2015
DOI: 10.2166/9781780407340
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

N2O and CH4 Emission from Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems: State of the Science Report and Technical Report

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There is also considerable variability in the reported N 2 O emissions from well-controlled laboratory scale systems (Table 2). Such variability widely agrees with the range of reported N 2 O emissions summarized elsewhere (Foley et al, 2011;Kampschreur et al, 2009). Nitrous oxide emissions estimates can be affected by reactor operating conditions (e.g., DO, pH), the measurement technique (Ye et al, 2014), and reactor design (Hynes and Knowles, 1984;Sun et al, 2014;Tallec et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is also considerable variability in the reported N 2 O emissions from well-controlled laboratory scale systems (Table 2). Such variability widely agrees with the range of reported N 2 O emissions summarized elsewhere (Foley et al, 2011;Kampschreur et al, 2009). Nitrous oxide emissions estimates can be affected by reactor operating conditions (e.g., DO, pH), the measurement technique (Ye et al, 2014), and reactor design (Hynes and Knowles, 1984;Sun et al, 2014;Tallec et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…This assumption is consistent with measurements that have been made for biologically observed phenomena (Dowd and Riggs, 1965). Second, the distributions were constructed so that the value used by Ni et al (2011) (Sun et al, 2015) 1.37-2.69 SBR and MLE France (Foley et al, 2011) 0-0.3 Completely mixed, plug flow, membrane bioreactor Germany (Wicht and Beier, 1995) 0-14.6 (0.6 average) 25 activated sludge plants Japan (Kimochi et al, 1998) 0.01-0.08 Intermittent activated sludge plant USA (Ahn et al, 2010) 0.003-2.59 12 BNR plants Batch test (10 hours) denitrifying activated sludge-real wastewater (Von Schulthess et al, 1994) 0-6 Batch test (1 day) nitrifying biofilter-real wastewater (Tallec et al, 2008) 0.2-1 (0.4 average) Continuous and batch tests denitrifying activated Sludge-artificial wastewater (Hanaki et al, 1992) 0-8 Continuous nitrifying and denitrifying activated Sludge-real wastewater (Park et al, 2000) 0.2-4.5 Continuous oxic-anoxic activated sludge-artificial wastewater (30-300 days) (Tsuneda et al, 2005) 0.7-13 Continuous nitrifying activated sludge-artificial wastewater (Burgess et al, 2002) 0.08-1.17 distribution functions that generated frequency distributions that were similar to the width and shape of measured distributions of Michaelis-Menten parameters discussed previously (Dowd and Riggs, 1965).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simultaneously increasing pattern of sulfide and methane in the pilot rising main ( Figure S1.3) was also similar to that in real sewers. [43][44][45][46] In contrast, sulfide or methane production was detected to be negligible or even negative in the pilot gravity sewer, which could be explained by the faster sulfide oxidation than the concurrent sulfate reduction and/or the emission of sulfide and methane gas into the air phase.…”
Section: Wastewater Compositions and Biological Activitiesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…In addition to being explosive at low concentrations, CH 4 is a major greenhouse gas with a life span of ϳ12 years and a global warming potential roughly 21 to 23 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (11). Recent reports suggest that CH 4 emissions from sewers contribute significantly to the total greenhouse gas footprint of wastewater systems (12,13). Accordingly, different mitigation strategies have been used to reduce H 2 S and CH 4 production in sewers (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%