Effects of soluble and particulate substrate on the carbon and energy footprint of wastewater treatment processes.

Most wastewater treatment plants monitor routinely carbonaceous and nitrogenous load parameters in influent and effluent streams, and often in the intermediate steps. COD fractionation discriminates the selective removal of VSS components in different operations, allowing accurate quantification of the energy requirements and mass flows for secondary treatment, sludge digestion, and sedimentation. We analysed the different effects of COD fractions on carbon and energy footprint in a wastewater treatment plant with activated sludge in nutrient removal mode and anaerobic digestion of the sludge with biogas energy recovery. After presenting a simple rational procedure for COD and solids fractions quantification, we use our carbon and energy footprint models to quantify the effects of varying fractions on carbon equivalent flows, process energy demand and recovery. A full-scale real process was modelled with this procedure and the results are reported in terms of energy and carbon footprint. For a given process, the increase of the ratio sCOD/COD increases the energy demand on the aeration reactors, the associated CO(2) direct emission from respiration, and the indirect emission for power generation. Even though it appears as if enhanced primary sedimentation is a carbon and energy footprint mitigation practice, care must be used since the nutrient removal process downstream may suffer from an excessive bCOD removal and an increased mean cell retention time for nutrient removal may be required.

[1]  P. Lant,et al.  Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. , 2010, Water research.

[2]  Jurg Keller,et al.  Methane formation in sewer systems. , 2008, Water research.

[3]  H. P. Eddy,et al.  American sewerage practice , 1914 .

[4]  B Wett,et al.  Development and implementation of a robust deammonification process. , 2007, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  D. D. Haas,et al.  Greenhouse Gas Inventories From WWTPs-The Trade-off With Nutrient Removal , 2008 .

[6]  G A Ekama.  Using bioprocess stoichiometry to build a plant-wide mass balance based steady-state WWTP model. , 2009, Water research.

[7]  W. Gujer,et al.  Activated sludge model No. 3 , 1995 .

[8]  T. Hvitved-Jacobsen,et al.  Effects of temperature and dissolved oxygen on hydrolysis of sewer solids , 1999 .

[9]  K. Chandran,et al.  N2O emissions from activated sludge processes, 2008-2009: results of a national monitoring survey in the United States. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  David J. Reardon,et al.  Turning Down the Power , 1995 .

[11]  Shane Ward,et al.  Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways , 2010 .

[12]  D. Bolzonella,et al.  Carbon footprint of aerobic biological treatment of winery wastewater. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  R. Schulze-Rettmer,et al.  The Simultaneous Chemical Precipitation of Ammonium and Phosphate in the form of Magnesium-Ammonium-Phosphate , 1991 .

[14]  Mogens Henze,et al.  Waste design for households with respect to water, organics and nutrients , 1997 .

[15]  L Yerushalmi,et al.  Estimation of greenhouse gas generation in wastewater treatment plants--model development and application. , 2010, Chemosphere.

[16]  M. Zdybiewska,et al.  Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen by the Precipitation Method, on the Example of Some Selected Waste Waters , 1991 .

[17]  Mogens Henze,et al.  Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modeling and Design , 2015 .

[18]  Michael K Stenstrom,et al.  Comparative economic analysis of the impacts of mean cell retention time and denitrification on aeration systems. , 2005, Water research.

[19]  M. V. van Loosdrecht,et al.  The SHARON-Anammox process for treatment of ammonium rich wastewater. , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[20]  J Kruit,et al.  A practical protocol for dynamic modelling of activated sludge systems. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[21]  Glen T. Daigger,et al.  Biological wastewater treatment. , 2011 .

[22]  J Colprim,et al.  The effect of primary sedimentation on full-scale WWTP nutrient removal performance. , 2010, Water research.

[23]  M. Stenstrom,et al.  The carbon-sequestration potential of municipal wastewater treatment. , 2008, Chemosphere.

[24]  H. D. Stensel,et al.  Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse , 2002 .

[25]  H. Siegrist.  Nitrogen removal from digester supernatant - comparison of chemical and biological methods , 1996 .

[26]  H. Siegrist,et al.  Nitrogen removal from digester supernatant via nitrite--SBR or SHARON? , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[27]  Heather L MacLean,et al.  A rational procedure for estimation of greenhouse-gas emissions from municipal wastewater treatment plants. , 2005, Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation.

[28]  I. Takács,et al.  Elemental Balances in Activated Sludge Modelling , 2006 .

[29]  Hee-Deung Park,et al.  Reduction of membrane fouling by simultaneous upward and downward air sparging in a pilot-scale submerged membrane bioreactor treating municipal wastewater. , 2010 .

[30]  K. Gernaey,et al.  A comprehensive model calibration procedure for activated sludge models , 2003 .

[31]  M C M van Loosdrecht,et al.  Experience with guidelines for wastewater characterisation in The Netherlands. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[32]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis , 2013 .