Evaluating the effect of different operational strategies on the carbon footprint of wastewater treatment plants – case studies from northern Poland - Publikacja - MOST Wiedzy

Twoje konto

zaloguj

Wyszukiwarka

Evaluating the effect of different operational strategies on the carbon footprint of wastewater treatment plants – case studies from northern Poland

Abstrakt

Nowadays, low greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is expected at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). However, emission quantification and evaluation still faces difficulties related to data availability and uncertainty. The objective of this study was to perform carbon footprint (CF) analysis for two municipal WWTPs located in northern Poland. Slupsk WWTP is a large biological nutrient removal (BNR) facility (250,000 PE) which benefits from on-site electricity production from biogas. The other studied plant is a medium-size BNR facility in Starogard (60,000 PE). In this WWTP, all the required electricity was provided from the grid. Both wastewater systems were composed of activated sludge, with differences in the nutrient removal efficiency and sludge treatment line. The CF calculations were based on empirical models considering various categories of input parameters, afterwards summing up the emissions expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2e). After sensitivity analysis, significant contributors to GHG emissions were identified. The total specific CF of the Slupsk and the Starogard WWTP was 17.3 and 38.8 CO2e per population equivalent (PE), respectively. In both cases, sludge management, electricity consumption and direct emissions from wastewater treatment were found to significantly influence the CF. A substantial share of the total CF originated from indirect emissions, primarily caused by the energy consumption. This negative impact can be partially overcome by increasing the share of renewable energy sources. Reduction of over 30% in the total CF could be achieved while applying energy recovery from biogas by combined heat and power plants. Farmland and farmland after composting were found to be the most appropriate strategies for sludge management. They could create a CF credit (8% of the total CF) as a result of substituting a synthetic fertilizer. Reliable full-scale measurements of N2O emissions from wastewater treatment are recommended due to high uncertainty in CF estimation based on fixed emission factors (EFs). While applying the lowest and the highest N2O EFs reported in the literature, the total CF would change even by 2–3 times.

Cytowania

  • 2 0

    CrossRef

  • 0

    Web of Science

  • 1 6

    Scopus

Autorzy (3)

Cytuj jako

Pełna treść

pobierz publikację
pobrano 49 razy
Wersja publikacji
Accepted albo Published Version
Licencja
Creative Commons: CC-BY-NC-ND otwiera się w nowej karcie

Słowa kluczowe

Informacje szczegółowe

Kategoria:
Publikacja w czasopiśmie
Typ:
artykuł w czasopiśmie wyróżnionym w JCR
Opublikowano w:
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY nr 79, strony 2211 - 2220,
ISSN: 0273-1223
Język:
angielski
Rok wydania:
2019
Opis bibliograficzny:
Maktabifard M., Zaborowska E., Mąkinia J.: Evaluating the effect of different operational strategies on the carbon footprint of wastewater treatment plants – case studies from northern Poland// WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. -Vol. 79, iss. 11 (2019), s.2211-2220
DOI:
Cyfrowy identyfikator dokumentu elektronicznego (otwiera się w nowej karcie) 10.2166/wst.2019.224
Bibliografia: test
  1. Aboobakar, A., Cartmell, E., Stephenson, T., Jones, M., Vale, P. & Dotro, G.  Nitrous oxide emissions and dissolved oxygen profiling in a full-scale nitrifying activated sludge treatment plant. Water Research 47, 524-534. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  2. Andrews, J., Chambers, B., Davey, A., Galletti, S., Hobson, J., Hunt, D., Thorman, R. & Walker, I.  Carbon Accounting in the Water Industry: Non-CO 2 Emissions. UKWIR, London, UK.
  3. APHA  Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA.
  4. Bao, Z., Sun, S. & Sun, D.  Assessment of greenhouse gas emission from A/O and SBR wastewater treatment plants in Beijing, China. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 108, 108-114. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  5. Baresel, C., Andersson, S., Yang, J. & Andersen, M. H.  Comparison of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions calculations at a Swedish wastewater treatment plant based on water concentrations versus off-gas concentrations. Advances in Climate Change Research 7, 185-191. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  6. Brown, S., Beecher, N. & Carpenter, A.  Calculator tool for determining greenhouse gas emissions for biosolids processing and end use. Environmental Science and Technology 44, 9509-9515. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  7. CFCT  Carbon Footprint Calculation Tool. https://va- tekniksodra.se/2014/11/carbon-footprint-calculation-tool- for-wwtps-now-available-in-english/. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  8. CSO  Energy Statistics in 2015 and 2016. Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, Poland. www.stat.gov.pl. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  9. Daelman, M. R. J., van Voorthuizen, E. M., van Dongen, L. G. J. M., Volcke, E. I. P. & van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.  Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from municipal wastewater treatment -results from a long-term study. Water Science and Technology 67, 2350-2355. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  10. de Haas, D. W., Pepperell, C. & Foley, J.  Perspectives on greenhouse gas emission estimates based on Australian wastewater treatment plant operating data. Water Science and Technology 69 (3), 451-463. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  11. Delre, A., ten Hoeve, M. & Scheutz, C.  Site-specific carbon footprints of Scandinavian wastewater treatment plants, using the life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 211, 1001-1014. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  12. Doka, G.  Life Cycle Inventory of Wastewater Treatment. Ecoinvent Report No. 13, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  13. Foley, J., Lant, P. & Donlon, P.  Fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater systems. Water 38 (2), 18-23. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  14. Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K. & Lant, P.  Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Research 44 (5), 1654-1666. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  15. Göthe, L.  Metanutsläpp i den svenska fordonsgaskedjan -En nulägesanalys (Methane emissions in the Swedish CNG/ CBG chain -a current situation analysis). SGC Report 282, SGC, Malmo, Sweden (in Swedish). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  16. Gustavsson, D. J. I. & Tumlin, S.  Carbon footprints of Scandinavian wastewater treatment plants. Water Science and Technology 68 (4), 887-893. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  17. GWRC  N 2 O and CH 4 Emission from Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems. Global Water Research Coalition, London, UK. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  18. Hao, X., Liu, R. & Huang, X.  Evaluation of the potential for operating carbon neutral WWTPs in China. Water Research 87, 424-431. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  19. IPCC  Module 4: Agriculture. In: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Workbook (Volume 2). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC, pp. 1-20. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  20. IPCC  Wastewater treatment and discharge. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, IPCC, ch. 6.
  21. IPCC  Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley, eds). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  22. Jenkins, D. & Wanner, J.  Activated Sludge -100 Years and Counting IWA Publishing, London, UK. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  23. Kampschreur, M. J., van der Star, W. R. L., Wielders, H. A., Mulder, J. W., Jetten, M. S. M. & van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.  Dynamics of nitric oxide and nitrous oxide emission during full-scale reject water treatment. Water Research 42 (3), 812-826. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  24. Kirkeby, J. T., Gabriel, S. & Christensen, T. H.  Miljøvurdering af genanvendelse og slutdisponering af spildevandsslam -en livscyklus screening af fire scenarier. (Environmental assessment of recycling and final disposal of sewage sludge - a life cycle screening of four scenarios) Technical University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark (in Danish).
  25. Koutsou, O. P., Gatidou, G. & Stasinakis, A. S.  Domestic wastewater management in Greece: greenhouse gas emissions at country scale. Journal of Cleaner Production 188, 851-859. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  26. Larsen, T. A.  CO 2 -neutral wastewater treatment plants or robust, climate-friendly wastewater management? A systems perspective. Water Research 87, 513-521. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  27. Li, Y., Wang, X., Butler, D., Liu, J. & Qu, J.  Energy use and carbon footprints differ dramatically for diverse wastewater- derived carbonaceous substrates: an integrated exploration of biokinetics and life-cycle assessment. Scientific Reports 7 (1), 243. Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Alfonsín, C., Amores, M. J., Aldea, X., Marin, D., Moreira, M. T. & Feijoo, G.  Beyond the conventional life cycle inventory in wastewater treatment plants. Science of the Total Environment 553, 71-82. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  28. Mamais, D., Noutsopoulos, C., Dimopoulou, A., Stasinakis, A. & Lekkas, T. D.  Wastewater treatment process impact on energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Science and Technology 71 (2), 303-308. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  29. Mannina, G., Ekama, G., Caniani, D., Cosenza, A., Esposito, G., Gori, R., Garrido-Baserba, M., Rosso, D. & Olsson, G.  Greenhouse gases from wastewater treatment -a review of modelling tools. Science of the Total Environment 551-552, 254-270. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  30. Mannina, G., Rebouças, T. F., Cosenza, A. & Chandran, K.  A plant-wide wastewater treatment plant model for carbon and energy footprint: model application and scenario analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 217, 244-256. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  31. Marques, R., Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Oehmen, A. & Pijuan, M.  Assessment of online monitoring strategies for measuring N 2 O emissions from full-scale wastewater treatment systems. Water Research 99, 171-179. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  32. NCEM  Emission Factors of CO 2 , SO 2 , NO x , CO and Total Dust for Electric Energy, on the Basis of Information Contained in the National Database on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Substances for 2016. National Center for Emission Management (NCEM), Warsaw, Poland (in Polish). otwiera się w nowej karcie
  33. Ødegaard, H.  A road-map for energy-neutral wastewater treatment plants of the future based on compact technologies (including MBBR). Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering 10 (4), 2. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  34. Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Aymerich, I., Marques, R., Poch, M. & Pijuan, M.  Minimizing N 2 O emissions and carbon footprint on a full-scale activated sludge sequencing batch reactor. Water Research 71, 1-10. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  35. Sweetapple, C., Fu, G. & Butler, D.  Does carbon reduction increase sustainability? A study in wastewater treatment. Water Research 87, 522-530. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  36. Townsend-Small, A., Pataki, D. E., Tseng, L. Y., Tsai, C.-Y. & Rosso, D.  Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment and water reclamation plants in southern California. Journal of Environmental Quality 40 (5), 1542-1550. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  37. Vourdoubas, J.  Creation of zero carbon emissions wastewater treatment plants -a case study in Crete, Greece. Energy and Environment Research 8 (1), 64-72. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  38. Wang, H., Yang, Y., Keller, A. A., Li, X., Feng, S., Dong, Y. & Li, F.  Comparative analysis of energy intensity and carbon emissions in wastewater treatment in USA, Germany, China and South Africa. Applied Energy 184, 873-881. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  39. Xu, X.  The Carbon Footprint Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Plants and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Full- Scale Biological Nitrogen Removal Processes in Spain. Master's thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  40. Xu, J., Li, Y., Wang, H., Wu, J., Wang, X. & Li, F.  Exploring the feasibility of energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment plants: a case study in eastern China. Energy Procedia 142, 3055-3061. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  41. Yara  Klimatavtryck. http://www.yara.se/doc/30031_
  42. Klimatavtryck_broschyr.pdf.
  43. Yoshida, H., Mønster, J. & Scheutz, C.  Plant-integrated measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Research 61, 108-118. otwiera się w nowej karcie
  44. Zaborowska, E., Czerwionka, K. & Makinia, J.  Strategies for achieving energy neutrality in biological nutrient removal systems -a case study of the Slupsk WWTP (northern Poland). Water Science and Technology 75 (3), 727-740. otwiera się w nowej karcie
Źródła finansowania:
Weryfikacja:
Politechnika Gdańska

wyświetlono 177 razy

Publikacje, które mogą cię zainteresować

Balancing Energy Inputs/Outputs and GHG Emissions for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment – a Case Study

2017

Energy neutrality versus carbon footprint minimization in municipal wastewater treatment plants

2020

Comprehensive evaluation of the carbon footprint components of wastewater treatment plants located in the Baltic Sea region

2022

The Simulation of Activated Sludge System for Optimization of Predictive Aeration at Large WWTP

2015
Meta Tagi