No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Existing wastewater treatment options are generally perceived as energy intensive and environmentally unfriendly. Much attention has been focused on two new approaches in the past years, (i) microbial fuel cells and (ii) microbial electrolysis cells, which directly generate electrical current or chemical products, respectively, during wastewater treatment. These systems are commonly denominated as bioelectrochemical systems, and a multitude of claims have been made in the past regarding the environmental impact of these treatment options. However, an in-depth study backing these claims has not been performed. Here, we have conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impact of three industrial wastewater treatment options, (i) anaerobic treatment with biogas generation, (ii) a microbial fuel cell treatment, with direct electricity generation, and (iii) a microbial electrolysis cell, with hydrogen peroxide production. Our analysis showed that a microbial fuel cell does not provide a significant environmental benefit relative to the "conventional" anaerobic treatment option. However, a microbial electrolysis cell provides significant environmental benefits through the displacement of chemical production by conventional means. Provided that the target conversion level of 1000 A.m(-3) can be met, the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentally harmful emissions (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons) of the microbial electrolysis cell will be a key driver for the development of an industrial standard for this technology. Evidently, this assessment is highly dependent on the underlying assumptions, such as the used reactor materials and target performance. This provides a challenge and an opportunity for researchers in the field to select and develop appropriate and environmentally benign materials of construction, as well as demonstrate the required 1000 A.m(-3) performance at pilot and full scale.

At present, the potential generation of methane in wastewater collection systems is ignored under international greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting protocols, despite recent reports of substantial dissolved methane formation in sewers. This suggests that the current national GHG inventories for wastewater handling systems are likely to be underestimated for some situations. This study presents a new catalogue of field data on methane formation in rising main sewerage systems and proposes an empirically-fitted, theoretical model to predict dissolved methane concentrations, based upon the independent variables of pipeline geometry (i.e. surface area to volume ratio, A/V) and hydraulic retention time (HRT). Systems with longer HRT and/or larger A/V ratios are shown to have higher dissolved methane concentrations. This simple predictive model provides a means for water authorities to estimate the methane emissions from other pressurised sewerage systems of similar characteristics.

No abstract

Primary operating data were collected from forty-six wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located across three states within Australia. The size range of plants was indicatively from 500 to 900,000 person equivalents. Direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using a mass balance approach and default emission factors, based on Australia's National Greenhouse Energy Reporting (NGER) scheme and IPCC guidelines. A Monte Carlo-type combined uncertainty analysis was applied to the some of the key emission factors in order to study sensitivity. The results suggest that Scope 2 (indirect emissions due to electrical power purchased from the grid) dominate the emissions profile for most of the plants (indicatively half to three quarters of the average estimated total emissions). This is only offset for the relatively small number of plants (in this study) that have significant on-site power generation from biogas, or where the water utility purchases grid electricity generated from renewable sources. For plants with anaerobic digestion, inventory data issues around theoretical biogas generation, capture and measurement were sometimes encountered that can skew reportable emissions using the NGER methodology. Typically, nitrous oxide (N(2)O) emissions dominated the Scope 1 (direct) emissions. However, N(2)O still only accounted for approximately 10 to 37% of total emissions. This conservative estimate is based on the 'default' NGER steady-state emission factor, which amounts to 1% of nitrogen removed through biological nitrification-denitrification processing in the plant (or indicatively 0.7 to 0.8% of plant influent total nitrogen). Current research suggests that true N(2)O emissions may be much lower and certainly not steady-state. The results of this study help to place in context research work that is focused on direct emissions from WWTPs (including N(2)O, methane and carbon dioxide of non-biogenic origin). For example, whereas non-biogenic CO(2) contributions are relatively minor, it appears that opportunities to reduce indirect emissions as a result of modest savings in power consumption are at least in the same order as those from reducing N(2)O emissions. To avoid potentially high reportable emissions under NGER guidelines, particularly for methane, the onus is placed on WWTP managers to ensure that accurate plant monitoring operating records are kept.

Background, aim, and scope Under ISO 14040, normal-