ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy Producer–Can This be Achieved?
More

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 17, 7100-7106
  • Free to Read
Feature

Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy Producer–Can This be Achieved?
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
† Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega MC 4020, Stanford, California 94305, United States
‡ Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Namgu, Yonghyun dong 253, Incheon, Republic of Korea
Phone: 650-723-4131; fax: 650-725-3164; e-mail: [email protected]
Open PDF

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 17, 7100–7106
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2014264
Published July 12, 2011

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Request reuse permissions

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

In seeking greater sustainability in water resources management, wastewater is now being considered more as a resource than as a waste—a resource for water, for plant nutrients, and for energy. Energy, the primary focus of this article, can be obtained from wastewater's organic as well as from its thermal content. Also, using wastewater’s nitrogen and P nutrients for plant fertilization, rather than wasting them, helps offset the high energy cost of producing synthetic fertilizers. Microbial fuel cells offer potential for direct biological conversion of wastewater’s organic materials into electricity, although significant improvements are needed for this process to be competitive with anaerobic biological conversion of wastewater organics into biogas, a renewable fuel used in electricity generation. Newer membrane processes coupled with complete anaerobic treatment of wastewater offer the potential for wastewater treatment to become a net generator of energy, rather than the large energy consumer that it is today.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society

Subjects

what are subjects

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Water, food, and energy are three of the major resource issues facing the world today. In order to help address these issues, domestic wastewater is now being looked at more as a resource than as a waste, a resource for water, for energy, and for the plant fertilizing nutrients, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). (1) Use of reclaimed wastewater for landscape and crop irrigation and indeed for domestic consumption is a widely accepted and growing practice to save water and to make use of the fertilizing elements it contains. Similarly, use of domestic wastewater as a source of energy has a long history, especially through the anaerobic conversion of wastewater’s organic content into methane (CH4) gas, a useful biofuel. (2) However, through the conventional practice of aerobic wastewater treatment combined with anaerobic sludge digestion, only a portion of the energy potential of wastewater is captured. (3) That contained in the dissolved organic fraction is not recovered, but is removed instead by aerobic processes that require much energy. As a result with traditional approaches, more energy is consumed in wastewater treatment than is gained through digestion.
What might we do better toward more complete recovery of the three important resource potentials of domestic wastewaters? Water reuse is already widely practiced where water is in limited supply, but this often increases the energy needed for treatment because of increased water quality requirements for reuse. (1) Reducing treatment energy requirements can help offset this need, particularly through more efficient capturing of the biofuel potential in wastewater itself. Reducing net energy requirements for wastewater treatment is a complementary, not an alternative goal to water reuse. The same can be said with respect to nutrient recovery. Additionally, climate change concerns associated with fossil fuel consumption, as well as increasing energy costs, necessitate that greater efforts be made toward better efficiency and more sustainable use of wastewater’s energy potential. While more efficient water and nutrient recovery from wastewater are important goals in themselves, the focus of this article is how we can more completely recover wastewater’s energy content.
Wastewater treatment accounts for about 3% of the U.S. electrical energy load, (4) similar to that in other developed countries. (5) The energy needs for a typical domestic wastewater treatment plant employing aerobic activated sludge treatment and anaerobic sludge digestion is 0.6 kWh/m3 of wastewater treated, about half of which is for electrical energy to supply air for the aeration basins. (3, 5) With conventional approaches involving aerobic treatment a quarter to half of a plants energy needs might be satisfied by using the CH4 biogas produced during anaerobic digestion, and other plant modifications might further reduce energy needs considerably. (4) However, if more of the energy potential in wastewater were captured for use and even less were used for wastewater treatment, then wastewater treatment might become a net energy producer rather than a consumer.

Energy Potential in Domestic Wastewater

Table 1 contains a summary of three energy-related characteristics of domestic wastewater: the energy resource contained in wastewater organics, the external fossil-fuel energy requirements for the production of equivalent amounts of the fertilizing elements N and P, and the energy that might be gained from wastewater’s thermal content. Concerning energy associated with N and P, ∼7% of the world’s natural gas production was used in 1990 to fix atmospheric nitrogen through the Haber-Bosch Process to satisfy the demand for N. (6-8) Somewhat less is associated with P production. From a broad environmental perspective world fossil fuel consumption could be reduced through the direct use of wastewater N and P for fertilizer instead of using manufactured fertilizers. Why do we spend energy to rid wastewaters of fertilizing elements, rather than saving energy by using them for plant fertilization?
Table 1. Energy Characteristics of a Typical Domestic Wastewater
constituenttypical concentrationsa (mg/L)energy (kWh/m3)
maximum potential from organic oxidationbrequired to produce fertilizing elementscthermal heat available for heat-pump extractiond
organics (COD)    
total500   
refractory180   
suspended800.31  
dissolved1000.39  
biodegradable320   
suspended1750.67  
dissolved1450.56  
nitrogen    
organic15 0.29 
ammonia25 0.48 
phosphorus8 0.02 
water   7.0
totals 1.930.797.0
a

After Tchobanoglous and Burton. (42)

b

Based upon a theoretical 3.86 kWh energy production/kg COD oxidized to CO2 and H2O. (3)

c

Based upon production energy of 19.3 kWh/kg N by Haber-Bosch Process and 2.11 kWh/kg P after Gellings and Parmenter. (6)

d

Energy associated with a 6 °C change in water temperature through heat extraction.

There is also potential energy to be gained from the thermal heat contained in wastewater, energy that may be captured through use of heat pumps for low-energy use such as in the heating of buildings, a practice sometimes used in areas with cold winter climates such as Sweden. (9) Heat pumps represent an efficient way to use electrical energy for heating, and operate akin to a refrigeration unit. Electrical energy is used to extract heat from a source—air, ground, or wastewater—and transfer the heat to an area of need such as a building. The source becomes colder and the building warmer. A measure of energy effectiveness is the coefficient of performance (COP), which is the ratio of the amount of heat energy transferred per unit of electrical energy used to drive the heat pump compressor. Typical values are in the range of 2–5, with 3–4 being common. In mild climates, air is often the source from which heat is extracted, but in cold climates winter air temperatures may be too cold for such use. In such conditions, ground or groundwaters, or indeed sufficiently warm wastewater provide other options. With wastewater, the heat energy associated with a 6–10 °C drop in water temperature is what might be available, providing the final temperature is sufficiently above the freezing point. The potential of a heat pump to be economical is in large measure dependent upon the relative unit energy cost of alterative heating fuels such as natural gas or fuel oil. Where alternative available fuels are much less expensive than electricity, the potential for wastewater to serve as an energy source for heat pumps diminishes.
The most direct and commonly exploited and useful energy source in wastewater is the organic fraction as measured by the chemical oxygen demand (COD), which indicates the amount of oxygen (O2) required to oxidize the organic material to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). In Table 1 the organic fraction is divided between dissolved and suspended, and between biodegradable and refractory. Suspended solids may be concentrated in a settling tank, with the resulting primary sludge anaerobically digested for CH4 production, but CH4 results only from the biodegradable fraction. Through thermal, chemical, or electrical processes, some of the refractory portion may be conditioned to increase biodegradability and CH4 production, (2) but the energy cost for this may offset the gains. Thermal processes such as incineration have the potential to extract energy from both the biodegradable and refractory fractions of the sludge. However, unless water content can be reduced below ∼30%, more energy is required for incineration than is produced through combustion. (10) Thus, thermal processes are generally not energy producers.
The soluble organic fraction cannot be concentrated easily and so is subjected to treatment processes that can treat dilute streams with short detention times. Here, aerobic treatment processes have been found to be very effective, albeit with a relatively high cost in energy. An energy-savings goal would be to use a process that both captures the energy potential in the dissolved organics and meets effluent standards effectively.

Anaerobic versus Microbial Fuel Cells for Treating Dissolved Organics

A major challenge is to capture the energy potential of the dissolved organic component in domestic wastewater, and to do so with little offsetting energy expenditure and costs. One possibility is to replace secondary aerobic treatment with secondary anaerobic treatment. Another is an evolving novel method, microbial fuel cells (MFCs), which accomplish direct biological conversion of organic energy into electricity, an approach that is hoped may achieve more efficient conversion than is currently possible with anaerobic treatment. (11) With the anaerobic approach CH4-driven engines are used to turn generators to produce electricity. Here only about 30–40% of the CH4 energy is converted into electricity, (12) the remainder is given off as heat, which may or may not be useful. Chemical fuel cells offer another approach to produce electricity from CH4, perhaps increasing the efficiency of conversion to 50%. (12) An important question is whether MFCs, which are enjoying much current research, (13) are likely to meet or exceed such transfer efficiencies and to do so at comparable or lower cost? A brief review of each option is in order.
Some energy is always lost in a conversion process. In anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater about 8% of the potential energy is lost in the conversion of higher energy organics such as carbohydrates into CH4, a lower energy organic. Another 7% is lost from the conversion of a portion of the organics into the cells of microorganisms necessary to carry out the reactions. Wastewater treatment itself is not 100% efficient, and so additional losses result here, perhaps 5%. These combined losses total about 19%, meaning that the CH4 produced would contain only about 81% of the original biodegradable organic energy potential. Through combustion only about 35% of the CH4 energy might be converted into electricity, the remaining 65% is given off as heat. (12) Overall then, the electricity so produced would contain only about 28% of the original energy potential in the biodegradable wastewater organics. Perhaps this could be increased to 40% with more efficient electrical generation or through the use of chemical fuel cells. (12) However, the heat produced from CH4 combustion need not be lost, but can be used for heating buildings or other purposes.
Energy losses do result with MFCs as well, and they can be substantial. (11, 14, 15) Power production is the product of current and cell voltage. First there is the Coulombic loss, (11) the portion of wastewater organics that are not converted into current. This loss may be similar to an anaerobic system with a 7% loss to microbial growth and 5% loss due to treatment inefficiency, or about 12% combined. Then there is the loss in electrochemical potential or voltage, which translates as a decrease below the theoretical value of about 1.1 V for wastewater organics. (11) For example, if the effective MFC voltage were half of that or 0.55 V, then 50% of the potential energy would be lost. Combined with the Coulombic loss, transfer of energy from the soluble organics to electricity would be 44%, still perhaps higher than with anaerobic treatment, but not much. However, voltage losses in MFCs currently tend to be much greater than 50%. Typical losses are 0.1 V at the anode and 0.5 V at the cathode for a combined loss of 0.6 V or over half of the theoretical value. (14) Further substantial voltage loss results from the associated movement of electrons through electrical wires and especially from ion transport between electrodes, the latter is a function of distance between electrodes, equaling about 1 V/cm of distance with typical wastewater. The most optimistic projections for MFCs result from studies with high organic concentrations and simple substrates. (13, 14) With low reactor organic concentrations associated with efficient wastewater treatment more voltage loss is expected. (15) Thus achieving the electrical generation efficiency that is already practical with anaerobic systems presents a great challenge for MFCs. Also, a MFC system has been estimated to cost 800 times that of an anaerobic system based upon available technologies, (14) thus presenting another major challenge. These and other challenges (11, 13, 14, 16) suggest several major breakthroughs are needed for MFCs to become competitive with electricity generation through anaerobic wastewater treatment.

Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment of Domestic Wastewater

Complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater has the potential to achieve net energy production while meeting stringent effluent standards. Anaerobic wastewater treatment is well over a century old, starting with the relatively inefficient septic and Imhoff tank processes. (17) However, over the past 50 years more efficient anaerobic processes have been developed leading to suggestions in the 1980s that they be applied to more fully treat domestic wastewaters. (18, 19) Since then there have been a number of applications of full-scale direct anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater, particularly in developing countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, and India, where anaerobic treatment is considered to be a low-cost wastewater treatment alternative. (20-22)
Low temperature and low organic concentrations are often cited as barriers to direct anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewaters. However, many laboratory studies have shown good performance at temperatures as low as 5 °C and with hydraulic retention times (HRT) of only a few hours. (23-25) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removals expected with present anaerobic reactors range from 70 to 80%, not quite sufficient to meet stringent regulatory standards. (22, 26-30) Because of this and other experiences, it has been commonly concluded that effluent “polishing” or a post-treatment step is necessary to meet effluent standards. (29, 31, 32) However, recent studies with anaerobic membrane bioreactors indicate that polishing may be accomplished within an anaerobic reactor itself while providing a good quality effluent with low suspended solids and BOD concentrations. (33-35)

Hypothetical Anaerobic Treatment System for Energy Recovery and Efficient Treatment

What might be the characteristics of a system designed for the efficient anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater? Good treatment efficiency and low cost relative to that of conventional activated sludge treatment would be necessary. Additionally, CH4 is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential about 25 times that of CO2, (36) and thus must not be allowed to escape to the atmosphere. (37) As a useful biofuel, CH4 should instead be captured and used as a renewable source of energy. To meet U.S. effluent standards of 30 mg/L for both BOD and total suspended solids, the system should be designed to achieve an average effluent concentration of 15 mg/L for each. A hypothetical anaerobic treatment system to illustrate the potential outcomes of such treatment is illustrated in Figure 1. This includes a conventional primary settling tank in order to remove settleable suspended materials before secondary treatment, with resulting biosolids sent to a conventional anaerobic digester. The effluent then passes to a secondary anaerobic membrane bioreactor that can prevent loss of biological solids to the effluent and thus maintain a sufficiently high solids retention time (SRT) as required for efficient biodegradation of organics. (2) A countercurrent air-stripping unit is the final process shown, the purpose of which is to remove and use the dissolved CH4, (18) as well as to add O2 to the effluent stream.

Figure 1

Figure 1. A hypothetical system for complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Membrane bioreactors are widely used today for aerobic wastewater treatment, as they are capable of producing a high quality effluent with low suspended solids concentration and small footprint relative to traditional aerobic treatment systems, but have a higher energy usage as required to reduce membrane fouling. (38) However, a potential significant reduction in the membrane energy cost might be obtained using a new anaerobic reactor design, the anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (AFMBR), which combines a membrane system with an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor (AFBR). (35)
An AFBR contains particulate media such as granular activated carbon (GAC) that is suspended in the reactor by the upward velocity of the fluid being treated. Wastewater treatment is effected by a biofilm attached to the media. The AFBR is particularly effective for low strength wastewaters as it has good mass transfer characteristics and can retain a high concentration of active microorganisms without organism washout at short detention times of minutes to a few hours, (2) a necessity for economical anaerobic treatment of low strength wastewaters. By placing membranes within the reactor itself, the moving action of the suspended media along the membranes reduces fouling, and at low energy expenditure. (35)
In an initial AFMBR study to treat a dilute wastewater of about 500 mg COD/L at a reactor detention time of 5 h, the total energy expenditure for operating the reactor and fluidizing the GAC media used was 0.058 kWh/m3 of wastewater treated, about one-tenth of the energy requirement for a typical aerobic membrane bioreactor. (35) Achieved was an effluent COD of 7 mg/L (99% removal) and less than 1 mg/L of suspended solids. While much yet needs to be done to evaluate effectiveness with domestic wastewater under ambient conditions and to optimize performance, the potential for anaerobic domestic wastewater treatment to be energy producing, cost-effective, and to meet environmental discharge requirements has been demonstrated.

Comparisons with Conventional Activated Sludge Treatment

An evaluation was made of the potential benefits of anaerobic domestic wastewater treatment compared to a conventional activated sludge system with sludge digestion, assuming wastewater composition listed in Table 1. Figure 2a illustrates that with full anaerobic treatment a doubling of CH4 production over conventional aerobic treatment is obtained, and energy production greatly exceeds the energy needs for plant operation (Figure 2c). Anaerobic domestic wastewater treatment could be a net energy producer. Another significant advantage is that the quantity of digested sludge resulting from anaerobic treatment is much less than with aerobic treatment (Figure 2b), another highly significant cost as well as energy benefit.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Comparative estimates of CH4, sludge, and energy production per cubic meter of wastewater treated for full anaerobic treatment versus conventional aerobic treatment with sludge digestion. (a) CH4 production (STP) associated with primary sludge digestion (blue) and secondary treatment (red). (b) Volume of digested sludge resulting from primary treatment (blue) and from secondary treatment (red). (c) Biogas energy produced (blue) and energy used in overall wastewater treatment (red).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Issues That Need Addressing

While complete anaerobic domestic wastewater treatment has potential energy and cost savings, there are important issues that need to be addressed. First, for climate change concerns, CH4 must not be allowed to escape to the atmosphere but should be collected and used. Energy for stripping CH4 is anticipated to be less than 0.05 kWh/m3, as much less CH4 would have to be transferred than with O2 in an aerobic treatment system, and both have similarly low solubility. Because of its importance, research on cost and energy-efficient methods for such CH4 capture is needed. An associated problem that also requires more attention is sulfate (SO42-) reduction to sulfide (S2-), which competes with CH4 production and produces a toxic and corrosive gas (H2S). (2, 37)
Another issue is the removal of wastewater nutrients, which is being required more frequently because of the adverse environmental impacts that nutrients can have on receiving waters. There are many approaches here that can be used with anaerobic treatment such as chemical precipitation for P (30, 39) or its conversion into struvite (NH4MgPO4· 6H2O) for recovery as fertilizer. (39) For N removal, the traditional approach with nitrification and denitrification is highly energy consuming as well as wasteful of the fertilizing potential offered. A less energy-wasteful approach is the newer anammox process, which oxidizes ammonia (NH3) with nitrite (NO2−) to produce harmless N2 gas. (40) This is a low-oxygen-consuming process that does not require organics for denitrification, organics that are better converted into CH4 for energy production. Another option aimed at recovering both N and P nutrients and being applied in Europe is source-separation of urine so that it does not become part of the domestic wastewater. Urine contains a majority of the N and P nutrients and might be treated separately and less expensively to recover the nutrients for use in fertilizer. (41)
In water-poor areas where the treated wastewater might be used for crop or landscape irrigation, both the water and the nutrients can be reused, and energy requirements are significantly less than for potable reuse where reverse osmosis may be required. When coupled with complete anaerobic treatment, reuse for irrigation is perhaps one of the best ways to capture the full resource potential of wastewaters. Anaerobic secondary treatment to reduce energy and operating costs for municipal wastewater treatment has good potential, more pilot as well as fundamental studies to better explore options for effluent CH4 removal and to optimize treatment would appear worthwhile.

What Can We Do Now?

While complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater has perhaps the best current potential for capturing wastewater’s organic energy content, retrofitting existing conventional aerobic wastewater treatment plants to anaerobic facilities could be costly. The complete anaerobic approach might best be applied with new treatment systems once sufficient experience with them is gained. In the mean time, other practices can help to significantly reduce the overall energy requirements for water supply and treatment, and better capture wastewater’s total resource potential. (4) Energy requirements in aerobic wastewater treatment systems can be reduced through upgrading energy-inefficient equipment, better control of aeration systems to deliver only the O2 actually needed, and through the use of more energy-efficient aeration diffusers. Reducing the solids retention times in aeration basins also results in smaller O2 and energy requirements, with more of the wastewater organics converted into biosolids that can be sent to digesters for increased CH4 production. Also many thermal, physical, chemical, and electrical methods are now available that increase the biodegradability of biosolids with potential for reducing overall energy requirements. (2)
Perhaps the most readily adaptable approach to reduce external energy requirements with existing treatment plants is to make full use of the CH4 produced from conventional anaerobic digesters through use of combined heat and power (CHP) systems (co-generation). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that of the 16 000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities operating in the U.S., roughly 1000 operate with a total influent flow rate greater than 19 000 m3/day, a size considered sufficient for CHP. (12) However, only 544 of these facilities employ anaerobic digestion, and only 106 of these now utilize the biogas produced to generate electricity and/or thermal energy. EPA estimates that if all of the 544 treatment plants that already have anaerobic digestion adapted CHP, the energy reduction would be equivalent to removing the emissions of approximately 430 000 cars. (12) The bioenergy production potential here is significant.
Another change in thinking directed toward more energy-efficient systems is the use of distributed, rather than the centralized treatment systems favored in the past due to economies of scale. Centralized plants are generally located down gradient in urban areas, permitting gravity wastewater flow to the treatment plant, while the demand for reclaimed wastewater generally lies up gradient. This means higher energy demands for pumping of the reclaimed wastewater back to areas of need. These energy costs can be reduced through use of smaller distributed treatment plants located directly in water short areas. The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has satellite treatment systems located in up-gradient communities where reclaimed wastewater is applied to percolation beds for mixing with groundwaters used for domestic consumption. The biosolids produced are sent through a trunk sewer to a centralized plant located near the Pacific coast, where sufficient CH4 is produced to satisfy most of the energy needs through a CHP system at the plant. Distributed treatment systems are even used at small scale. The upscale Solaire apartment complex, located adjacent to the Hudson River on Manhattan Island, New York City, has its own membrane biological treatment system in the basement to reclaim 95 m3/day of apartment wastewater for irrigation of its rooftop gardens and for use in toilets and the building’s cooling system. Excess wastewater and biosolids are sent to New York City’s North River Wastewater Treatment Plant for biogas and energy production. Wastewater energy is thus captured efficiently, and the demand on the city’s water system is reduced, as is the load on the North River Plant. The Monterey, CA, Regional Water Pollution Control Plant is located in a prime vegetable-producing but water-short agricultural area, and uses anaerobic treatment coupled with CHP to produce 50% of the plants energy requirements. The 76,000 m3/day of reclaimed water produced is applied to 4900 ha containing vegetable crops to satisfy their need for both irrigation water and plant nutrients, thus all three of wastewater’s important resources are being utilized. These examples well demonstrate how overall energy requirements for treatment can be reduced through more energy-efficient practices in addition to capturing wastewater’s energy potential, while simultaneously capturing its water and fertilizing nutrient resources.
Today there is increased understanding of the importance of working toward better sustainability in our water and wastewater treatment systems. Toward this end the further development and wider application of advanced treatment systems, such as the anaerobic membrane bioreactor, that can better capture the full energy and the water and nutrient resource potential contained in wastewater is a highly desirable goal.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
  • Corresponding Author
    • Perry L. McCarty - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega MC 4020, Stanford, California 94305, United States ;  Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Namgu, Yonghyun dong 253, Incheon, Republic of Korea;  Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Jaeho Bae - Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Namgu, Yonghyun dong 253, Incheon, Republic of Korea
    • Jeonghwan Kim - Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Namgu, Yonghyun dong 253, Incheon, Republic of Korea

Biography

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Dr. McCarty is Emeritus Professor at Stanford University and WCU Professor at Inha University in Korea. He is coauthor of the textbooks, Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and Science and Environmental Biotechnology–Principles and Applications. He is recipient of the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement and the Stockholm Water Prize. Dr. Bae is Professor in the Department of Environmental Engineering at Inha University with primary interests in biogas recovery from solid wastes and wastewaters. Dr. Kim is an Assistant Professor in the same department at Inha University. The main focus of his research is on the development and use of membrane processes.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This publication was supported by the WCU (World Class University) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (grant number R33-10043).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 42 other publications.

  1. 1
    Asano, T., Burton, F. L., Leverenz, H. L., Tsuchihashi, R., and Tchobanoglous, G. Water Reuse, Issues, Technologies, and Applications; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2007; p 1570.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    Speece, R. E., Anaerobic Biotechnology and Odor/Corrosion Control; Archae Press: Nashville, TN, 2008; p 586.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    Owen, W. F. Energy in Wastewater Treatment; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, 1982; p 373.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  4. 4
    EPA Office of Water. Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Energy Conservation, EPA 832-F-06-024; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2006; p 7.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  5. 5
    Curtis, T. P., Low-energy wastewater treatment: strategies and technologies. In Environmental Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Mitchell, R. and Gu, J. D., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Gellings, C. W. and Parmenter, K. E., Energy efficiency in fertilizer production and use. In Knowledge for Sustainable Development—An Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems; Gellings, C. W. and Blok, K., Eds.; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, 2004; Vol. II, pp 419– 450.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  7. 7
    Galloway, J. N.; Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change Ambio 2002, 31 (2) 64– 71
    Google Scholar
    7
    Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change
    Galloway James N; Cowling Ellis B
    Ambio (2002), 31 (2), 64-71 ISSN:0044-7447.
    This paper examines the impact of food and energy production on the global N cycle by contrasting N flows in the late-19th century with those of the late-20th century. We have a good understanding of the amounts of reactive N created by humans, and the primary points of loss to the environment. However, we have a poor understanding of nitrogen's rate of accumulation in environmental reservoirs, which is problematic because of the cascading effects of accumulated N in the environment. The substantial regional variability in reactive nitrogen creation, its degree of distribution, and the likelihood of increased rates of reactive-N formation (especially in Asia) in the future creates a situation that calls for the development of a Total Reactive Nitrogen Approach that will optimize food and energy production and protect environmental systems.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD38zjsFyrug%253D%253D&md5=8bebdd6643237fbdeafc1afe5bf98c38
  8. 8
    Krichene, N. World crude oil and natural gas: A demand and supply model Energy Econ. 2002, 24, 557– 576
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  9. 9
    Lindtrom, H. O. Experiences with a 3.3 MW heat pump using sewage water as heat source J. Heat Recovery Syst. 1985, 5 (1) 33– 38
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. 10
    WEF-ASCE. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, 1992; Vol. II, p 829.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  11. 11
    Logan, B. E.; Hamelers, B.; Rozendal, R.; Schroder, U.; Keller, J.; Freguia, S.; Aelterman, P.; Verstraete, W.; Abaey, K. Microbial fuel cells: Methodology and technology Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (17) 5181– 5192
    Google Scholar
    11
    Microbial Fuel Cells: Methodology and Technology
    Logan, Bruce E.; Hamelers, Bert; Rozendal, Rene; Schroeder, Uwe; Keller, Juerg; Freguia, Stefano; Aelterman, Peter; Verstraete, Willy; Rabaey, Korneel
    Environmental Science & Technology (2006), 40 (17), 5181-5192CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    A review of the different materials and methods used to construct a microbial fuel cell (MFC), techniques used to analyze system performance, with recommendations on what information to include in MFC studies and useful ways to present results. MFC research is an evolving field that lacks established terminol. and methods for the anal. of system performance. This makes it difficult for researchers to compare devices. The construction and anal. of MFCs requires knowledge of different scientific and engineering fields, ranging from microbiol. and electrochem. to materials and environmental engineering. Describing MFC systems therefore involves an understanding of these different scientific and engineering principles.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XmvVeisrs%253D&md5=136609c45b85681f70d4e0a0d5eab061
  12. 12
    Opportunites for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-430-R-07-003; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 42.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    Pant, D.; Van Bogaert, G.; Diels, L.; Vanbroekhoven, K. A review of the substrates used in microbial fueld cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101 (6) 1533– 1543
    Google Scholar
    13
    A review of the substrates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production
    Pant, Deepak; Van Bogaert, Gilbert; Diels, Ludo; Vanbroekhoven, Karolien
    Bioresource Technology (2010), 101 (6), 1533-1543CODEN: BIRTEB; ISSN:0960-8524. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    A review. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have gained a lot of attention in recent years as a mode of converting org. waste including low-strength wastewaters and lignocellulosic biomass into electricity. Microbial prodn. of electricity may become an important form of bioenergy in future because MFCs offer the possibility of extg. elec. current from a wide range of sol. or dissolved complex org. wastes and renewable biomass. A large no. of substrates have been explored as feed. The major substrates that have been tried include various kinds of artificial and real wastewaters and lignocellulosic biomass. Though the current and power yields are relatively low at present, it is expected that with improvements in technol. and knowledge about these unique systems, the amt. of elec. current (and elec. power) which can be extd. from these systems will increase tremendously providing a sustainable way of directly converting lignocellulosic biomass or wastewaters to useful energy. This article reviews the various substrates that have been explored in MFCs so far, their resulting performance, limitations as well as future potential substrates.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXhs1WlurnP&md5=008307124c5c48c614a426a55f8bc595
  14. 14
    Rozendal, R. A.; Hamelers, H. V. M.; Rabaey, K.; Keller, J.; Buisman, C. J. N. Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26 (8) 450– 459
    Google Scholar
    14
    Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment
    Rozendal, Rene A.; Hamelers, Hubertus V. M.; Rabaey, Korneel; Keller, Jurg; Buisman, Cees J. N.
    Trends in Biotechnology (2008), 26 (8), 450-459CODEN: TRBIDM; ISSN:0167-7799. (Elsevier B.V.)
    A review is given. Bioelectrochem. systems (BESs), such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and microbial electrolysis cells (MECs), are generally regarded as a promising future technol. for the prodn. of energy from org. material present in wastewaters. The current densities that can be generated with lab. BESs now approach levels that come close to the requirements for practical applications. However, full-scale implementation of bioelectrochem. wastewater treatment is not straightforward because certain microbiol., technol. and economic challenges need to be resolved that have not previously been encountered in any other wastewater treatment system. Here, we identify these challenges, provide an overview of their implications for the feasibility of bioelectrochem. wastewater treatment and explore the opportunities for future BESs.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1cXoslegtL4%253D&md5=9deedbd5b04f302c1e1bc9b19c88cd20
  15. 15
    Liu, H.; Logan, B. E. Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4040– 4046
    Google Scholar
    15
    Electricity Generation Using an Air-Cathode Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell in the Presence and Absence of a Proton Exchange Membrane
    Liu, Hong; Logan, Bruce E.
    Environmental Science and Technology (2004), 38 (14), 4040-4046CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are typically designed as a two-chamber system with the bacteria in the anode chamber sepd. from the cathode chamber by a polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM). Most MFCs use aq. cathodes where water is bubbled with air to provide dissolved oxygen to electrode. To increase energy output and reduce the cost of MFCs, we examd. power generation in an air-cathode MFC contg. carbon electrodes in the presence and absence of a PEM. Bacteria present in domestic wastewater were used as the biocatalyst, and glucose and wastewater were tested as substrates. Power d. was found to be much greater than typically reported for aq.-cathode MFCs, reaching a max. of 262 ± 10 mW/m2 (6.6 ± 0.3 mW/L; liq. vol.) using glucose. Removing the PEM increased the max. power d. to 494 ± 21 mW/m2 (12.5 ± 0.5 mW/L). Coulombic efficiency was 40-55% with the PEM and 9-12% with the PEM removed, indicating substantial oxygen diffusion into the anode chamber in the absence of the PEM. Power output increased with glucose concn. according to satn.-type kinetics, with a half satn. const. of 79 mg/L with the PEM-MFC and 103 mg/L in the MFC without a PEM (1000 Ω resistor). Similar results on the effect of the PEM on power d. were found using wastewater, where 28 ± 3 mW/m2 (0.7 ± 0.1 mW/L) (28% Coulombic efficiency) was produced with the PEM, and 146 ± 8 mW/m2 (3.7 ± 0.2 mW/L) (20% Coulombic efficiency) was produced when the PEM was removed. The increase in power output when a PEM was removed was attributed to a higher cathode potential as shown by an increase in the open circuit potential. An anal. based on available anode surface area and max. bacterial growth rates suggests that mediatorless MFCs may have an upper order-of-magnitude limit in power d. of 103 mW/m2. A cost-effective approach to achieving power densities in this range will likely require systems that do not contain a polymeric PEM in the MFC and systems based on direct oxygen transfer to a carbon cathode.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2cXkvVSjtLg%253D&md5=87db72a1e8e1962fd41b640825666f68
  16. 16
    Pant, D.; Singh, A.; Van Bogaert, G.; Gallego, Y. A.; Diels, L.; Vanbroekhoven, K. An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: Relevance and key aspects Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1305– 1313
    Google Scholar
    16
    An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: Relevance and key aspects
    Pant, Deepak; Singh, Anoop; Van Bogaert, Gilbert; Gallego, Yolanda Alvarez; Diels, Ludo; Vanbroekhoven, Karolien
    Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (2011), 15 (2), 1305-1313CODEN: RSERFH; ISSN:1364-0321. (Elsevier Ltd.)
    A review. Bioelectrochem. systems (BESs) are devices capable of converting org. waste fraction present in wastewaters into useful energy vectors such as electricity or H. In recent years a large amt. of research was done on these unique systems to improve their performance both in terms of waste treatment as well as elec. current prodn. Already there are plans to up-scale this technol. to convince the end-users of its potential. However, there are not many studies available on the life cycle of these systems with the current state of the art. A methodol. was proposed to perform the life cycle assessment (LCA) of the BESs and some recommendations have been given which may be useful in carrying out LCA of these systems. Not only the direct benefits in terms of energy saved in aerating the wastewater treatment plants, but also the resulting saving in cost and elec. power produced should be factored as well. The results of LCA should show that with current knowledge and existing materials, how well the MFCs compares with the existing treatment methods such as anaerobic digestion. Further, given the amt. of research going on in this field, it is expected that with cheaper materials and better microorganisms, the technol. will breakthrough even soon.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXhtVWnug%253D%253D&md5=0b91f522ff0c0ea5175a278596e4dbe5
  17. 17
    McCarty, P. L., One hundred years of anaerobic treatment. In Anaerobic Digestion 1981; Hughes, D. E.;Stafford, D. A.;Wheatley, B. I.;Baader, W.;Lettinga, G.;Nyns, E. J.;Verstraete, W.;Wentworth, R. L., Eds., Elsevier Biomedical Press Inc.: Amsterdam, 1981; pp 3– 22.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    Lettinga, G.; Roersma, R.; Grin, P. Anaerobic treatment of raw domestic sewage at ambient-temperatures using a granular bed UASB reactor Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1983, 25 (7) 1701– 1723
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic sewage treatment Environ. Sci. Technol. 1987, 21 (1) 14– 21
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  20. 20
    Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Preface Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 1– 2
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    van Haandel, A. C.; Lettinga, G., Anaerobic Sewage Treatment, A Practical Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: West Sussex, 1994; p 226.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  22. 22
    van Haandel, A.; Kato, M. T.; Cavalcanti, P. F. F.; Florencio, L. Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of domestic wastewater Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 21– 38
    Google Scholar
    22
    Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of domestic wastewater
    van Haandel, Adrianus; Kato, Mario T.; Cavalcanti, Paula F. F.; Florencio, Lourdinha
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 21-38CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
    Since the earlier anaerobic treatment systems, the design concepts were improved from classic reactors like septic tanks and anaerobic ponds, to modern high rate reactor configurations like anaerobic filters, UASB, EGSB, fixed film fluidized bed and expanded bed reactors, and others. In this paper, anaerobic reactors are evaluated considering the historical evolution and types of wastewaters. The emphasis is on the potential for application in domestic sewage treatment, particularly in regions with a hot climate. Proper design and operation can result in a high capacity and efficiency of org. matter removal using single anaerobic reactors. Performance comparison of anaerobic treatment systems is presented based mostly on a single but practical parameter, the hydraulic retention time. Combined anaerobic reactor systems as well as combined anaerobic and non-anaerobic systems are also presented.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsLg%253D&md5=87107f91fbe1eff7b13c8a5d6b824457
  23. 23
    Switzenbaum, M. S.; Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic attached-film expanded-bed reactor treatment J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1980, 52 (7) 1953– 1965
    Google Scholar
    23
    Anaerobic attached-film expanded-bed reactor treatment
    Switzenbaum, Michael S.; Jewell, William J.
    Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation (1980), 52 (7), 1953-65CODEN: JWPFA5; ISSN:0043-1303.
    The title process is an efficient system for removal of low-strength sol. org. compds. (600 mg/L) at low temps. (10-20°) and high org. loadings (≤8 kg COD/m3/day). The org. removal efficiency of this system depends on the influent concn. The effectiveness of the process may result from the large surface area-to-vol. ratio created by the inert support medium that enables a large active mass of attached microorganisms to remain in the reactor at high liq. flow rates. Biomass concns. of ≤30 g/L caused the system to maintain high solid retention time values.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaL3MXntVKgtA%253D%253D&md5=1ad486ac301539ce0538aedcea608dc1
  24. 24
    Dague, R. R.; Banik, G. C.; Ellis, T. G. Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treatment of dilute wastewater at psychrophilic temperatures Water Environ. Res. 1998, 70 (2) 155– 160
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Tseng, S. K.; Lin, M. R. Treatment of organic wastewater by anaerobic biological fluidized bed reactor Water Sci. Technol. 1994, 29 (12) 157– 166
    Google Scholar
    25
    Treatment of organic wastewater by anaerobic biological fluidized bed reactor
    Tseng, Szu-Kung; Lin, Min-Ray
    Water Science and Technology (1994), 29 (12), 157-66CODEN: WSTED4; ISSN:0273-1223.
    Expts. were carried out with 3 types of wastewater namely synthetic, domestic and monosodium glutamate processing wastewater. The results show that anaerobic biol. fluidized bed reactors can exploit its advantages to compensate for the decrease in the digestive rate caused by temp. drop, while still showing the high treatability of org. wastewater.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2MXivFantLw%253D&md5=a2ba3f036a6c9092126069f446a2eb9a
  26. 26
    Oliveira, S. C.; Von Sperling, M. Reliability analysis of wastewater treatment plants Water Res. 2008, 42 (4–5) 1182– 1194
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  27. 27
    Leitao, R. C.; Silva-Filho, J. A.; Sanders, W.; van Haandel, A. C.; Zeeman, G.; Lettinga, G. The effect of operational conditions on the performance of UASB reactors for domestic wastewater treatment Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 52 (1–2) 299– 305
    Google Scholar
    27
    The effect of operational conditions on the performance of UASB reactors for domestic wastewater treatment
    Leitao R C; Silva-Filho J A; Sanders W; van Haandel A C; Zeeman G; Lettinga G
    Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research (2005), 52 (1-2), 299-305 ISSN:0273-1223.
    In this investigation, the performance of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors treating municipal wastewater was evaluated on the basis of: (i) COD removal efficiency, (ii) effluent variability, and (iii) pH stability. The experiments were performed using 8 pilot-scale UASB reactors (120 L) from which some of them were operated with different influent COD (CODInf ranging from 92 to 816 mg/L) and some at different hydraulic retention time (HRT ranging from 1 to 6 h). The results show that decreasing the CODInf, or lowering the HRT, leads to decreased efficiencies and increased effluent variability. During this experiment, the reactors could treat efficiently sewage with concentration as low as 200 mg COD/L. They could also be operated satisfactorily at an HRT as low as 2 hours, without problems of operational stability. The maximum COD removal efficiency can be achieved at CODInf exceeding 300 mg/L and HRT of 6h.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrgvVamtg%253D%253D&md5=58c9c1beb5e9c8c293d8e08412f78d2f
  28. 28
    Noyola, A.; Capdeville, B.; Roques, H. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage with a rotating stationary fixed-film reactor Water Res. 1988, 22 (12) 1585– 1592
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  29. 29
    Langenhoff, A. A. M.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor: Effect of low temperature Water Res. 2000, 34 (15) 3867– 3875
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  30. 30
    Aiyuk, S.; Amoako, J.; Raskin, L.; van Haandel, A.; Verstraete, W. Removal of carbon and nutrients from domestic wastewater using a low investment, integrated treatment concept Water Res. 2004, 38 (13) 3031– 3042
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  31. 31
    Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Anaerobic processes as the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 3– 19
    Google Scholar
    31
    Anaerobic processes as the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges
    Foresti, Eugenio; Zaiat, Marcelo; Vallero, Marcus
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 3-19CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
    A review. Anaerobic digesters have been responsible for the removal of large fraction of org. matter (mineralization of waste sludge) in conventional aerobic sewage treatment plants since the early years of domestic sewage treatment (DST). Attention on the anaerobic technol. for improving the sustainability of sewage treatment has been paid mainly after the energy crisis in the 1970s. The successful use of anaerobic reactors (esp. up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors) for the treatment of raw domestic sewage in tropical and sub-tropical regions (where ambient temps. are not restrictive for anaerobic digestion) opened the opportunity to substitute the aerobic processes for the anaerobic technol. in removal of the influent org. matter. Despite the success, effluents from anaerobic reactors treating domestic sewage require post-treatment in order to achieve the emission stds. prevailing in most countries. Initially, the compn. of this effluent rich in reduced compds. has required the adoption of post-treatment (mainly aerobic) systems able to remove the undesirable constituents. Currently, however, a wealth of information obtained on biol. and phys.-chem. processes related to the recovery or removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur compds. creates the opportunity for new treatment systems. The design of DST plant with the anaerobic reactor as core unit coupled to the pre- and post-treatment systems in order to promote the recovery of resources and the polishing of effluent quality can improve the sustainability of treatment systems. This paper presents a broader view on the possible applications of anaerobic treatment systems not only for org. matter removal but also for resources recovery aiming at the improvement of the sustainability of DST.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsLo%253D&md5=fb545dd0fcbd1fc087ba42042b17a1f4
  32. 32
    Chernicharo, C. A. L. Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 73– 92
    Google Scholar
    32
    Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater
    Chernicharo, C. A. L.
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 73-92CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
    A review. This paper focuses on the post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater. Initially, the main limitations of anaerobic systems regarding carbon, nutrients and pathogen removal are presented. In sequence, the advantages of combined anaerobic/aerobic treatment and the main post-treatment options currently in use are discussed, including the presentation of flowsheets and a comparison between various post-treatment systems. Lastly, the paper presents a review of emerging options and possible improvements of current post-treatment alternatives.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsb8%253D&md5=f0635e71a59a999582cf88eda3995178
  33. 33
    Hu, A. Y.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute wastewaters using a novel submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor J. Environ. Eng. 2006, 132 (2) 190– 198
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Berube, P. R.; Hall, E. R.; Sutton, P. M. Parameters governing permeate flux in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-strength municipal wastewaters: A literature review Water Environ. Res. 2006, 78 (8) 887– 896
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Kim, J.; Kim, K.; Ye, H.; Lee, E.; Shin, C.; McCarty, P. L.; Bae, J. Anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 576– 581
    Google Scholar
    35
    Anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment
    Kim, Jeong-Hwan; Kim, Kih-Yun; Ye, Hyoung-Young; Lee, Eun-Young; Shin, Chung-Heon; McCarty, Perry L.; Bae, Jae-Ho
    Environmental Science & Technology (2011), 45 (2), 576-581CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
    Anaerobic membrane bioreactors have potential for energy-efficient treatment of domestic and other wastewaters, membrane fouling being a major hurdle to application. Fouling can be controlled if membranes are placed directly in contact with the granular activated carbon in an anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor (AFMBR) used here for post-treatment of effluent from another anaerobic reactor treating dil. wastewater. A 120-d continuous-feed evaluation was conducted using this 2-stage anaerobic treatment system operated at 35° and fed a synthetic wastewater with COD averaging 513 mg/L. The first-stage was a similar fluidized-bed bioreactor without membranes (AFBR), operated at 2.0-2.8 h hydraulic retention time (HRT), and was followed by the above AFMBR, operating at 2.2 h HRT. Successful membrane cleaning was practiced twice. After the second cleaning and membrane flux set at 10 L/m2/h, transmembrane pressure increased linearly from 0.075 to only 0.1 bar during the final 40 d of operation. COD removals were 88 and 87% in the resp. reactors and 99% overall, with permeate COD of 7 ± 4 mg/L. Total energy required for fluidization for both reactors combined was 0.058 kWh/m3, which could be satisfied by using only 30% of the gaseous methane energy produced. That of the AFMBR alone was 0.028 kWh/m3, which is significantly less than reported for other submerged membrane bioreactors with gas sparging for fouling control.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXhsFKmtr7N&md5=b34d11e586d0fa5283e1b7d16841a78e
  36. 36
    Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Naganga, J.; Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Schutz, M.; Van Dorland, R., Changes in atmospheric constitutents and in radiative forcing. In Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Base, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Soloman, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M.;; Miller, H. L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    Noyola, A.; Morgan-Sagastume, J. M.; Lopez-Hernandez, J. E. Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for domestic wastewater: odor control and energy/resource recovery Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 93– 114
    Google Scholar
    37
    Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for domestic wastewater: odor control and energy/resource recovery
    Noyola, Adalberto; Morgan-Sagastume, Juan Manuel; Lopez-Hernandez, Jorge E.
    Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 93-114CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
    A review (71 refs.). Anaerobic municipal wastewater treatment in developing countries has important potential applications considering their huge lack of sanitation infrastructure and their advantageous climatic conditions. At present, among the obstacles that this technol. encounters, odor control and biogas utilization or disposal should be properly addressed. In fact, in most of small and medium size anaerobic municipal treatment plants, biogas is just vented, transferring pollution from water to the atm., contributing to the greenhouse gas inventory. Anaerobic municipal sewage treatment should not be considered as an energy producer, unless a significant wastewater flow is treated. In these cases, more than half of the methane produced is dissolved and lost in the effluent so yield values will be between 0.08 and 0.18 N m3 CH4/kg COD removed. Diverse technologies for odor control and biogas cleaning are currently available. High pollutant concns. may be treated with phys.-chem. methods, while biol. processes are used mainly for odor control to prevent neg. impacts on the treatment facilities or nearby areas. In general terms, biogas treatment is accomplished by physico-chem. methods, scrubbing being extensively used for H2S and CO2 removal. However, diln. (venting) has been an extensive disposal method in some small- and medium-size anaerobic plants treating municipal wastewaters. Simple technologies, such as biofilters, should be developed in order to avoid this practice, matching with the simplicity of anaerobic wastewater treatment processes. In any case, design and specification of biogas handling system should consider safety stds. Resource recovery can be added to anaerobic sewage treatment if methane is used as electron donor for denitrification and nitrogen control purposes. This would result in a redn. of operational cost and in an addnl. advantage for the application of anaerobic sewage treatment. In developing countries, biogas conversion to energy may apply for the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. This would increase the economic feasibility of the project through the marketing of certified emission redns. (CERs).
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsb0%253D&md5=dc1abc4e25744858766076e9ffba450f
  38. 38
    Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Membrane Bioreactors; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 9.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  39. 39
    de-Bashan, L. E.; Bashan, Y. Recent advances in removing phosphorus from wastewater and its future use as fertilizer (1997–2003) Water Res. 2004, 38 (19) 4222– 4246
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  40. 40
    Strous, M.; VanGerven, E.; Zheng, P.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten, M. S. M. Ammonium removal from concentrated waste streams with the anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) process in different reactor configurations Water Res. 1997, 31 (8) 1955– 1962
    Google Scholar
    40
    Ammonium removal from concentrated waste streams with the anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox) process in different reactor configurations
    Strous, Marc; Van Gerven, Eric; Zheng, Ping; Kuenen, J. Gijs; Jetten, Mike S. M.
    Water Research (1997), 31 (8), 1955-1962CODEN: WATRAG; ISSN:0043-1354. (Elsevier)
    Many concd. wastewater streams produced in food and agro-industry are treated using sludge digestion. The effluent from sludge digestors frequently contains ammonium in high concns. (≤2 kg/m3). This ammonium-rich effluent is usually treated by in normal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). When ammonium removal from this concd. stream is considered, steam stripping or a combination of 2 biol. processes, aerobic nitrification and anoxic denitrification, are the (costly) options. A process was discovered in which ammonium is converted to dinitrogen gas under anoxic conditions with nitrite as the electron acceptor. It has been named Anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidn.). The aim is to demonstrate the feasibility of ammonium removal from sludge digestion effluents with the Anammox process. Using a synthetic wastewater, it was shown that a fixed-bed reactor and a fluidized-bed reactor were suitable reactor configurations. The effects of sludge digestion effluent on the Anammox process were studied; during 150 days, 82% ammonium removal efficiency and 99% nitrite removal efficiency was achieved in a fluidized-bed reactor inoculated with Anammox sludge and fed with sludge digestion effluent from a domestic WWTP. The max. N conversion capacity was 0.7 kg NH4+-N/m3-day and 1.5 kg total N/m3-day.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXkt12rs74%253D&md5=721ee0ffe21759f203b69e0a9d3764ed
  41. 41
    Larsen, T. A.; Alder, A. C.; Eggen, R. I. L.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. Source separation: Will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6121– 6125
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  42. 42
    Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F. L., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, 1991; p 1334.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai
powered by  Scite

This article is cited by 1443 publications.

  1. Esteban Orellana, Guido Zampieri, Nicola De Bernardini, Leandro D. Guerrero, Leonardo Erijman, Stefano Campanaro, Laura Treu. Sustainable Food Waste Management in Anaerobic Digesters: Prediction of the Organic Load Impact by Metagenome-Scale Metabolic Modeling. Environmental Science & Technology 2025, Article ASAP.
  2. Brett Krueger, Elle Bennett, Alexander Pytlar, Stephanie Galaitsi, Chelsea Linvill, Michael Butkus, Andrew Pfluger. Visualizing System and Technology Trade-offs in the Water–Energy Nexus. ACS ES&T Water 2025, 5 (2) , 548-555. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00773
  3. Fletcher T. Chapin, Daly Wettermark, Jose Bolorinos, Meagan S. Mauter. Load-Shifting Strategies for Cost-Effective Emission Reductions at Wastewater Facilities. Environmental Science & Technology 2025, 59 (4) , 2285-2294. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09773
  4. Jinyue Jiang, Lin Du, Jun-Jie Zhu, Anthony Y. Ku, Zhiyong Jason Ren. Water Resource Recovery Facilities Empower the Electrolytic Hydrogen Economy. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (50) , 22124-22134. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c08054
  5. Ziwei Liu, Haojie Ding, Xia Huang. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Treating Municipal Wastewater: Mainstream or Sidestream?. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (46) , 20329-20332. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09138
  6. Amitap Khandelwal, Jaichander Swaminathan, Stephen Nolan, Piet N. L. Lens. Coupling Biogas Upgradation and Dairy Wastewater Treatment for Simultaneous Carbon Capture and Bioelectricity Generation Using an Algae-Assisted Microbial Fuel Cell. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2024, 12 (38) , 14265-14275. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c04954
  7. Anna Kogler, Meili Gong, Kindle S. Williams, William A. Tarpeh. Flexible Electrochemical Stripping for Wastewater Ammonia Recovery with On-Demand Product Tunability. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2024, 11 (8) , 886-894. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00366
  8. Xiaohang Ni, Hongtao Wang. Resource Coupling in Wastewater Treatment Plants Contributes to Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. ACS ES&T Water 2024, 4 (6) , 2333-2335. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.4c00351
  9. Chao Li, Dandan Liang, Yan Tian, Shujuan Liu, Weihua He, Zeng Li, Ravi Shankar Yadav, Yamei Ma, Chengcheng Ji, Kexin Yi, Wulin Yang, Yujie Feng. Sorting Out the Latest Advances in Separators and Pilot-Scale Microbial Electrochemical Systems for Wastewater Treatment: Concomitant Development, Practical Application, and Future Perspective. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (22) , 9471-9486. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c03169
  10. Min Ye, Aijun Zhu, Jianyong Liu, Yu-You Li. Iron Recycle-Driven Organic Capture and Sidestream Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor for Revolutionizing Bioenergy Generation in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (21) , 9350-9360. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c10954
  11. Weikun Chen, Paul Akinyemi, Taeyoung Kim. Selective Separation of Ammonium from Wastewater Using Ion Conducting Channels of a Prussian Blue Analogue. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2024, 11 (3) , 280-286. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.3c00932
  12. Zhang Cheng, Avner Ronen, Heyang Yuan. Hybrid Modeling of Engineered Biological Systems through Coupling Data-Driven Calibration of Kinetic Parameters with Mechanistic Prediction of System Performance. ACS ES&T Water 2024, 4 (3) , 958-968. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00131
  13. Ze-Lin Qiu, Wen-Han Yu, Wu-Shang Yang, Tong Sun, Zi-Hao Zhao, Qian-Wei Su, Bao-Ku Zhu. Ionic Hyperbranched Poly(amido-amine)-Incorporated Nanofiltration Membranes for High-Efficiency Dye Desalination. Langmuir 2024, 40 (1) , 915-926. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.3c03119
  14. Kaichong Wang, Jia Li, Xin Gu, Han Wang, Xiang Li, Yongzhen Peng, Yayi Wang. How to Provide Nitrite Robustly for Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation in Mainstream Nitrogen Removal. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (51) , 21503-21526. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05600
  15. Muhammad Ali, Yogesh Singh, Luca Fortunato, Zahid Ur Rehman, Sarvajith Manjunath, Johannes S. Vrouwenvelder, Mario Pronk, Mark C. M. van Loosdrecht, Pascal E. Saikaly. Performance Evaluation of a Pilot-Scale Aerobic Granular Sludge Integrated with Gravity-Driven Membrane System Treating Domestic Wastewater. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3 (8) , 2681-2690. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00178
  16. Zhetai Hu, Shihu Hu, Liu Ye, Haoran Duan, Ziping Wu, Pei-Ying Hong, Zhiguo Yuan, Min Zheng. Novel Use of a Ferric Salt to Enhance Mainstream Nitrogen Removal from Anaerobically Pretreated Wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (16) , 6712-6722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08325
  17. Haoran Duan, Min Zheng, Jiyun Li, Tao Liu, Zhiyao Wang, Sohan Shrestha, Bingzheng Wang, Liu Ye, Shihu Hu, Zhiguo Yuan. High Hydraulic Loading Rates Favored Mainstream Partial Nitritation: Experimental Demonstration and Model-Based Analysis. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3 (2) , 556-564. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00569
  18. Qiong Su, Hancheng Dai, Shuyan Xie, Xiangying Yu, Yun Lin, Vijay P. Singh, Raghupathy Karthikeyan. Water–Energy–Carbon Nexus: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Integrated Urban Drainage Systems in China. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (5) , 2093-2104. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08583
  19. Stephen M. Galdi, Aleksandra Szczuka, Chungheon Shin, William A. Mitch, Richard G. Luthy. Dissolved Methane Recovery and Trace Contaminant Fate Following Mainstream Anaerobic Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. ACS ES&T Engineering 2023, 3 (1) , 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.2c00256
  20. Jeseth Delgado Vela, Kelly J. Gordon, Judith M. Klatt, Gregory J. Dick, Nancy G. Love. Integrated Modeling and Lab-Scale Investigations Demonstrate the Impact of Sulfide on a Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor. ACS ES&T Water 2022, 2 (12) , 2388-2399. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00253
  21. M. O. Torres-Fuentez Y. M. Maldonado I. L. Alonso-Lemus F. J Rodríguez-Varela . Biomass-Derived Electroactive Carbons with Application in Green Electrochemical Technologies. , 129-164. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1431.ch006
  22. Zhaoqing Wang, Dungang Gu, Jiaqi Lu, Nan Zhang, Yang Liu, Guanghui Li. Scheduling of Batch Operation for a Wastewater Treatment Plant under Time-of-Use Electricity Pricing. ACS Omega 2022, 7 (32) , 28525-28533. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c03302
  23. Yang Yang, Edo Bar-Zeev, Gideon Oron, Moshe Herzberg, Roy Bernstein. Biofilm Formation and Biofouling Development on Different Ultrafiltration Membranes by Natural Anaerobes from an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (14) , 10339-10348. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02007
  24. Zhiyao Wang, Min Zheng, Haoran Duan, Zhiguo Yuan, Shihu Hu. A 20-Year Journey of Partial Nitritation and Anammox (PN/A): from Sidestream toward Mainstream. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (12) , 7522-7531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c06107
  25. Chungheon Shin, Aleksandra Szczuka, Matthew J. Liu, Lorelay Mendoza, Renjing Jiang, Sebastien H. Tilmans, William A. Tarpeh, William A. Mitch, Craig S. Criddle. Recovery of Clean Water and Ammonia from Domestic Wastewater: Impacts on Embodied Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (12) , 8712-8721. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07992
  26. Hua Jiang, Anthony P. Straub, Vasiliki Karanikola. Ammonia Recovery with Sweeping Gas Membrane Distillation: Energy and Removal Efficiency Analysis. ACS ES&T Engineering 2022, 2 (4) , 617-628. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00294
  27. Byung-Chul Kim, Changyu Moon, Yongju Choi, Kyoungphile Nam. Long-Term Stability of High-n-Caproate Specificity-Ensuring Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors: Controlling Microbial Competitions through Feeding Strategies. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2022, 10 (4) , 1595-1604. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c07259
  28. Sheng-Qiang Fan, Guo-Jun Xie, Yang Lu, Zhi-Cheng Zhao, Bing-Feng Liu, De-Feng Xing, Jie Ding, Hong-Jun Han, Nan-Qi Ren. Mainstream Nitrogen and Dissolved Methane Removal through Coupling n-DAMO with Anammox in Granular Sludge at Low Temperature. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (24) , 16586-16596. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01952
  29. Bin Ji, Yu Liu. Assessment of Microalgal-Bacterial Granular Sludge Process for Environmentally Sustainable Municipal Wastewater Treatment. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1 (12) , 2459-2469. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.1c00303
  30. Ian M. Bradley, Yalin Li, Jeremy S. Guest. Solids Residence Time Impacts Carbon Dynamics and Bioenergy Feedstock Potential in Phototrophic Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (18) , 12574-12584. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02590
  31. Qian Wang, Xiaoguang Liu, Haesung Jung, Simin Zhao, Spyros G. Pavlostathis, Yuanzhi Tang. Effect of Prestage Hydrothermal Treatment on the Formation of Struvite vs Vivianite during Semicontinuous Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2021, 9 (27) , 9093-9105. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c02638
  32. Umesh Ghimire, Gideon Sarpong, Veera Gnaneswar Gude. Transitioning Wastewater Treatment Plants toward Circular Economy and Energy Sustainability. ACS Omega 2021, 6 (18) , 11794-11803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.0c05827
  33. Anna Kogler, McKenna Farmer, Julia A. Simon, Sebastien Tilmans, George F. Wells, William A. Tarpeh. Systematic Evaluation of Emerging Wastewater Nutrient Removal and Recovery Technologies to Inform Practice and Advance Resource Efficiency. ACS ES&T Engineering 2021, 1 (4) , 662-684. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.0c00253
  34. Meng Sun, Xiaoxiong Wang, Lea R. Winter, Yumeng Zhao, Wen Ma, Tayler Hedtke, Jae-Hong Kim, Menachem Elimelech. Electrified Membranes for Water Treatment Applications. ACS ES&T Engineering 2021, 1 (4) , 725-752. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.1c00015
  35. Dong Wu, Xiangzhong Li, Xiangdong Li. Toward Energy Neutrality in Municipal Wastewater Treatment: A Systematic Analysis of Energy Flow Balance for Different Scenarios. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1 (4) , 796-807. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00154
  36. Yangying Zhao, Xin Tong, Yongsheng Chen. Fit-for-Purpose Design of Nanofiltration Membranes for Simultaneous Nutrient Recovery and Micropollutant Removal. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (5) , 3352-3361. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08101
  37. Yangying Zhao, Tiezheng Tong, Xiaomao Wang, Shihong Lin, Elliot M. Reid, Yongsheng Chen. Differentiating Solutes with Precise Nanofiltration for Next Generation Environmental Separations: A Review. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (3) , 1359-1376. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04593
  38. Zhiyao Wang, Min Zheng, Jia Meng, Zhetai Hu, Gaofeng Ni, Angelica Guerrero Calderon, Huijuan Li, Haydee De Clippeleir, Ahmed Al-Omari, Shihu Hu, Zhiguo Yuan. Robust Nitritation Sustained by Acid-Tolerant Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (3) , 2048-2056. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05181
  39. James A. Libby, E. Christian Wells, James R. Mihelcic. Moving up the Sanitation Ladder while Considering Function: An Assessment of Indigenous Communities, Pit Latrine Users, and Their Perceptions of Resource Recovery Sanitation Technology in Panama. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (23) , 15405-15413. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04120
  40. Ka Leung Lam, Jan Peter van der Hoek. Low-Carbon Urban Water Systems: Opportunities beyond Water and Wastewater Utilities?. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (23) , 14854-14861. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05385
  41. Yuanyuan Yao, Zhongbo Zhou, David C. Stuckey, Fangang Meng. Micro-particles—A Neglected but Critical Cause of Different Membrane Fouling between Aerobic and Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2020, 8 (44) , 16680-16690. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c06502
  42. Meng-Hsuan Lin, Devon Manley Bulman, Christina K. Remucal, Brian P. Chaplin. Chlorinated Byproduct Formation during the Electrochemical Advanced Oxidation Process at Magnéli Phase Ti4O7 Electrodes. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (19) , 12673-12683. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03916
  43. Xueyu Tian, Ruth E. Richardson, Jefferson W. Tester, José L. Lozano, Fengqi You. Retrofitting Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities toward a Greener and Circular Economy by Virtue of Resource Recovery: Techno-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2020, 8 (36) , 13823-13837. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c05189
  44. Meng Sun, Mohan Qin, Chi Wang, Guoming Weng, Mingxin Huo, André D. Taylor, Jiuhui Qu, Menachem Elimelech. Electrochemical-Osmotic Process for Simultaneous Recovery of Electric Energy, Water, and Metals from Wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (13) , 8430-8442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01891
  45. Kristian L. Dubrawski, Xiaohan Shao, Ross D. Milton, Jörg S. Deutzmann, Alfred M. Spormann, Craig S. Criddle. Microbial Battery Powered Enzymatic Electrosynthesis for Carbon Capture and Generation of Hydrogen and Formate from Dilute Organics. ACS Energy Letters 2019, 4 (12) , 2929-2936. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b02203
  46. Dianxun Hou, David Jassby, Robert Nerenberg, Zhiyong Jason Ren. Hydrophobic Gas Transfer Membranes for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (20) , 11618-11635. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00902
  47. Nannan Zhao, Laura Treu, Irini Angelidaki, Yifeng Zhang. Exoelectrogenic Anaerobic Granular Sludge for Simultaneous Electricity Generation and Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (20) , 12130-12140. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03395
  48. Heidy Cruz, Ying Yu Law, Jeremy S. Guest, Korneel Rabaey, Damien Batstone, Bronwyn Laycock, Willy Verstraete, Ilje Pikaar. Mainstream Ammonium Recovery to Advance Sustainable Urban Wastewater Management. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (19) , 11066-11079. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00603
  49. William Kreutter, Zhongzhe Liu, Patrick McNamara, Simcha Singer. Kinetic Analysis of Dried Biosolid Pyrolysis. Energy & Fuels 2019, 33 (9) , 8766-8776. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b01911
  50. Meng Ye, Mauro Pasta, Xing Xie, Kristian L. Dubrawski, Jianqaio Xu, Chong Liu, Yi Cui, Craig S. Criddle. Charge-Free Mixing Entropy Battery Enabled by Low-Cost Electrode Materials. ACS Omega 2019, 4 (7) , 11785-11790. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b00863
  51. Ziye Dai, Elizabeth S. Heidrich, Jan Dolfing, Adam P. Jarvis. Determination of the Relationship between the Energy Content of Municipal Wastewater and Its Chemical Oxygen Demand. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2019, 6 (7) , 396-400. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00253
  52. Kahao Lim, Patrick J. Evans, Prathap Parameswaran. Long-Term Performance of a Pilot-Scale Gas-Sparged Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor under Ambient Temperatures for Holistic Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (13) , 7347-7354. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06198
  53. Jiuyang Lin, Fang Lin, Xiangyu Chen, Wenyuan Ye, Xiaojuan Li, Huiming Zeng, Bart Van der Bruggen. Sustainable Management of Textile Wastewater: A Hybrid Tight Ultrafiltration/Bipolar-Membrane Electrodialysis Process for Resource Recovery and Zero Liquid Discharge. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2019, 58 (25) , 11003-11012. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b01353
  54. Glenn R. Hafenstine, Ryan E. Patalano, Alexander W. Harris, Grace Jiang, Ke Ma, Andrew P. Goodwin, Jennifer N. Cha. Solar Photocatalytic Phenol Polymerization and Hydrogen Generation for Flocculation of Wastewater Impurities. ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2019, 1 (6) , 1451-1457. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsapm.9b00210
  55. Yanhong Bian, Xi Chen, Lu Lu, Peng Liang, Zhiyong Jason Ren. Concurrent Nitrogen and Phosphorus Recovery Using Flow-Electrode Capacitive Deionization. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019, 7 (8) , 7844-7850. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b00065
  56. Xuesong Li, Abhishek Dutta, Qirong Dong, Sasha Rollings-Scattergood, Jongho Lee. Dissolved Methane Harvesting Using Omniphobic Membranes for Anaerobically Treated Wastewaters. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2019, 6 (4) , 228-234. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00076
  57. Aleksandra Szczuka, Juliana P. Berglund-Brown, Hannah K. Chen, Amanda N. Quay, William A. Mitch. Evaluation of a Pilot Anaerobic Secondary Effluent for Potable Reuse: Impact of Different Disinfection Schemes on Organic Fouling of RO Membranes and DBP Formation. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (6) , 3166-3176. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05473
  58. Qian Hu, Na Zhou, Kedong Gong, Haoyu Liu, Qing Liu, Dezhi Sun, Qiang Wang, Qian Shao, Hu Liu, Bin Qiu, Zhanhu Guo. Intracellular Polymer Substances Induced Conductive Polyaniline for Improved Methane Production from Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2019, 7 (6) , 5912-5920. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b05847
  59. Qinghua Ji, Gong Zhang, Huijuan Liu, Ruiping Liu, Jiuhui Qu. Field-Enhanced Nanoconvection Accelerated Electrocatalytic Conversion of Water Contaminants and Electricity Generation. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (5) , 2713-2719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06620
  60. Yalin Li, William A. Tarpeh, Kara L. Nelson, Timothy J. Strathmann. Quantitative Evaluation of an Integrated System for Valorization of Wastewater Algae as Bio-oil, Fuel Gas, and Fertilizer Products. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (21) , 12717-12727. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04035
  61. Colleen C. Naughton, Patricia Akers, Danielle Yoder, Roberta Baer, James R. Mihelcic. Can Sanitation Technology Play a Role in User Perceptions of Resource Recovery? An Evaluation of Composting Latrine Use in Developing World Communities in Panama. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (20) , 11803-11812. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02431
  62. Andrew R. Pfluger, Jennie L. Callahan, Jennifer Stokes-Draut, Dotti F. Ramey, Sonja Gagen, Linda A. Figueroa, Junko Munakata-Marr. Lifecycle Comparison of Mainstream Anaerobic Baffled Reactor and Conventional Activated Sludge Systems for Domestic Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (18) , 10500-10510. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06684
  63. Mei Jiang, Kunfeng Ye, Jiajie Deng, Jiuyang Lin, Wenyuan Ye, Shuaifei Zhao, Bart Van der Bruggen. Conventional Ultrafiltration As Effective Strategy for Dye/Salt Fractionation in Textile Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (18) , 10698-10708. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02984
  64. Dianxun Hou, Arpita Iddya, Xi Chen, Mengyuan Wang, Wenli Zhang, Yifu Ding, David Jassby, Zhiyong Jason Ren. Nickel-Based Membrane Electrodes Enable High-Rate Electrochemical Ammonia Recovery. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (15) , 8930-8938. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01349
  65. Manel Garrido-Baserba, Sergi Vinardell, María Molinos-Senante, Diego Rosso, Manel Poch. The Economics of Wastewater Treatment Decentralization: A Techno-economic Evaluation. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (15) , 8965-8976. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01623
  66. Perry L. McCarty. What is the Best Biological Process for Nitrogen Removal: When and Why?. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (7) , 3835-3841. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05832
  67. Junjian Zheng, Zhiwei Wang, Jinxing Ma, Shaoping Xu, Zhichao Wu. Development of an Electrochemical Ceramic Membrane Filtration System for Efficient Contaminant Removal from Waters. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (7) , 4117-4126. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06407
  68. Bao-Cheng Huang, Jun Jiang, Wei-Kang Wang, Wen-Wei Li, Feng Zhang, Hong Jiang, Han-Qing Yu. Electrochemically Catalytic Degradation of Phenol with Hydrogen Peroxide in Situ Generated and Activated by a Municipal Sludge-Derived Catalyst. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2018, 6 (4) , 5540-5546. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00416
  69. Tianqi Li, Zhimi Hu, Xu Xiao, Huimin Yu, Liang Huang, and Jun Zhou . Energy Harvest from Organics Degradation by Two-Dimensional K+-Intercalated Manganese Oxide. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2017, 9 (47) , 41233-41238. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b12160
  70. Dana Boyer and Anu Ramaswami . What Is the Contribution of City-Scale Actions to the Overall Food System’s Environmental Impacts?: Assessing Water, Greenhouse Gas, and Land Impacts of Future Urban Food Scenarios. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (20) , 12035-12045. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03176
  71. Katherine R. Zodrow, Qilin Li, Regina M. Buono, Wei Chen, Glen Daigger, Leonardo Dueñas-Osorio, Menachem Elimelech, Xia Huang, Guibin Jiang, Jae-Hong Kim, Bruce E. Logan, David L. Sedlak, Paul Westerhoff, and Pedro J. J. Alvarez . Advanced Materials, Technologies, and Complex Systems Analyses: Emerging Opportunities to Enhance Urban Water Security. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (18) , 10274-10281. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01679
  72. John T. Trimmer, Roland D. Cusick, and Jeremy S. Guest . Amplifying Progress toward Multiple Development Goals through Resource Recovery from Sanitation. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (18) , 10765-10776. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02147
  73. James R. Mihelcic, Zhiyong Jason Ren, Pablo K. Cornejo, Aaron Fisher, A. J. Simon, Seth W. Snyder, Qiong Zhang, Diego Rosso, Tyler M. Huggins, William Cooper, Jeff Moeller, Bob Rose, Brandi L. Schottel, and Jason Turgeon . Accelerating Innovation that Enhances Resource Recovery in the Wastewater Sector: Advancing a National Testbed Network. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (14) , 7749-7758. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05917
  74. Erik R. Coats and Patrick I. Wilson . Toward Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (8) , 4158-4164. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00363
  75. Ben O. Oyserman, Joseph M. Martirano, Spenser Wipperfurth, Brian R. Owen, Daniel R. Noguera, and Katherine D. McMahon . Community Assembly and Ecology of Activated Sludge under Photosynthetic Feast–Famine Conditions. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (6) , 3165-3175. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03976
  76. Zhen He . Development of Microbial Fuel Cells Needs To Go beyond “Power Density”. ACS Energy Letters 2017, 2 (3) , 700-702. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.7b00041
  77. Junjian Zheng, Jinxing Ma, Zhiwei Wang, Shaoping Xu, T. David Waite, and Zhichao Wu . Contaminant Removal from Source Waters Using Cathodic Electrochemical Membrane Filtration: Mechanisms and Implications. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (5) , 2757-2765. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05625
  78. Peng Yan, Rong-cong Qin, Jin-song Guo, Qiang Yu, Zhe Li, You-peng Chen, Yu Shen, and Fang Fang . Net-Zero-Energy Model for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (2) , 1017-1023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04735
  79. Olga Kavvada, Arpad Horvath, Jennifer R. Stokes-Draut, Thomas P. Hendrickson, William A. Eisenstein, and Kara L. Nelson . Assessing Location and Scale of Urban Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems for Life-Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (24) , 13184-13194. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02386
  80. Zhongbo Zhou, Yiting Tan, Yeyuan Xiao, and David C. Stuckey . Characterization and Significance of Sub-Visible Particles and Colloids in a Submerged Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (SAnMBR). Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (23) , 12750-12758. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03581
  81. Jacob G. Mortensen, Ricardo González-Pinzón, Clifford N. Dahm, Jingjing Wang, Lydia H. Zeglin, and David J. Van Horn . Advancing the Food-Energy–Water Nexus: Closing Nutrient Loops in Arid River Corridors. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (16) , 8485-8496. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01351
  82. Jie Zhang, Hui Zhao, Chunyu Wang, Weifeng Li, Jianliang Xu, and Haifeng Liu . Influence of Small Oxygen-Containing Organic Molecules on the Rheology of the Coal Water Slurry. Energy & Fuels 2016, 30 (7) , 5506-5512. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00703
  83. Kuichang Zuo, Zhen Wang, Xi Chen, Xiaoyuan Zhang, Jiaolan Zuo, Peng Liang, and Xia Huang . Self-Driven Desalination and Advanced Treatment of Wastewater in a Modularized Filtration Air Cathode Microbial Desalination Cell. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (13) , 7254-7262. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00520
  84. Craig M. Werner, Krishna P. Katuri, Ananda Rao Hari, Wei Chen, Zhiping Lai, Bruce E. Logan, Gary L. Amy, and Pascal E. Saikaly . Graphene-Coated Hollow Fiber Membrane as the Cathode in Anaerobic Electrochemical Membrane Bioreactors – Effect of Configuration and Applied Voltage on Performance and Membrane Fouling. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (8) , 4439-4447. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02833
  85. Nathan D. Manser, Meng Wang, Sarina J. Ergas, James R. Mihelcic, Arnold Mulder, Jack van de Vossenberg, Jules B. van Lier, and Peter van der Steen . Biological Nitrogen Removal in a Photosequencing Batch Reactor with an Algal-Nitrifying Bacterial Consortium and Anammox Granules. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2016, 3 (4) , 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00034
  86. Jeseth Delgado Vela, Lauren B. Stadler, Kelly J. Martin, Lutgarde Raskin, Charles B. Bott, and Nancy G. Love . Prospects for Biological Nitrogen Removal from Anaerobic Effluents during Mainstream Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2015, 2 (9) , 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00191
  87. Jiuyang Lin, Wenyuan Ye, Jie Huang, Borrego Ricard, Marian-Cornel Baltaru, Benjamin Greydanus, Stefan Balta, Jiangnan Shen, Maria Vlad, Arcadio Sotto, Patricia Luis, and Bart Van der Bruggen . Toward Resource Recovery from Textile Wastewater: Dye Extraction, Water and Base/Acid Regeneration Using a Hybrid NF-BMED Process. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2015, 3 (9) , 1993-2001. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00234
  88. Hyeongu Yeo, Junyeong An, Robertson Reid, Bruce E. Rittmann, and Hyung-Sool Lee . Contribution of Liquid/Gas Mass-Transfer Limitations to Dissolved Methane Oversaturation in Anaerobic Treatment of Dilute Wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (17) , 10366-10372. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02560
  89. Heyang Yuan, Yang Hou, Zhenhai Wen, Xiaoru Guo, Junhong Chen, and Zhen He . Porous Carbon Nanosheets Codoped with Nitrogen and Sulfur for Oxygen Reduction Reaction in Microbial Fuel Cells. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2015, 7 (33) , 18672-18678. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b05144
  90. Jordan Peccia and Paul Westerhoff . We Should Expect More out of Our Sewage Sludge. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (14) , 8271-8276. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01931
  91. Lu Lu, Zhe Huang, Greg H. Rau, and Zhiyong Jason Ren . Microbial Electrolytic Carbon Capture for Carbon Negative and Energy Positive Wastewater Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (13) , 8193-8201. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
  92. Silvio Matassa, Damien J. Batstone, Tim Hülsen, Jerald Schnoor, and Willy Verstraete . Can Direct Conversion of Used Nitrogen to New Feed and Protein Help Feed the World?. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (9) , 5247-5254. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505432w
  93. Daniel L. McCurry, Samantha E. Bear, Jaeho Bae, David L. Sedlak, Perry L. McCarty, and William A. Mitch . Superior Removal of Disinfection Byproduct Precursors and Pharmaceuticals from Wastewater in a Staged Anaerobic Fluidized Membrane Bioreactor Compared to Activated Sludge. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2014, 1 (11) , 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez500279a
  94. Krishna P. Katuri, Craig M. Werner, Rodrigo J. Jimenez-Sandoval, Wei Chen, Sungil Jeon, Bruce E. Logan, Zhiping Lai, Gary L. Amy, and Pascal E. Saikaly . A Novel Anaerobic Electrochemical Membrane Bioreactor (AnEMBR) with Conductive Hollow-fiber Membrane for Treatment of Low-Organic Strength Solutions. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (21) , 12833-12841. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504392n
  95. Yongli Zhang, Mussie Y. Habteselassie, Eleazer P. Resurreccion, Vijaya Mantripragada, Shanshan Peng, Sarah Bauer, and Lisa M. Colosi . Evaluating Removal of Steroid Estrogens by a Model Alga as a Possible Sustainability Benefit of Hypothetical Integrated Algae Cultivation and Wastewater Treatment Systems. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2014, 2 (11) , 2544-2553. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc5004538
  96. Yaniv D. Scherson and Craig S. Criddle . Recovery of Freshwater from Wastewater: Upgrading Process Configurations To Maximize Energy Recovery and Minimize Residuals. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (15) , 8420-8432. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501701s
  97. Zheng Ge, Jian Li, Li Xiao, Yiran Tong, and Zhen He . Recovery of Electrical Energy in Microbial Fuel Cells. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2014, 1 (2) , 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez4000324
  98. Ze-hua Liu, Hua Yin, Zhi Dang, and Yu Liu . Dissolved Methane: A Hurdle for Anaerobic Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (2) , 889-890. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405553j
  99. Roland D. Cusick, Marta Hatzell, Fang Zhang, and Bruce E. Logan . Minimal RED Cell Pairs Markedly Improve Electrode Kinetics and Power Production in Microbial Reverse Electrodialysis Cells. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (24) , 14518-14524. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4037995
  100. Yuan Liu, Hong Liu, Chuan Wang, Shuang-Xia Hou, and Nuan Yang . Sustainable Energy Recovery in Wastewater Treatment by Microbial Fuel Cells: Stable Power Generation with Nitrogen-doped Graphene Cathode. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (23) , 13889-13895. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4032216
Load more citations
Download PDF
Go to Environmental Science & Technology
Get e-Alerts
Get e-Alerts

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 17, 7100–7106
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/es2014264
Published July 12, 2011

Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Request reuse permissions

Article Views

47k

Altmetric

-

Citations

1443
Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. A hypothetical system for complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Comparative estimates of CH4, sludge, and energy production per cubic meter of wastewater treated for full anaerobic treatment versus conventional aerobic treatment with sludge digestion. (a) CH4 production (STP) associated with primary sludge digestion (blue) and secondary treatment (red). (b) Volume of digested sludge resulting from primary treatment (blue) and from secondary treatment (red). (c) Biogas energy produced (blue) and energy used in overall wastewater treatment (red).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • References

    This article references 42 other publications.

    1. 1
      Asano, T., Burton, F. L., Leverenz, H. L., Tsuchihashi, R., and Tchobanoglous, G. Water Reuse, Issues, Technologies, and Applications; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2007; p 1570.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Speece, R. E., Anaerobic Biotechnology and Odor/Corrosion Control; Archae Press: Nashville, TN, 2008; p 586.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Owen, W. F. Energy in Wastewater Treatment; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, 1982; p 373.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    4. 4
      EPA Office of Water. Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Energy Conservation, EPA 832-F-06-024; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2006; p 7.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    5. 5
      Curtis, T. P., Low-energy wastewater treatment: strategies and technologies. In Environmental Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Mitchell, R. and Gu, J. D., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Gellings, C. W. and Parmenter, K. E., Energy efficiency in fertilizer production and use. In Knowledge for Sustainable Development—An Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems; Gellings, C. W. and Blok, K., Eds.; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, 2004; Vol. II, pp 419– 450.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    7. 7
      Galloway, J. N.; Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change Ambio 2002, 31 (2) 64– 71
      7
      Reactive nitrogen and the world: 200 years of change
      Galloway James N; Cowling Ellis B
      Ambio (2002), 31 (2), 64-71 ISSN:0044-7447.
      This paper examines the impact of food and energy production on the global N cycle by contrasting N flows in the late-19th century with those of the late-20th century. We have a good understanding of the amounts of reactive N created by humans, and the primary points of loss to the environment. However, we have a poor understanding of nitrogen's rate of accumulation in environmental reservoirs, which is problematic because of the cascading effects of accumulated N in the environment. The substantial regional variability in reactive nitrogen creation, its degree of distribution, and the likelihood of increased rates of reactive-N formation (especially in Asia) in the future creates a situation that calls for the development of a Total Reactive Nitrogen Approach that will optimize food and energy production and protect environmental systems.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD38zjsFyrug%253D%253D&md5=8bebdd6643237fbdeafc1afe5bf98c38
    8. 8
      Krichene, N. World crude oil and natural gas: A demand and supply model Energy Econ. 2002, 24, 557– 576
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9
      Lindtrom, H. O. Experiences with a 3.3 MW heat pump using sewage water as heat source J. Heat Recovery Syst. 1985, 5 (1) 33– 38
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. 10
      WEF-ASCE. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, 1992; Vol. II, p 829.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      Logan, B. E.; Hamelers, B.; Rozendal, R.; Schroder, U.; Keller, J.; Freguia, S.; Aelterman, P.; Verstraete, W.; Abaey, K. Microbial fuel cells: Methodology and technology Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (17) 5181– 5192
      11
      Microbial Fuel Cells: Methodology and Technology
      Logan, Bruce E.; Hamelers, Bert; Rozendal, Rene; Schroeder, Uwe; Keller, Juerg; Freguia, Stefano; Aelterman, Peter; Verstraete, Willy; Rabaey, Korneel
      Environmental Science & Technology (2006), 40 (17), 5181-5192CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      A review of the different materials and methods used to construct a microbial fuel cell (MFC), techniques used to analyze system performance, with recommendations on what information to include in MFC studies and useful ways to present results. MFC research is an evolving field that lacks established terminol. and methods for the anal. of system performance. This makes it difficult for researchers to compare devices. The construction and anal. of MFCs requires knowledge of different scientific and engineering fields, ranging from microbiol. and electrochem. to materials and environmental engineering. Describing MFC systems therefore involves an understanding of these different scientific and engineering principles.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XmvVeisrs%253D&md5=136609c45b85681f70d4e0a0d5eab061
    12. 12
      Opportunites for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-430-R-07-003; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 42.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      Pant, D.; Van Bogaert, G.; Diels, L.; Vanbroekhoven, K. A review of the substrates used in microbial fueld cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101 (6) 1533– 1543
      13
      A review of the substrates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production
      Pant, Deepak; Van Bogaert, Gilbert; Diels, Ludo; Vanbroekhoven, Karolien
      Bioresource Technology (2010), 101 (6), 1533-1543CODEN: BIRTEB; ISSN:0960-8524. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      A review. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) have gained a lot of attention in recent years as a mode of converting org. waste including low-strength wastewaters and lignocellulosic biomass into electricity. Microbial prodn. of electricity may become an important form of bioenergy in future because MFCs offer the possibility of extg. elec. current from a wide range of sol. or dissolved complex org. wastes and renewable biomass. A large no. of substrates have been explored as feed. The major substrates that have been tried include various kinds of artificial and real wastewaters and lignocellulosic biomass. Though the current and power yields are relatively low at present, it is expected that with improvements in technol. and knowledge about these unique systems, the amt. of elec. current (and elec. power) which can be extd. from these systems will increase tremendously providing a sustainable way of directly converting lignocellulosic biomass or wastewaters to useful energy. This article reviews the various substrates that have been explored in MFCs so far, their resulting performance, limitations as well as future potential substrates.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1MXhs1WlurnP&md5=008307124c5c48c614a426a55f8bc595
    14. 14
      Rozendal, R. A.; Hamelers, H. V. M.; Rabaey, K.; Keller, J.; Buisman, C. J. N. Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26 (8) 450– 459
      14
      Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment
      Rozendal, Rene A.; Hamelers, Hubertus V. M.; Rabaey, Korneel; Keller, Jurg; Buisman, Cees J. N.
      Trends in Biotechnology (2008), 26 (8), 450-459CODEN: TRBIDM; ISSN:0167-7799. (Elsevier B.V.)
      A review is given. Bioelectrochem. systems (BESs), such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and microbial electrolysis cells (MECs), are generally regarded as a promising future technol. for the prodn. of energy from org. material present in wastewaters. The current densities that can be generated with lab. BESs now approach levels that come close to the requirements for practical applications. However, full-scale implementation of bioelectrochem. wastewater treatment is not straightforward because certain microbiol., technol. and economic challenges need to be resolved that have not previously been encountered in any other wastewater treatment system. Here, we identify these challenges, provide an overview of their implications for the feasibility of bioelectrochem. wastewater treatment and explore the opportunities for future BESs.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD1cXoslegtL4%253D&md5=9deedbd5b04f302c1e1bc9b19c88cd20
    15. 15
      Liu, H.; Logan, B. E. Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4040– 4046
      15
      Electricity Generation Using an Air-Cathode Single Chamber Microbial Fuel Cell in the Presence and Absence of a Proton Exchange Membrane
      Liu, Hong; Logan, Bruce E.
      Environmental Science and Technology (2004), 38 (14), 4040-4046CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are typically designed as a two-chamber system with the bacteria in the anode chamber sepd. from the cathode chamber by a polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM). Most MFCs use aq. cathodes where water is bubbled with air to provide dissolved oxygen to electrode. To increase energy output and reduce the cost of MFCs, we examd. power generation in an air-cathode MFC contg. carbon electrodes in the presence and absence of a PEM. Bacteria present in domestic wastewater were used as the biocatalyst, and glucose and wastewater were tested as substrates. Power d. was found to be much greater than typically reported for aq.-cathode MFCs, reaching a max. of 262 ± 10 mW/m2 (6.6 ± 0.3 mW/L; liq. vol.) using glucose. Removing the PEM increased the max. power d. to 494 ± 21 mW/m2 (12.5 ± 0.5 mW/L). Coulombic efficiency was 40-55% with the PEM and 9-12% with the PEM removed, indicating substantial oxygen diffusion into the anode chamber in the absence of the PEM. Power output increased with glucose concn. according to satn.-type kinetics, with a half satn. const. of 79 mg/L with the PEM-MFC and 103 mg/L in the MFC without a PEM (1000 Ω resistor). Similar results on the effect of the PEM on power d. were found using wastewater, where 28 ± 3 mW/m2 (0.7 ± 0.1 mW/L) (28% Coulombic efficiency) was produced with the PEM, and 146 ± 8 mW/m2 (3.7 ± 0.2 mW/L) (20% Coulombic efficiency) was produced when the PEM was removed. The increase in power output when a PEM was removed was attributed to a higher cathode potential as shown by an increase in the open circuit potential. An anal. based on available anode surface area and max. bacterial growth rates suggests that mediatorless MFCs may have an upper order-of-magnitude limit in power d. of 103 mW/m2. A cost-effective approach to achieving power densities in this range will likely require systems that do not contain a polymeric PEM in the MFC and systems based on direct oxygen transfer to a carbon cathode.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2cXkvVSjtLg%253D&md5=87db72a1e8e1962fd41b640825666f68
    16. 16
      Pant, D.; Singh, A.; Van Bogaert, G.; Gallego, Y. A.; Diels, L.; Vanbroekhoven, K. An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: Relevance and key aspects Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1305– 1313
      16
      An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product generation: Relevance and key aspects
      Pant, Deepak; Singh, Anoop; Van Bogaert, Gilbert; Gallego, Yolanda Alvarez; Diels, Ludo; Vanbroekhoven, Karolien
      Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (2011), 15 (2), 1305-1313CODEN: RSERFH; ISSN:1364-0321. (Elsevier Ltd.)
      A review. Bioelectrochem. systems (BESs) are devices capable of converting org. waste fraction present in wastewaters into useful energy vectors such as electricity or H. In recent years a large amt. of research was done on these unique systems to improve their performance both in terms of waste treatment as well as elec. current prodn. Already there are plans to up-scale this technol. to convince the end-users of its potential. However, there are not many studies available on the life cycle of these systems with the current state of the art. A methodol. was proposed to perform the life cycle assessment (LCA) of the BESs and some recommendations have been given which may be useful in carrying out LCA of these systems. Not only the direct benefits in terms of energy saved in aerating the wastewater treatment plants, but also the resulting saving in cost and elec. power produced should be factored as well. The results of LCA should show that with current knowledge and existing materials, how well the MFCs compares with the existing treatment methods such as anaerobic digestion. Further, given the amt. of research going on in this field, it is expected that with cheaper materials and better microorganisms, the technol. will breakthrough even soon.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3MXhtVWnug%253D%253D&md5=0b91f522ff0c0ea5175a278596e4dbe5
    17. 17
      McCarty, P. L., One hundred years of anaerobic treatment. In Anaerobic Digestion 1981; Hughes, D. E.;Stafford, D. A.;Wheatley, B. I.;Baader, W.;Lettinga, G.;Nyns, E. J.;Verstraete, W.;Wentworth, R. L., Eds., Elsevier Biomedical Press Inc.: Amsterdam, 1981; pp 3– 22.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      Lettinga, G.; Roersma, R.; Grin, P. Anaerobic treatment of raw domestic sewage at ambient-temperatures using a granular bed UASB reactor Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1983, 25 (7) 1701– 1723
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic sewage treatment Environ. Sci. Technol. 1987, 21 (1) 14– 21
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    20. 20
      Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Preface Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 1– 2
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      van Haandel, A. C.; Lettinga, G., Anaerobic Sewage Treatment, A Practical Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: West Sussex, 1994; p 226.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    22. 22
      van Haandel, A.; Kato, M. T.; Cavalcanti, P. F. F.; Florencio, L. Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of domestic wastewater Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 21– 38
      22
      Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of domestic wastewater
      van Haandel, Adrianus; Kato, Mario T.; Cavalcanti, Paula F. F.; Florencio, Lourdinha
      Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 21-38CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
      Since the earlier anaerobic treatment systems, the design concepts were improved from classic reactors like septic tanks and anaerobic ponds, to modern high rate reactor configurations like anaerobic filters, UASB, EGSB, fixed film fluidized bed and expanded bed reactors, and others. In this paper, anaerobic reactors are evaluated considering the historical evolution and types of wastewaters. The emphasis is on the potential for application in domestic sewage treatment, particularly in regions with a hot climate. Proper design and operation can result in a high capacity and efficiency of org. matter removal using single anaerobic reactors. Performance comparison of anaerobic treatment systems is presented based mostly on a single but practical parameter, the hydraulic retention time. Combined anaerobic reactor systems as well as combined anaerobic and non-anaerobic systems are also presented.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsLg%253D&md5=87107f91fbe1eff7b13c8a5d6b824457
    23. 23
      Switzenbaum, M. S.; Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic attached-film expanded-bed reactor treatment J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1980, 52 (7) 1953– 1965
      23
      Anaerobic attached-film expanded-bed reactor treatment
      Switzenbaum, Michael S.; Jewell, William J.
      Journal - Water Pollution Control Federation (1980), 52 (7), 1953-65CODEN: JWPFA5; ISSN:0043-1303.
      The title process is an efficient system for removal of low-strength sol. org. compds. (600 mg/L) at low temps. (10-20°) and high org. loadings (≤8 kg COD/m3/day). The org. removal efficiency of this system depends on the influent concn. The effectiveness of the process may result from the large surface area-to-vol. ratio created by the inert support medium that enables a large active mass of attached microorganisms to remain in the reactor at high liq. flow rates. Biomass concns. of ≤30 g/L caused the system to maintain high solid retention time values.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaL3MXntVKgtA%253D%253D&md5=1ad486ac301539ce0538aedcea608dc1
    24. 24
      Dague, R. R.; Banik, G. C.; Ellis, T. G. Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treatment of dilute wastewater at psychrophilic temperatures Water Environ. Res. 1998, 70 (2) 155– 160
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Tseng, S. K.; Lin, M. R. Treatment of organic wastewater by anaerobic biological fluidized bed reactor Water Sci. Technol. 1994, 29 (12) 157– 166
      25
      Treatment of organic wastewater by anaerobic biological fluidized bed reactor
      Tseng, Szu-Kung; Lin, Min-Ray
      Water Science and Technology (1994), 29 (12), 157-66CODEN: WSTED4; ISSN:0273-1223.
      Expts. were carried out with 3 types of wastewater namely synthetic, domestic and monosodium glutamate processing wastewater. The results show that anaerobic biol. fluidized bed reactors can exploit its advantages to compensate for the decrease in the digestive rate caused by temp. drop, while still showing the high treatability of org. wastewater.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2MXivFantLw%253D&md5=a2ba3f036a6c9092126069f446a2eb9a
    26. 26
      Oliveira, S. C.; Von Sperling, M. Reliability analysis of wastewater treatment plants Water Res. 2008, 42 (4–5) 1182– 1194
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    27. 27
      Leitao, R. C.; Silva-Filho, J. A.; Sanders, W.; van Haandel, A. C.; Zeeman, G.; Lettinga, G. The effect of operational conditions on the performance of UASB reactors for domestic wastewater treatment Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 52 (1–2) 299– 305
      27
      The effect of operational conditions on the performance of UASB reactors for domestic wastewater treatment
      Leitao R C; Silva-Filho J A; Sanders W; van Haandel A C; Zeeman G; Lettinga G
      Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research (2005), 52 (1-2), 299-305 ISSN:0273-1223.
      In this investigation, the performance of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors treating municipal wastewater was evaluated on the basis of: (i) COD removal efficiency, (ii) effluent variability, and (iii) pH stability. The experiments were performed using 8 pilot-scale UASB reactors (120 L) from which some of them were operated with different influent COD (CODInf ranging from 92 to 816 mg/L) and some at different hydraulic retention time (HRT ranging from 1 to 6 h). The results show that decreasing the CODInf, or lowering the HRT, leads to decreased efficiencies and increased effluent variability. During this experiment, the reactors could treat efficiently sewage with concentration as low as 200 mg COD/L. They could also be operated satisfactorily at an HRT as low as 2 hours, without problems of operational stability. The maximum COD removal efficiency can be achieved at CODInf exceeding 300 mg/L and HRT of 6h.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD2MrgvVamtg%253D%253D&md5=58c9c1beb5e9c8c293d8e08412f78d2f
    28. 28
      Noyola, A.; Capdeville, B.; Roques, H. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage with a rotating stationary fixed-film reactor Water Res. 1988, 22 (12) 1585– 1592
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    29. 29
      Langenhoff, A. A. M.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor: Effect of low temperature Water Res. 2000, 34 (15) 3867– 3875
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    30. 30
      Aiyuk, S.; Amoako, J.; Raskin, L.; van Haandel, A.; Verstraete, W. Removal of carbon and nutrients from domestic wastewater using a low investment, integrated treatment concept Water Res. 2004, 38 (13) 3031– 3042
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    31. 31
      Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Anaerobic processes as the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 3– 19
      31
      Anaerobic processes as the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges
      Foresti, Eugenio; Zaiat, Marcelo; Vallero, Marcus
      Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 3-19CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
      A review. Anaerobic digesters have been responsible for the removal of large fraction of org. matter (mineralization of waste sludge) in conventional aerobic sewage treatment plants since the early years of domestic sewage treatment (DST). Attention on the anaerobic technol. for improving the sustainability of sewage treatment has been paid mainly after the energy crisis in the 1970s. The successful use of anaerobic reactors (esp. up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors) for the treatment of raw domestic sewage in tropical and sub-tropical regions (where ambient temps. are not restrictive for anaerobic digestion) opened the opportunity to substitute the aerobic processes for the anaerobic technol. in removal of the influent org. matter. Despite the success, effluents from anaerobic reactors treating domestic sewage require post-treatment in order to achieve the emission stds. prevailing in most countries. Initially, the compn. of this effluent rich in reduced compds. has required the adoption of post-treatment (mainly aerobic) systems able to remove the undesirable constituents. Currently, however, a wealth of information obtained on biol. and phys.-chem. processes related to the recovery or removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur compds. creates the opportunity for new treatment systems. The design of DST plant with the anaerobic reactor as core unit coupled to the pre- and post-treatment systems in order to promote the recovery of resources and the polishing of effluent quality can improve the sustainability of treatment systems. This paper presents a broader view on the possible applications of anaerobic treatment systems not only for org. matter removal but also for resources recovery aiming at the improvement of the sustainability of DST.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsLo%253D&md5=fb545dd0fcbd1fc087ba42042b17a1f4
    32. 32
      Chernicharo, C. A. L. Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 73– 92
      32
      Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater
      Chernicharo, C. A. L.
      Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 73-92CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
      A review. This paper focuses on the post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater. Initially, the main limitations of anaerobic systems regarding carbon, nutrients and pathogen removal are presented. In sequence, the advantages of combined anaerobic/aerobic treatment and the main post-treatment options currently in use are discussed, including the presentation of flowsheets and a comparison between various post-treatment systems. Lastly, the paper presents a review of emerging options and possible improvements of current post-treatment alternatives.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsb8%253D&md5=f0635e71a59a999582cf88eda3995178
    33. 33
      Hu, A. Y.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute wastewaters using a novel submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor J. Environ. Eng. 2006, 132 (2) 190– 198
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Berube, P. R.; Hall, E. R.; Sutton, P. M. Parameters governing permeate flux in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-strength municipal wastewaters: A literature review Water Environ. Res. 2006, 78 (8) 887– 896
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Kim, J.; Kim, K.; Ye, H.; Lee, E.; Shin, C.; McCarty, P. L.; Bae, J. Anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 576– 581
      35
      Anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment
      Kim, Jeong-Hwan; Kim, Kih-Yun; Ye, Hyoung-Young; Lee, Eun-Young; Shin, Chung-Heon; McCarty, Perry L.; Bae, Jae-Ho
      Environmental Science & Technology (2011), 45 (2), 576-581CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)
      Anaerobic membrane bioreactors have potential for energy-efficient treatment of domestic and other wastewaters, membrane fouling being a major hurdle to application. Fouling can be controlled if membranes are placed directly in contact with the granular activated carbon in an anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor (AFMBR) used here for post-treatment of effluent from another anaerobic reactor treating dil. wastewater. A 120-d continuous-feed evaluation was conducted using this 2-stage anaerobic treatment system operated at 35° and fed a synthetic wastewater with COD averaging 513 mg/L. The first-stage was a similar fluidized-bed bioreactor without membranes (AFBR), operated at 2.0-2.8 h hydraulic retention time (HRT), and was followed by the above AFMBR, operating at 2.2 h HRT. Successful membrane cleaning was practiced twice. After the second cleaning and membrane flux set at 10 L/m2/h, transmembrane pressure increased linearly from 0.075 to only 0.1 bar during the final 40 d of operation. COD removals were 88 and 87% in the resp. reactors and 99% overall, with permeate COD of 7 ± 4 mg/L. Total energy required for fluidization for both reactors combined was 0.058 kWh/m3, which could be satisfied by using only 30% of the gaseous methane energy produced. That of the AFMBR alone was 0.028 kWh/m3, which is significantly less than reported for other submerged membrane bioreactors with gas sparging for fouling control.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3cXhsFKmtr7N&md5=b34d11e586d0fa5283e1b7d16841a78e
    36. 36
      Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Naganga, J.; Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Schutz, M.; Van Dorland, R., Changes in atmospheric constitutents and in radiative forcing. In Climate change 2007: The Physical Science Base, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Soloman, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M.;; Miller, H. L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      Noyola, A.; Morgan-Sagastume, J. M.; Lopez-Hernandez, J. E. Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for domestic wastewater: odor control and energy/resource recovery Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 93– 114
      37
      Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for domestic wastewater: odor control and energy/resource recovery
      Noyola, Adalberto; Morgan-Sagastume, Juan Manuel; Lopez-Hernandez, Jorge E.
      Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006), 5 (1), 93-114CODEN: RESBC6; ISSN:1569-1705. (Springer)
      A review (71 refs.). Anaerobic municipal wastewater treatment in developing countries has important potential applications considering their huge lack of sanitation infrastructure and their advantageous climatic conditions. At present, among the obstacles that this technol. encounters, odor control and biogas utilization or disposal should be properly addressed. In fact, in most of small and medium size anaerobic municipal treatment plants, biogas is just vented, transferring pollution from water to the atm., contributing to the greenhouse gas inventory. Anaerobic municipal sewage treatment should not be considered as an energy producer, unless a significant wastewater flow is treated. In these cases, more than half of the methane produced is dissolved and lost in the effluent so yield values will be between 0.08 and 0.18 N m3 CH4/kg COD removed. Diverse technologies for odor control and biogas cleaning are currently available. High pollutant concns. may be treated with phys.-chem. methods, while biol. processes are used mainly for odor control to prevent neg. impacts on the treatment facilities or nearby areas. In general terms, biogas treatment is accomplished by physico-chem. methods, scrubbing being extensively used for H2S and CO2 removal. However, diln. (venting) has been an extensive disposal method in some small- and medium-size anaerobic plants treating municipal wastewaters. Simple technologies, such as biofilters, should be developed in order to avoid this practice, matching with the simplicity of anaerobic wastewater treatment processes. In any case, design and specification of biogas handling system should consider safety stds. Resource recovery can be added to anaerobic sewage treatment if methane is used as electron donor for denitrification and nitrogen control purposes. This would result in a redn. of operational cost and in an addnl. advantage for the application of anaerobic sewage treatment. In developing countries, biogas conversion to energy may apply for the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. This would increase the economic feasibility of the project through the marketing of certified emission redns. (CERs).
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD28XjslOqsb0%253D&md5=dc1abc4e25744858766076e9ffba450f
    38. 38
      Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Membrane Bioreactors; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 9.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    39. 39
      de-Bashan, L. E.; Bashan, Y. Recent advances in removing phosphorus from wastewater and its future use as fertilizer (1997–2003) Water Res. 2004, 38 (19) 4222– 4246
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    40. 40
      Strous, M.; VanGerven, E.; Zheng, P.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten, M. S. M. Ammonium removal from concentrated waste streams with the anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) process in different reactor configurations Water Res. 1997, 31 (8) 1955– 1962
      40
      Ammonium removal from concentrated waste streams with the anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox) process in different reactor configurations
      Strous, Marc; Van Gerven, Eric; Zheng, Ping; Kuenen, J. Gijs; Jetten, Mike S. M.
      Water Research (1997), 31 (8), 1955-1962CODEN: WATRAG; ISSN:0043-1354. (Elsevier)
      Many concd. wastewater streams produced in food and agro-industry are treated using sludge digestion. The effluent from sludge digestors frequently contains ammonium in high concns. (≤2 kg/m3). This ammonium-rich effluent is usually treated by in normal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). When ammonium removal from this concd. stream is considered, steam stripping or a combination of 2 biol. processes, aerobic nitrification and anoxic denitrification, are the (costly) options. A process was discovered in which ammonium is converted to dinitrogen gas under anoxic conditions with nitrite as the electron acceptor. It has been named Anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidn.). The aim is to demonstrate the feasibility of ammonium removal from sludge digestion effluents with the Anammox process. Using a synthetic wastewater, it was shown that a fixed-bed reactor and a fluidized-bed reactor were suitable reactor configurations. The effects of sludge digestion effluent on the Anammox process were studied; during 150 days, 82% ammonium removal efficiency and 99% nitrite removal efficiency was achieved in a fluidized-bed reactor inoculated with Anammox sludge and fed with sludge digestion effluent from a domestic WWTP. The max. N conversion capacity was 0.7 kg NH4+-N/m3-day and 1.5 kg total N/m3-day.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXkt12rs74%253D&md5=721ee0ffe21759f203b69e0a9d3764ed
    41. 41
      Larsen, T. A.; Alder, A. C.; Eggen, R. I. L.; Maurer, M.; Lienert, J. Source separation: Will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6121– 6125
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    42. 42
      Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F. L., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York, 1991; p 1334.
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.