Temperate climate energy-positive anaerobic secondary treatment of domestic wastewater at pilot-scale. (1st October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shin, Chungheon; Tilmans, Sebastien H.; Chen, Felipe; McCarty, Perry L.; Criddle, Craig S.
• Is Part Of: Water research. Volume 204(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10-01
• Subjects: Anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) -- Domestic wastewater treatment -- COD removal -- Energy balance -- Operating expenses (OPEX) -- Membrane fouling; Water -- Pollution -- Research -- Periodicals; 363.7394
• DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117598
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0043-1354

Abstract

Highlights: Temperate-climate anaerobic treatment achieved in a second generation SAF-MBR. SAF-MBR 2.0 enabled net energy positive operation at pilot-scale. Energy cost and membrane cleaning frequency were key factors for OPEX optimization. A new finding is ultrafine COD that can pass through ultrafiltration membranes. Abstract: Conventional aerobic secondary treatment of domestic wastewater is energy intensive. Here we report net energy positive operation of a pilot-scale anaerobic secondary treatment system in a temperate climate, with low levels of volatile solids for disposal (< 0.15 mgVSS/mgCODremoved ) and hydraulic residence times as low as 5.3 h. This was accomplished with a second-generation staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-MBR 2.0) consisting of a first-stage anaerobic fluidized bed reactor (AFBR) followed by a second-stage gas-sparged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR). In stage 1, fluidized granular activated carbon (GAC) particles harbor methanogenic communities that convert soluble biodegradable COD into methane; in stage 2, submerged membranes produce system effluent (permeate) and retain particulate COD that can be hydrolyzed and/or recycled back to stage 1 for conversion to methane. An energy balance on SAF-MBR 2.0 (excluding energy from anaerobic digestion of primary suspended solids) indicated net energy positive operation (+ 0.11 kWh/m 3 ), with energy recovery from produced methane (0.39 kWh electricity/m 3 + 0.64 kWh heat/m 3 ) exceeding energy consumption due to GAC fluidization (0.07 kWh electricity/m 3 ) and gas sparging (0.20 kWh electricity/m 3 at an optimal flux of 12.2 L/m 2 h). Two factors dominated the operating expenses: energy requirements and recovery cleaning frequency; these factors were in turn affected by flux conditions, membrane fouling rate, and temperature. For optimization of expenses, the frequency of low-cost maintenance cleanings was adjusted to minimize recovery cleanings while maintaining optimal flux with low energy costs. An issue still to be resolved is the occurrence of ultrafine COD in membrane permeate that accounted for much of the total effluent COD. Graphical abstract: Image, graphical abstract