. In: Shah M, Rodriguez-couto S, editors. Microbial Ecology of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2021b. p. 151–174.
  5. 5.
    Albrizio S, Kozluk T, Zipperer V. Environmental policies and productivity growth: evidence across industries and firms. J Environ Econ Manage. 2017;81:209–226. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2016.06.002.
  6. 6.
    Ekka A. Physicochemical process of wastewater treatment in the sugar industry. Agpe-Rgrj. 2022;3(11):28–33.
  7. 7.
    Kumar A, Palta P, Palta A, Dhanka S, Bansal R, Fahlevi M, Rabby F, Aljuaid M. Dielectric characterization of sugar mill wastewater and its impact on soil properties in the Khadar and Bangar regions. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):20802.
  8. 8.
    Nigam RK, Singh P, JS S. Assessment of sugar mill effluent discharge on soil physicochemical attributes and its correlation with soil microbial biomass in paddy fields. Discovery Agric. 2025;11:e15da3155. doi:10.54905/disssi.v11i24.e15da3155.
  9. 9.
    Malik MS. Waste water of sugar industries: a serious threat to the natural environment. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2019;6(3):345–353. doi:10.32628/IJSRST196618.
  10. 10.
    Lad PD, Patil ST, Kadam US, Ingle PM.Effect of sugar factory effluent on physicochemical characteristics of groundwater in surrounding area. Pharma Innov. 2022;11(11):2183–2189.
  11. 11.
    Sharma M, Nagpal RK. Sugar industry as a source of pollution in India. VIDHIGYA J Legal Aware. 2019;14(1):39–47.doi:10.5958/0974-4533.2019.00003.4.
  12. 12.
    Umair Hassan M, Aamer M, Umer Chattha M, Haiying T, Khan I, Seleiman MF, Rasheed A, Nawaz M, Rehman A, Aslam MT, Afzal A, Huang G. Sugarcane distillery spent wash (DSW) as a bio-nutrient supplement: a win-win option for sustainable crop production. Agronomy. 2021;11(1):183. doi:10.3390/agronomy11010183.
  13. 13.
    Ullah H, Elahi NN, Imtiaz M, Shah MN, Asiri M, Alshahrani MY. Impacts of sugarcane industrial effluent as an alternate source of irrigation on growth, chlorophyll contents, and antioxidants of different canola varieties. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1912. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-49951-z.
  14. 14.
    Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne JL, Frame D, Lunt D, Mauritsen T, Palmer M, Watanabe M, Wild M, Zhang H. The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. Climate Change. 2021;923–1054. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.009.
  15. 15.
    Shivanna KR. Climate change and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. 2022;88(2):160–171. doi:10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6.
  16. 16.
    GOI. Price policy for sugarcane: commission for agricultural cost and prices. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture; 2024.
  17. 17.
    GOI. Department of Food and Public Distribution. Ministry of Consumer Affairs. New Delhi: Food and Public Distribution; 2018.
  18. 18.
    KR S. Rethinking on growth mechanism of Indian sugar industry. J Asia Bus Stud. 2019;13(3):412–432. doi:10.1108/JABS-12-2016-0182.
  19. 19.
    FAO. FAOSTAT database of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2023.
  20. 20.
    Chen GL, Zheng FJ, Lin B, Lao SB, He J, Huang Z, Zeng Y, Sun J, Verma KK. Phenolic and volatile compounds in the production of sugarcane vinegar. ACS Omega. 2020;5(47):30587–30595. doi:10.1021/acsomega.0c04524.
  21. 21.
    Tariq A, Mushtaq A. Untreated wastewater reasons and causes: a review of most affected areas and cities. Int J Chem Biochem Sci. 2023;23(1):121–143.
  22. 22.
    Mohan N, Bajpai A. New technique for effluent treatment in sulphitation sugar factories. Proc Annu Congr S Afr Sugar Technol Assoc. 2018;91(5):341–349.
  23. 23.
    Siddiqui WA, Waseem M. A comparative study of sugar mill treated and untreated effluent: a case study. Orient J Chem. 2012;28(8):1899–1904. doi:10.13005/ojc/280451.
  24. 24.
    Fito J, Tefera N, Kloos H, Van Hulle SW. Physicochemical properties of the sugar industry and ethanol distillery wastewater and their impact on the environment. Sugar Tech. 2019;21(2):265–277. doi:10.1007/s12355-018-0633-z.
  25. 25.
    Tanksali AS. Treatment of sugar industry wastewater by up flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Int J Chemtech Res. 2013;5(3):1246–1253.
  26. 26.
    Lavanya Y, Reddy KKK, Chandana P. Industrial waste: impact on soil health and agriculture and its management. In: Naresh RK, editor. Advances in agriculture sciences. New Delhi, India: Akinik Publications; 2019. p. 9–34.
  27. 27.
    Arivoli A, Naveen XAJ, Thangavelu S. Impact of sugar mill effluent on the quality of groundwater in Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India. In: Marimuthu PD, Sundaram R, Jeyaseelan A, Kaliannan T, editors. Bioremediation and green technologies: sustainable approaches to mitigate environmental impacts. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2021a. p. 41–52.
  28. 28.
    Ashna T. Sugar industry: process description and wastewater treatment. Environ Pollut. 2023.
  29. 29.
    Dwivedi S, Mishra S, Tripathi RD. Ganga water pollution: a potential health threat to inhabitants of Ganga basin. Environ Int. 2018;117:327–338. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.015.
  30. 30.
    Singh PK, Tripathi M, RP S, Singh P. Treatment and recycling of wastewater from sugar mill. In: Singh RL, Singh RP, editors. Advances in biological treatment of industrial waste water and their recycling for a sustainable future. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2018. p. 199–223.
  31. 31.
    Haider MI, Mustaqeem M, Ullah F, Baloch MK, Fatima F, Luqman A, Usmani MY, Ahmad F. Impact of sugar cane industry effluents on the environment of its surroundings. Sciencetech. 2022;3(3):1–13.
  32. 32.
    Hussein AMSA. Sugar industry wastewater treatment (Case Study: kom Ombo Factory). [Doctoral thesis]: Faculty of Engineering Sanitary Engineering Department, Alexandria University, Egypt; 2023.
  33. 33.
    Gbadeyan OJ, Sibiya L, Linganiso LZ, Deenadayalu N. Waste‐to‐energy: the recycling and reuse of sugar industry waste for different value‐added products such as bioenegy in selected countries–a critical review. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin. 2024;18(5):1639–1657. doi:10.1002/bbb.2579.
  34. 34.
    Kumar DS, Srikantaswamy S. Evaluation of effluent quality of a sugar industry by using physicochemical parameters. Int J Adv Res Eng Appl Sci. 2015;4(1):16–25.
  35. 35.
    Lubna Rafique LR, Hashim Zubauri HZ, Khan TMA. Physicochemical charaterization of sugar industries effluent in Sindh, Pakistan. Int J Biol Biotechnol. 2018;15(4):725–728.
  36. 36.
    Deshmukh KK. Environmental impact of sugar mill effluent on the quality of groundwater from Sangamner, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India. Res J Recent Sci. 2014;3(ISC-2013):385–392.
  37. 37.
    Saranraj P, Stella D. Impact of sugar mill effluent to environment and bioremediation: a review. World Appl Sci J. 2014;30(3):299–316. doi:10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.30.03.1656.
  38. 38.
    Muguirrima P, Chirinza N, Zerpa FAL, Perez Baez SO, Pino CAM. Sizing a system for treating effluents from the Mozambique Sugar Cane Company. Sustain. 2024;16(19):8334. doi:10.3390/su16198334.
  39. 39.
    Singh P, Verma A, Pratibha Kumari A. A review on the environmental impact and management of sugar mill effluent through phytoremediation. Environ Qual Manag. 2025;34(3):e70027. doi:10.1002/tqem.70027.
  40. 40.
    Sahu OP, Chaudhari PK. The characteristics, effects, and treatment of wastewater in sugarcane industry. Water Qual Expo Health. 2015;7:435–444. doi:10.1007/s12403-015-0158-6.
  41. 41.
    Banerjee P, Garai P, NC S, Saha S, Sharma P, Maiti AK. A critical review on the effect of nitrate pollution in aquatic invertebrates and fish. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023;234(6):333. doi:10.1007/s11270-023-06260-5.
  42. 42.
    Ward MH, Jones RR, Brender JD, De Kok TM, Weyer PJ, Nolan BT, Villanueva CM, Van Breda SG. Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1557. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071557.
  43. 43.
    Jeong H, Kim H, Jang T. Irrigation water quality standards for indirect wastewater reuse in agriculture: a contribution toward sustainable wastewater reuse in South Korea. Water. 2016;8(4):169. doi:10.3390/w8040169.
  44. 44.
    Panhwar A, Faryal K, Kandhro A, Naveed SQT, Memon N. Assessment of wastewater quality of selected sugar mills in Pakistan. Glob Sci J. 2019;7(7):1100–1118.
  45. 45.
    Yadav KK, David AA, Swaroop N, Thomas T, Hasan A, Noman M. Evaluation of Oudh sugar mill effluent impact on soil properties and heavy metal accumulation in the soil of Rosa, Shahjahanpur (UP). Pharma Innov J. 2021a;10(9):1776–1782.
  46. 46.
    Soomro S, Dahar QH, Soomro AS, Mashori AS, Mirjat MU. Impact of wastewater from sugar and fertilizer industries on ghotki feeder and agricultural fields. Int J Agric Sustain Dev. 2025;7(3):329–346.
  47. 47.
    Qadir M, Drechsel P, Jiménez Cisneros B, Kim Y, Pramanik A, Mehta P, Olaniyan O. Global and regional potential of wastewater as a water, nutrient and energy source. In: Salamat MR, Trepelkov A, Chatterjee M, Mukherjee S, Tahtinen L, editors. Natural resources forum Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2020. p. 40–51.
  48. 48.
    Bhatt C, Verma R. Physicochemical analysis of sugar mill effluent and their impact on soil of Kabirdham (C.G.). Int J Sci Eng Res. 2016;4:129–131.
  49. 49.
    Khan MM, Yang Y, Din I. Impacts of sugar mill’s effluent on soil and plant’s seed germination, Punjab, Pakistan. Environ Earth Sci. 2019;4:623–637. doi:10.25177/JESES.4.3.RA.507.
  50. 50.
    Samuel FA, Mohan V, Rebecca LJ. Physicochemical and heavy metal analysis of sugar mill effluent. J Chem Pharm Res. 2014;6(4):585–587.
  51. 51.
    Kaur A, Vats S, Rekhi S, Bhardwaj A, Goel J, Tanwar RS, Gaur KK. Physicochemical analysis of the industrial effluents and their impact on the soil micro-flora. Procedia Environ Sci. 2010;2:595–599. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2010.10.065.
  52. 52.
    Baruah AK, Sharma RN, Borah GC. Impact of sugar mill and distillery effluents on water quality of River Gelabil, Assam. Indian J Environ Health. 1993;35(4):288–293. doi:10.5555/19941907423.
  53. 53.
    Chopra AK, Pathak C, Prasad G. Scenario of heavy metal contamination in agricultural soil and its management. J Appl Nat Sci. 2009;1(1):99–108. doi:10.31018/jans.v1i1.46.
  54. 54.
    Anmai K, Habib MAB, Homohanssain MS. Chemical characteristics of different concentrations of sugarcane industry wastes for algal culture. Int J Fish Aquat Stud. 2018;3(2):21–24.
  55. 55.
    Daulta R, Rani J, Yadav A. Effect of sugar mill effluent on physicochemical properties of soil at Panipat City, India. Int Arch Appl Sci Technol. 2014;5(2):6–12. doi:10.5555/20153245770.
  56. 56.
    Kumar V, Chopra AK. Response of sweet sorghum after fertigation with sugar mill effluent in two seasons. Sugar Tech. 2013;15(3):285–299. doi:10.1007/s12355-013-0226-9.
  57. 57.
    Nagendra P, Kumar SM, Ravi BS. Physicochemical analysis of SriChamSugar’s mill effluent water of Bharathi Nagara (Karnataka). Shanlax Int J Arts Sci Humanit. 2020;7(3):15–19. doi:10.34293/sijash.v7i3.1011.
  58. 58.
    Pandey SN, Abid M, Abid Ali Khan MM. Diversity, functions, and stress responses of soil microorganisms. Plant Microbiome Stress Response. 2018;1–19. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5514-0_1.
  59. 59.
    Islam W, Noman A, Naveed H, Huang Z, Chen HY. Role of environmental factors in shaping the soil microbiome. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27:41225–41247. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10471-2.
  60. 60.
    Singh JS. Microbes: the chief ecological engineers in reinstating equilibrium in degraded ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2015a;203:80–82. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.026.
  61. 61.
    DM T, Tripathi S.Assessment of distillery effluent irrigation on soil microbes and its bioremediation. Octa J Environ Res. 2014;2(4):303–309.
  62. 62.
    Ramakrishnan K, Thamizhiniyan P, Sundaramoorthy P, Sriramachandrasekaran MV. Effect of sugar mill effluent polluted soil on VAM fungi. J Ecobiol. 2001;13(3):187–192.
  63. 63.
    Kumar V, Chopra AK. Ferti-irrigational impact of sugar mill effluent on agronomical characteristics of Phaseolus vulgaris (L.) in two seasons. Environ Monit Assess. 2014;186:7877–7892. doi:10.1007/s10661-014-3974-4.
  64. 64.
    Reddy KV, Vijayalakshmi T, Hemalatha M, Kumar YD, Raju MN. Changes in soil enzyme activities under the influence of sugar industry effluents. Int J Eng Sci Futur Technol. 2013;1(1):6–10.
  65. 65.
    Srivastava S, Chopra AK, Sharma P, Kumar V. Amendment of sugar mill wastewater irrigation on soil biohydrological properties and yield of Vigna umguiculata L. Walp in two seasons. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2017;48(5):511–523. doi:10.1080/00103624.2016.1254788.
  66. 66.
    Ramkrishan K, Thamizhirigan P, Maorthy PS, Kumar DS. Effect of sugar mill raw and yeast treated effluent on seed germination and seedling growth of paddy (Oryza sativa L. var ADT-36). Asian J Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci. 2001;3(1-2):34–40.
  67. 67.
    Doke KM, Khan EM, Rapolu J, Shaikh A. Physicochemical analysis of sugar industry effluent and its effect on seed germination of Vigna angularis, Vigna cylindrical, and Sorghum cernum. Ann Environ Sci Toxicol. 2011;5(1):7–11.
  68. 68.
    Ijaz M, Sarfraz M, Nawaz A, Yasir TA, Sher A, Sattar A, Wasaya A. Diluted sugar mill effluent application with PGPR improves the performance of maize (Zea mays L.) under an arid climate. Agronomy. 2018;8(5):67. doi:10.3390/agronomy8050067.
  69. 69.
    Vaithiyanathan T, Sundaramoorthy P.Analysis of sugar mill effluent and its influence on germination and growth of African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(8):4715–4723.
  70. 70.
    Rahim MA, Mostafa MG. Impact of sugar mills effluent on environment around mills area. AIMS Environ Sci. 2021;8(1):86–99. doi:10.3934/environsci.2021006.
  71. 71.
    Kumar V, Chopra AK.Influence of sugar mill effluent on physicochemical characteristics of soil at Haridwar (Uttarakhand), India. J Appl Nat Sci. 2010;2(2):269.
  72. 72.
    Arivoli A, Thangavelu S, Naveen XAJ. Influence of sugar mill effluent on germination and growth of fenugreek (Trigonella foenumgraecum) and mustard (Brassicanigra). In: Marimuthu PD, Sundaram R, Jeyaseelan A, Kaliannan T, editors. Bioremediation and green technologies: sustainable approaches to mitigate environmental impacts. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2021b. p. 271–281.
  73. 73.
    Suhail M, Singh KP, Ali I. Effects of crude sugarcane factory effluent on the morphological and biochemical parameters of chickpeas. Indones J Agric Sci. 2020;21(1):30–38. doi:10.21082/ijas.v.21.n1.2020.p.30.
  74. 74.
    Ijaz M, Sarfraz M, Nawaz A, Yasir TA, Sher A, Sattar A, Wasaya A. Diluted sugar mill effluent application with PGPR improves the performance of maize (Zea mays L.) under an arid climate. Agronomy. 2018;8(5):67. doi:10.3390/agronomy8050067.
  75. 75.
    Kumar V, Singh J, Kumar P. Adding benefits to phytoremediation of sugar mill effluent by growing water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): evaluation of biomass for biogas production. Arch Agric Environ Sci. 2018;3(3):275–288. doi:10.26832/24566632.2018.0303011.
  76. 76.
    Nivetha BJ, Bhakyalakshmi SV, Kumar SD, Santhanam P, Vijayalakshmi D, Divya M, Krishnaveni N. Utilization of sugarcane industry effluent for high value biomass and photosynthetic pigments production of Chlorella vulgaris (PSBDU06). BioresourTechnolRep. 2019;7:1–5. doi:10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100260.
  77. 77.
    Kumar V, Kumar P, Singh J, Kumar P. Use of sugar mill wastewater for Agaricus bisporus cultivation: prediction models for trace metal uptake and health risk assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28(21):26923–26934.
  78. 78.
    Smith AH, Lingas EO, Rahman M. Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(9):1093–1103. doi:10.1590/S0042-96862000000900005.
  79. 79.
    Mojid MA, Wyseure GCL, Biswas SK, Hossain ABMZ. Farmers perceptions and knowledge in using wastewater for irrigation at twelve peri-urban areas and two sugar mill areas in Bangladesh. Agric Water Manag. 2010;98(1):79–86. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.07.015.
  80. 80.
    Qureshi AL, Mahessar AA, Leghari MEUH, Lashari BK, Mari FM. Impact of releasing wastewater of sugar industries into drainage system of LBOD, Sindh, Pakistan. Int J Environ Sci Dev. 2015;6(5):381–386. doi:10.7763/IJESD.2015.V6.622.
  81. 81.
    Hossain SMS, Haque ME, Pramanik MAH, Uddin MJ, Al Harun MAY. Assessing the groundwater quality and health risk: a case study on Setabganj Sugar Mills Limited, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Water Sci. 2020;34(1):110–123. doi:10.1080/11104929.2020.1790184.
  82. 82.
    Quinn B, Gagné F, Blaise C. Evaluation of the acute, chronic, and teratogenic effects of a mixture of 11 pharmaceuticals on the cnidarian, Hydra attenuata. Sci Total Environ. 2009;407(3):1072–1079.
  83. 83.
    Ayyasamy PM, Yasodha R, Rajakumar S, Lakshmanaperumalsamy P, Rahman PKSM, Lee S. Impact of sugar factory effluent on the growth and biochemical characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic plants. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008;81(5):449–454. doi:10.1007/s00128-008-9523-5.
  84. 84.
    Tiwari SK, Prakash S. Toxicity and ethological responses of Mystus vittatus (Bloch) exposed to distillery wastewater. Bull Pure Appl Sci Sect A. 2021;40A(1):140–147.
  85. 85.
    Zhang H, Luo J, Liu L, Chen X, Wan Y. Green production of sugar by membrane technology: how far is it from industrialization? Green Chem. 2021;2(1):27–43. doi:10.1016/j.gce.2020.11.006.
  86. 86.
    Matos MP. Effect of binomial time-temperature of sample incubation on biochemical oxygen demand diffusion of wastewater. Master’s dissertation. Federal University of Viçosa: Minas Gerais; 2012.
  87. 87.
    Tak Y, Kaur M, Tilgam J, Kaur H, Kumar R, Gautam C. Microbes assisted bioremediation: a green technology to remediate pollutants. In: Suyal DC, Soni R, editors. Bioremediation of environmental pollutants: emerging trends and strategies, Singapore. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 25–52.
  88. 88.
    Saravanan A, Kumar PS, Duc PA, Rangasamy G. Strategies for microbial bioremediation of environmental pollutants from industrial wastewater: a sustainable approach. Chemosphere. 2023;313:137323. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137323.
  89. 89.
    Akpor OB, Ohiobor GO, Olaolu DT. Heavy metal pollutants in wastewater effluents: sources, effects and remediation. Adv Biosci Bioeng. 2014;2(4):37–43. doi:10.11648/j.abb.20140204.11.
  90. 90.
    Hreiz R, Latifi MA, Roche N. Optimal design and operation of activated sludge processes: state-of-the-art. Chem Eng J. 2015;281:900–920. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.06.125.
  91. 91.
    Ambreen H, Hussain S, Naeem N, Ahmad A, Riaz M, Saddiqa A. Biological and chemical strategies for the treatment of sugar industry effluents. Int J Econ Environ Geol. 2019;10(4):59–63. doi:10.46660/ojs.v10i4.354.
  92. 92.
    Nacheva PM, Chávez GM, Chacón JM, Chuil AC. Treatment of cane sugar mill wastewater in an up flow anaerobic sludge bed reactor. Water Sci Technol. 2009;60(5):1347–1352. doi:10.2166/wst.2009.402.
  93. 93.
    Hanaki K, Matsuo T, Nagase M. Mechanism of inhibition caused by long-chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion process. BiotechnolBioeng. 1981;23(7):1591–1610.
  94. 94.
    Kushwaha JP, Srivastava VC, Mall ID. An overview of various technologies for the treatment of dairy wastewaters. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2011;51(5):442–452.
  95. 95.
    Pal AK, Singh J, Soni R, Tripathi P, Kamle M, Tripathi V, Kumar P. The role of microorganism in bioremediation for sustainable environment management. In: Pandey VC, Singh V, editors. Bioremediation of pollutants. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. p. 227–249.
  96. 96.
    Duodu MG, Singh B, Christina E. Waste management through bioremediation technology: an eco-friendly and sustainable solution. In: Samuel J, Kumar A, Singh J, editors. Relationship between microbes and the environment for sustainable ecosystem services. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2022. p. 205–234.
  97. 97.
    Pratheepa S, Kavitha KK. A review on bioremediation of sugar mill effluent. Plant Arch. 2021;21(1):1739. doi:10.51470/PLANTARCHIVES.2021.v21.no1.237.
  98. 98.
    Pardamean MA, Islamy R, Veryl H, Herawati EY, Mutmainnah N. Identification and physiological characteristics of potential indigenous bacteria as bioremediation agent in the wastewater of sugar factory. Sains Malays. 2021;50(2):279–286. doi:10.17576/jsm-2021-5002-01.
  99. 99.
    Glick BR. Phytoremediation: synergistic use of plants and bacteria to clean up the environment. Biotechnol Adv. 2003;21(5):383–393. doi:10.1016/S0734-9750(03)00055-7.
  100. 100.
    Whiting SN, de Souza MP, Terry N. Rhizosphere bacteria mobilize Zn for hyperaccumulation by Thlaspi caerulescens. Environ Sci Technol. 2001;35(15):3144–3150. doi:10.1021/es001938v.
  101. 101.
    Samuel S, Muthukkaruppan SM. Amelioration of sugar mill effluent polluted soil using microbial isolates and its response on paddy. Curr Bot. 2011;2(8):14–18.
  102. 102.
    Kumari M. Effective abatement of pollutants of sugar mill industry effluent with emerging technologies. Int J Water Res. 2024;6(4):1–6.
  103. 103.
    Ur Rehman T, Waseem H, Ali B, Haleem A, Abid R, Ahmed S, Gilbride KA, Ali M. Mitigation of sugar industry wastewater pollution: efficiency of lab-scale horizontal subsurface flow wetlands. Processes. 2024;12(7):1–15. doi:10.3390/pr12071400.
  104. 104.
    Ofiera LM, Wintgens T, Kazner C. Adsorbent modified constructed wetlands for advanced removal of bulk organics and heavy metals from municipal wastewater effluent. Environ Sci Water Res Technol. 2025;11(9):2248–2264. doi:10.1039/D4EW00870G.
  105. 105.
    Aslam MB, Rehman TU, Alavi AF, Haleem A, Haq A, Ahmed S, Sajjad W, Bourhia M, Mahamat OB, Almaary KS, Ali M. Design, construction, and efficiency analysis of bagasse-based charcoal packed horizontal lab-scale wetland for the removal of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. BMC Microbiol. 2025;25(418):1–17. doi:10.1186/s12866-025-04061-w.
  106. 106.
    Amol BD, Sandip J, Virdhaval MN. Phyco-remediation of sugar mill effluent using Chlorella vulgaris. Ijert. 2022;11(02):491–494.
  107. 107.
    Sibisi S, Mogany T, Bux F, Rawat I. Development and performance of microalgae-based symbiotic systems for high-strength chemical oxygen demand wastewater treatment from the sugar mills. Algal Res. 2024;84:103773. doi:10.1016/j.algal.2024.103773.
  108. 108.
    Truong HB, Nguyen THT, Tran QB, Lam VS, Ttn N, XC N. Algae-constructed wetland integrated system for wastewater treatment: a review. Bioresour Technol. 2024;406:131003. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2024.131003.
  109. 109.
    Yang L, Li H, Wang Q. A novel one-step method for oil-rich biomass production and harvesting by co-cultivating microalgae with filamentous fungi in molasses wastewater. Bioresour Technol. 2019;275:35–43.doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.036.
  110. 110.
    Ruhi RA, Saha AK, Rahman SMA, Mohanta MK, Sarker SR, Nasrin T, Haque MF. Decolorization of synthetic melanoidin by bacteria isolated from sugar mill effluent. Univ J Zoo Rajshahi Univ. 2017;36:12–21.
  111. 111.
    Buvaneswari S, Muthukumaran M, Damodarkumar S, Murugesan S. Isolation and identification of predominant bacteria to evaluate the bioremediation in sugar mill effluent. Int J Curr Sci. 2013b;5(27):123–132.
  112. 112.
    Buvaneswari S, Damodarkumar S, Murugesan S. Bioremediation studies on sugar mill effluent by selected fungal species. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2013a;2(1):50–58.
  113. 113.
    Saranraj P, Stella D. Bioremediation of sugar mill effluent by immobilized bacterial consortium. Int J Res Pure Appl Microbiol. 2012;2(4):43–48.
  114. 114.
    Singh JS.Methanotrophs: the potential biological sink to mitigate the global methane load. Curr Sci. 2011;100(1):29–30.
  115. 115.
    JS S, Dp S. Methanotrophs: an emerging bioremediation tool with unique broad-spectrum methane monooxygenase (MMO) enzyme. In: Singh JS, Seneviratne G, editors. Agro-environmental sustainability volume 2: managing environmental pollution. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2017. p. 1–18.
  116. 116.
    Chaurasia D, Boudh S, Singh JS, Chaturvedi P. Microbes and microbial enzymes as a sustainable energy source for biofuel production. In: Microbial services in restoration ecology, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. p. 207–217.
  117. 117.
    Singh JS. Plant–microbe interactions: a viable tool for agricultural sustainability. In: Arora NK, editor. Plant microbes symbiosis: applied facets. New Delhi: Springer; 2015b. p. 1–2.
  118. 118.
    Idris MO, Noh NA, Ibrahim MN, Yaqoob AA. Sustainable microbial fuel cell functionalized with a bio-waste: a feasible route to formaldehyde bioremediation along with bioelectricity generation. Chem Eng J. 2023;1(455):140781. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2022.140781.
  119. 119.
    Idris MO, Rejili M, Khan Y, Haouala F, Suleiman AI, Noh NA, Ibrahim MN, Emmanuel SS. Microbial fuel cells powered by sugarcane extract-organic substrate for synergetic bioremediation of toxic heavy metals and bioelectricity generation. Sugar Tech. 2025;27:1–10. doi:10.1007/s12355-025-01648-5.
  120. 120.
    Madhumathi S, Shanthipriya E. Treatment of sugarcane waste water using Pseudomonas putida. Int J Res Rev. 2020;7(4):474–480.
  121. 121.
    Modin O, Persson F, Wilén BM, Hermansson M. Nonoxidative removal of organics in the activated sludge process. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 2016;46(7):635–672. doi:10.1080/10643389.2016.1149903.
  122. 122.
    Raven S, Tiwari A, Rina L, Francis A, Ekka SB. Biological treatment and value-added products recovery from wastewaters discharged from food processing industries: a review. In: Kumar V, Singh J, editors. Microbial technologies for wastewater recycling and management. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2022. p. 309–330.
  123. 123.
    Benatti CT, Tavares CRG, Lenzi E. Sulfate removal from waste chemicals by precipitation. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(1):504–511. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.006.
  124. 124.
    Khan M, Rafey A, Siddiqui FZ. Kinetic modeling of moving bed biofilm sequencing batch reactor for treatment of sugar industry effluent. Adv Environ Technol. 2022;8(2):129–144.
  125. 125.
    Rahman TU, Roy H, Islam MR, Tahmid M, Fariha A, Mazumder A, Tasnim N, Pervez MN, Cai Y, Naddeo V, Islam MS. The advancement in membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology toward sustainable industrial wastewater management. Membranes. 2023;13(2):1–28. doi:10.3390/membranes13020181.
  126. 126.
    Fida S, Yasmeen M, Adnan R, Zeeshan M. Treatment methods for sugar rich wastewater: a review. Cleaner Water. 2025;3(100067):1–10. doi:10.1016/j.clwat.2025.100067.
  127. 127.
    Nájera-Aguilar HA, Mayorga-Santis R, Gutiérrez-Hernández RF, Araiza-Aguilar JA, Martínez-Salinas RI, García-Lara CM, Rojas-Valencia MN. Aged refuse filled bioreactor using like a biological treatment for sugar mill wastewater. Sugar Tech. 2021;23(1):201–208. doi:10.1007/s12355-020-00881-4.
  128. 128.
    Ali H, Min Y, Yu X, Kooch Y, Marnn P, Ahmed S. Composition of the microbial community in surface flow-constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Front Microbiol. 2024;15:1421094. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1421094.
  129. 129.
    Sun Y, Liu Z, Fatehi P. Developing performance-property correlation for fly ash as adsorbent for pulping effluents. J Environ Chem Eng. 2018;6(2):2502–2513. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2018.03.054.
  130. 130.
    Tshemese Z, Deenadayalu N, Linganiso LZ, Chetty M. An overview of biogas production from anaerobic digestion and the possibility of using sugarcane wastewater and municipal solid waste in a South African context. Appl Syst Innov. 2023;6(1):13. doi:10.3390/asi6010013.
  131. 131.
    Bloch K, Ghosh S. Anaerobic biological reactors for wastewater treatment. In: Shah MP, editor. Aerobic and anaerobic microbial treatment of industrial wastewater. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2024. p. 236–250.
  132. 132.
    Ali A, Iqbal M, Khattak KK. Pilot plant investigation on the start-up of a UASB reactor using sugar mill effluent. Cent Asian J Environ Sci Technol Innov. 2020;1(199-205). doi:10.22034/CAJESTI.2020.04.02.
  133. 133.
    Mostaed S, Amin MM, Hassani A, Takdastan A. Anaerobic biofilm reactor system efficiency in sugar cane industry wastewater treatment. J Health Syst Res. 2010;6:1002–1014.
  134. 134.
    Ramos LR, Silva EL. Thermophilic hydrogen and methane production from sugarcane stillage in two-stage anaerobic fluidized bed reactors. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2020;45(8):5239–5251.
  135. 135.
    Mohana S, Acharya BK, Madamwar D. Distillery spent wash: treatment technologies and potential applications. J Hazard Mater. 2009;163(1):12–25. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.079.
  136. 136.
    Hossain SM, Das M. Biomethanation of distillery wastewaters in fluidized-bed bioreactor and mathematical modeling. Indian Chem Eng. 2010;52(1):23–36. doi:10.1080/00194501003794123.
  137. 137.
    Zieliński M, Kazimierowicz J, Dębowski M. Advantages and limitations of anaerobic wastewater treatment-technological basics, development directions, and technological innovations. Energies. 2022;16(1):83. doi:10.3390/en16010083.
  138. 138.
    Cabrera-Díaz A, Pereda-Reyes I, Dueñas-Moreno J, Véliz-Lorenzo E, Díaz-Marrero MA, Menéndez-Gutiérrez CL, Oliva-Merencio D, Zaiat M. Combined treatment of vinasse by an upflow anaerobic filter-reactor and ozonation process. Braz J Chem Eng. 2016;33(4):753–762.
  139. 139.
    Asaithambi P, Matheswaran M. Electrochemical treatment of simulated sugar industrial effluent: optimization and modeling using a response surface methodology. Arab J Chem. 2016;9(2):S981–S987. doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2011.10.004.
  140. 140.
    Patel RK, Shankar R, Khare P, Mondal P. Ultrasonication coupled electrochemical treatment of sugar industry wastewater: optimization and economic evaluation. Korean J Chem Eng. 2022;39(7):1821–1830.
  141. 141.
    Nour AH, Zainal Z. Membrane fouling control by ultrasonic membrane anaerobic system (UMAS) to produce methane gas. Int J Eng Sci Technol. 2014;3:487–497.
  142. 142.
    Crini G, Lichtfouse E, Wilson LD, Morin-Crini N. Adsorption-oriented processes using conventional and non-conventional adsorbents for wastewater treatment. In: Crini G, Lichtfouse E, editors. Green adsorbents for pollutant removal: fundamentals and design. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2018. p. 23–71.
  143. 143.
    Kushwaha JP, Srivastava VC, Mall ID. Organics removal from dairy wastewater by electrochemical treatment and residue disposal. Sep Purif Technol. 2010;76(2):198–205. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2010.10.008.
  144. 144.
    Hegazy AK, Abdel-Ghani NT, El-Chaghaby GA. Adsorption of phenol onto activated carbon from Rhazya stricta: determination of the optimal experimental parameters using factorial design. Appl Water Sci. 2014;4:273–281. doi:10.1007/s13201-013-0143-9.
  145. 145.
    De Gisi S, Lofrano G, Grassi M, Notarnicola M. Characteristics and adsorption capacities of low-cost sorbents for wastewater treatment: a review. Sustain Mater Technol. 2016;9:10–40. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2016.06.002.
  146. 146.
    Nouhou Moussa AW, Sawadogo B, Konate Y, Sidibe SD, Heran M. Critical state of the art of sugarcane industry wastewater treatment technologies and perspectives for sustainability. Membranes. 2023;13(8):709.
  147. 147.
    Patel RK, Shankar R, Khare P, Mondal P. Treatment of sugar industry wastewater in continuous electrochemical process followed by low-cost adsorbent bed: performance evaluation and economic analysis. Sep Purif Technol. 2021;271:118874. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2021.118874.
  148. 148.
    Cañizares P, Jiménez C, Martínez F, Rodrigo MA, Sáez C. The pH as a key parameter in the choice between coagulation and electrocoagulation for the treatment of wastewaters. J Hazard Mater. 2009;163:158–164. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.073.
  149. 149.
    Gondudey S, Kumar CP, Dharmadhikari S, Singh TR. Treatment of sugar industry effluent using an electrocoagulation process: process optimization using the response surface methodology. J Serbian Chem Soc. 2020;85(10):1357–1369. doi:10.2298/JSC200319037G.
  150. 150.
    Mehrkhah R, Park SY, Lee JH, Kim SY, Lee BH. A comparative study of advanced oxidation-based hybrid technologies for industrial wastewater treatment: an engineering perspective. Chem Eng Sci. 2024;286:119675.
  151. 151.
    Meng X, Khoso SA, Jiang F, Zhang Y, Yue T, Gao J, Lin S, Liu R, Gao Z, Chen P, Wang L. Removal of chemical oxygen demand and ammonia nitrogen from lead smelting wastewater with high salts content using electrochemical oxidation combined with coagulation–flocculation treatment. Sep Purif Technol. 2020;235:1–10.
  152. 152.
    Garika NS, Dwarapureddi BK, Karnena MK, Dash S, Raj A, Saritha V. Efficacy of natural coagulants in treating sugar industry effluents. Pollution. 2022;8(1):331–340.
  153. 153.
    Benalia A, Derbal K, Amrouci Z, Baatache O, Khalfaoui A, Pizzi A. Application of plant-based coagulants and their mechanisms in water treatment: a review. J Renew Mater. 2024;12(4):667–698. doi:10.32604/jrm.2024.048306.
  154. 154.
    Kaushish P, Jabin S, Jyoti C, Gupta P. Studies on minimization of pollutants from sugar industry effluent by using a combination of metal coagulant and polymer. Orient J Chem. 2024;40(3):722–727.
  155. 155.
    Kesari KK, Verma HN, Behari J. Physical methods in wastewater treatment. Int J Environ Technol Manag. 2011;14(1-4):43–66. doi:10.1504/IJETM.2011.039257.
  156. 156.
    Bhatnagar A, Kesari KK, Shurpali N. Multidisciplinary approaches to handling wastes in sugar industries. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016;227(11):1–30. doi:10.1007/s11270-015-2705-y.

Written by

Rahul Kumar Nigam, Prateek Singh, Jay Shankar Singh*

Article Type:

•

Date of acceptance: January 2026

Date of publication: February 2026

•

DoI: 10.5772/geet20250125

Copyright: The Author(s), Licensee IntechOpen, License: CC BY 4.0

Download for free

© The Author(s) 2025. Licensee IntechOpen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Impact of this article

46

Downloads

164

Views

Share this article

Popular among readers

Loading...

Loading...

Popular among readers

Loading...

Loading...

Popular among readers

Loading...

Loading...

Join us today!

Submit your Article