Assessing the scale of resource recovery for centralized and satellite wastewater treatment.

Wastewater treatment to recover water, energy, and other resources is largely carried out at centralized treatment facilities. An alternative is local treatment at satellite facilities where wastewater is removed from a collection system, resources are recovered locally, and the residuals are returned to the collection system. Satellite systems decrease the pipe and energy required for delivery of treated water and may decrease cost. But decisions regarding the geographic scale of resource recovery require consideration of many criteria. In this study, we rank water and energy recovery options for a simplified test case at three scale configurations: a centralized configuration and two hybrid configurations. We first choose criteria for decision-making. Quantitative performance metrics are defined for each criterion, weighted, and computed for each configuration. We then rank configurations. Rankings depend upon the decision-making strategy. For our test case, though, several strategies yield the same top-ranked configuration: a hybrid where communities close to the centralized facility use centralized resource recovery; communities far from the centralized facility use satellite resource recovery. Our ranking is sensitive to initial investment cost for satellite treatment. The results underscore the importance of cost-effective treatment systems and of an accurate and comprehensive analysis of design components.

[1]  H Spanjers,et al.  Instrumentation in anaerobic treatment--research and practice. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[2]  Josef Jablonský Software Support for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Problems , .

[3]  Jeonghwan Kim,et al.  Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer--can this be achieved? , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Denis Bouyssou,et al.  Outranking Methods , 2009, Encyclopedia of Optimization.

[5]  Willy Verstraete,et al.  Maximum use of resources present in domestic "used water". , 2009, Bioresource technology.

[6]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  K. Vairavamoorthy,et al.  Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management , 2011 .

[8]  Bogomir Muršec,et al.  The impact of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion on biogas production , 2009 .

[9]  E. Triantaphyllou,et al.  A Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Some Deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods* , 1997 .

[10]  E. Løken Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems , 2007 .

[11]  Igor Linkov,et al.  MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS: A FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS , 2005 .

[12]  Henryk Melcer,et al.  Pilot Testing of New Vacuum Rotating Membrane Bioreactor Technology , 2009 .

[13]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[14]  Jiangjiang Wang,et al.  Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making , 2009 .

[15]  George Tchobanoglous,et al.  The role of satellite and decentralized strategies in water resources management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  R. G. Mein,et al.  Modelling the urban water cycle , 2001, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  Henri Spanjers,et al.  Instrumentation in Anaerobic Treatment: Research and Practice , 2006 .

[18]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.