Sustainable development in pollution control and the role of anaerobic treatment

Lettinga, G.; Lier, J.B. van; Buuren, J.C.L. van; Zeeman, G.

doi:10.2166/wst.2001.0370

Cited by 30 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, centralized sewage treatment was borne, being a logical consequence of historic developments. However, this centralized approach also puts a financial burden to authorities for constructing, maintaining and extending these services to all citizens (Lettinga et al 2001). The centralized treatment approach, with its advantages of economy of scale, has developed as a kind of blueprint for sanitary systems, sewerage and treatment.…”

Section: Centralized Versus the Decentralized Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic Sewage Treatment in Latin America

Chernicharo

Lier

Noyola

et al. 2015

Anaerobic Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Latin America, the interest in high-rate anaerobic (pre-)treatment of sewage using UASB reactors is steadily growing since its introduction in the mid-1980s. A 2012 survey showed that 17% of 2,734 sewage treatment plants of six countries in Latin America used UASB technology, including 32% of the 702 plants in Brazil alone for sizes up to one million population equivalent. The main advantage of UASB technology is the very low or even zero energy demand, leading to an up to 10-fold drop in operational costs compared to activated sludge. In fact, anaerobic systems produce energy-rich biogas, which, however is rarely used as an energy source thus far. A compact UASB system can be implemented in a decentralized way, also in the urban area, which makes it very costeffective compared to pond systems, for which much longer conveyance systems are required. Modern high-rate UASB reactors have a standardized design with hydraulic retention times of 6-10 hours, and BOD removal efficiencies reaching up to 70-80%. As anaerobic treatment only removes the organic pollutants, any additional requirement, e.g. for nutrient removal, requires a second treatment step. At present, many different combinations have been investigated of which several are successfully applied at full scale. Moreover, novel research results even show further perspectives for the development of cost-effective integrated anaerobic-aerobic systems for complete treatment. This chapter describes the current state-of-the-art anaerobic sewage treatment in Latin America and provides some outlooks for upcoming developments.

show abstract

Section: Centralized Versus the Decentralized Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic Sewage Treatment in Latin America

Chernicharo

Lier

Noyola

et al. 2015

Anaerobic Biotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, due to an increase in the scarcity of clean water [1], there is an urgent need for proper management of available water resources. An important goal of the environmental protection and resource conservation concepts is reuse of treated wastewater, and if possible, of residues emanating there from, and other treatment by-products [2,3]. Therefore, the need to develop more efficient and cost-effective methods for the treatment of sewage cannot be over emphasized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of electrochemical treatment on the COD removal from biologically treated municipal wastewater

Chopra

Sharma

2015

Desalination and Water Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TThis investigation observed the effect of electrolytic treatment time, current density, pH and supporting electrolyte on the removal efficiency of COD of secondarily treated sewage (STS). A glass chamber of 2 litre volume was used for the experiment with two electrode plates of Al, each having an area of 125 cm 2 and 2 cm distance apart from each other. The treatment showed that the removal efficiency of COD increased to 82.25% with the increase in current density (1.82-7.52 mA/cm 2 ), time (5-40 min) and pH (4-8) of STS. The electrode and energy consumption varied from 2.52 Â 10 À2 to 10.51 Â 10 À2 kg Al/m 3 and from 2.76 to 45.12 kWh/m 3 . Under optimal operating conditions, the operating cost was 1.56 US $/m 3 . The addition of 0.5 g/L NaCl as a supporting electrolyte nominally increased the removal of COD (85.8%), and later, the observation is in contrast with previously published studies claiming greatly enhanced removal of COD in the presence of supporting electrolytes.

show abstract

“…In addition, due to an increase in the scarcity of clean water (Aiyuk et al 2006) there is an urgent need for proper management of available water resources. Some of the goals of environmental protection and resource conservation concepts are the use of treated wastewater, residues emanating therefrom and other treatment by-products (Lettinga et al 2001;Yi 2001).Conventional treatment methods often induce chemical reactions with the use of coagulants, flocculants and other additives that aid in the removal or sedimentation of inorganic and organic contaminants present in wastewater. It has been reported in the literature that nitrates can be removed from wastewater through their adsorption onto the surfaces of hydroxide precipitates, which are generated from metals and released by the electrodes (Hua et al 2003;Huanga et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of nitrate and sulphate from biologically treated municipal wastewater by electrocoagulation

Sharma

Chopra

2015

Appl Water Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present investigation observed the effect of current density (j), electrocoagulation (EC) time, inter electrode distance, electrode area, initial pH and settling time on the removal of nitrate (NO 3 -) and sulphate (SO 4 2-) from biologically treated municipal wastewater (BTMW), and optimization of the operating conditions of the EC process. A glass chamber of two-liter volume was used for the experiments with DC power supply using two electrode plates of aluminum (Al-Al). The maximum removal of NO 3 -(63.21 %) and SO 4 2-(79.98 %) of BTMW was found with the optimum operating conditions: current density: 2.65 A/m 2 , EC time: 40 min, inter electrode distance: 0.5 cm, electrode area: 160 cm 2 , initial pH: 7.5 and settling time: 60 min. The EC brought down the concentration of NO 3 -within desirable limit of the Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS)/WHO for drinking water. Under optimal operating conditions, the operating cost was found to be 1.01$/m 3 of water in terms of the electrode consumption (23.71 9 10 -5 kg Al/m 3 ) and energy consumption (101.76 kWh/m 3 ).

show abstract

Sustainable development in pollution control and the role of anaerobic treatment

Cited by 30 publications

References 6 publications

Anaerobic Sewage Treatment in Latin America

Anaerobic Sewage Treatment in Latin America

Effect of electrochemical treatment on the COD removal from biologically treated municipal wastewater

Removal of nitrate and sulphate from biologically treated municipal wastewater by electrocoagulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About