Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 1770–1780 | Cite as

High-rate activated sludge processes for municipal wastewater treatment: the effect of food waste addition and hydraulic limits of the system

  • Huseyin GuvenEmail author
  • Hale Ozgun
  • Mustafa Evren Ersahin
  • Recep Kaan Dereli
  • Ilknur Sinop
  • Izzet Ozturk
Research Article
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Conventional activated sludge (CAS) process is one of the most commonly applied processes for municipal wastewater treatment. However, it requires a high energy input and does not promote energy recovery. Currently, high-rate activated sludge (HRAS) process is gaining importance as a good option to reduce the energy demand of wastewater treatment and to capture organic matter for valorizing through anaerobic digestion (AD). Besides, food waste addition to wastewater can help to increase the organic matter content of wastewater and thus, energy recovery in AD. The objective of this study is to evaluate the applicability of co-treatment of municipal wastewater and food waste in a pilot-scale HRAS system as well as to test the minimal hydraulic retention times (HRTs) such as 60 and 30 min. Food waste addition to the wastewater resulted in a 10% increase in chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration of influent. In the following stages of the study, the pilot-scale system was operated with wastewater solely under the HRTs of 60 and 30 min. With the decrease of HRT, particulate COD removal increased; however, soluble COD removal decreased. The results demonstrated that if the settling process is optimized, more particulate matter can be diverted to sludge stream.

Keywords

Co-treatment Food waste High-rate activated sludge process Hydraulic retention time Municipal wastewater Particulate chemical oxygen demand 

Abbreviations and nomenclature

AD

anaerobic digestion

AnMBR

anaerobic membrane bioreactor

BOD

biological oxygen demand

CAS

conventional activated sludge

cCOD

colloidal chemical oxygen demand

COD

chemical oxygen demand

DO

dissolved oxygen

F/M

food/microorganisms ratio (kg COD/kg VSS day)

FOG

fat, oils, and grease

HRAS

high-rate activated sludge

HRT

hydraulic retention time

pCOD

particulate chemical oxygen demand

PSD

particle size distribution

RAS

return activated sludge

SCADA

supervisory control and data acquisition

sCOD

soluble chemical oxygen demand

SRT

solids retention time

SVI

sludge volume index

TN

total nitrogen

TP

total phosphorus

TS

total solids

TSS

total suspended solids

VLR

volumetric loading rate (kg COD/m3 day)

VS

volatile solids

VSS

volatile suspended solids

WAS

waste activated sludge

WWTP

wastewater treatment plant

ZSV

zone settling velocity

Notes

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkey, and Istanbul Environment Management Industry and Trade Company (ISTAC) (Project no. 0534.STZ.2013-2), and Istanbul Technical University Scientific Research Projects Office (Project no. 38833).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_3665_MOESM1_ESM.docx (471 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 470 kb)

References

  1. Almeida-Naranjo CE, Espinoza-Montero PJ, Muñoz-Rodríguez MI, Villamar-Ayala CA (2017) Hydraulic retention time influence on improving flocculation in the activated sludge processes through polyelectrolytes. Water Air Soil Pollut 228Google Scholar
  2. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Batstone DJ, Hulsen T, Mehta CM, Keller J (2015) Platforms for energy and nutrient recovery from domestic wastewater: a review. Chemosphere 140:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battistoni P, Fatone F, Passacantando D, Bolzonella D (2007) Application of food waste disposers and alternate cycles process in small-decentralized towns: a case study. Water Res 41:893–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstad Saraiva A, Davidsson A, Bissmont M (2016) Lifecycle assessment of a system for food waste disposers to tank - a full-scale system evaluation. Waste Manag 54:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Battistoni P, Cecchi F (2003) The under sink garbage grinder: a friendly technology for the environment. Environ Technol 24:354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Graaff MS, van den Brand TPH, Roest K, Zandvoort MH, Duin O, van Loosdrecht MCM (2016) Full-scale highly-loaded wastewater treatment processes (A-stage) to increase energy production from wastewater: performance and design guidelines. Environ Eng Sci 33:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamantis V, Eftaxias A, Bundervoet B, Verstraete W (2014) Performance of the biosorptive activated sludge (BAS) as pre-treatment to UF for decentralized wastewater reuse. Bioresour Technol 156:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diggelman C, Ham RK (2003) Household food waste to wastewater or to solid waste? That is the question. Waste Manag Res 21:501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dionisi D, Rasheed AA (2018) Maximisation of the organic load rate and minimisation of oxygen consumption in aerobic biological wastewater treatment processes by manipulation of the hydraulic and solids residence time. J Water Process Eng 22:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans TD, Andersson P, Wievegg Å, Carlsson I (2010) Surahammar: a case study of the impacts of installing food waste disposers in 50% of households. Water Environ J 24:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang F, Qiao LL, Ni BJ, Cao JS, Yu HQ (2017) Quantitative evaluation on the characteristics of activated sludge granules and flocs using a fuzzy entropy-based approach. Sci Rep 7:42910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faust L, Temmink H, Zwijnenburg A, Kemperman AJ, Rijnaarts HH (2014) High loaded MBRs for organic matter recovery from sewage: effect of solids retention time on bioflocculation and on the role of extracellular polymers. Water Res 56:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge H, Batstone DJ, Mouiche M, Hu S, Keller J (2017) Nutrient removal and energy recovery from high-rate activated sludge processes - impact of sludge age. Bioresour Technol 245:1155–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giokas DL, Daigger GT, Mv S, Kim Y, Paraskevas PA (2003) Comparison and evaluation of empirical zone settling velocity parameters based on sludge volume index using a unified settling characteristics database. Water Res 37:3821–3836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gude VG (2015) Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power generation systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 45:52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guven H, Dereli RK, Ozgun H, Ersahin ME, Ozturk I (2019) Towards sustainable and energy efficient municipal wastewater treatment by up-concentration of organics. Prog Energy Combust Sci 70:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hreiz R, Latifi MA, Roche N (2015) Optimal design and operation of activated sludge processes: state-of-the-art. Chem Eng J 281:900–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iacovidou E, Ohandja D-G, Gronow J, Voulvoulis N (2012) The household use of food waste disposal units as a waste management option: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42:1485–1508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jimenez J, Miller M, Bott C, Murthy S, De Clippeleir H, Wett B (2015) High-rate activated sludge system for carbon management--evaluation of crucial process mechanisms and design parameters. Water Res 87:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalbar PP, Karmakar S, Asolekar SR (2012) Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. J Environ Manag 113:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim M, Chowdhury MM, Nakhla G, Keleman M (2015) Characterization of typical household food wastes from disposers: fractionation of constituents and implications for resource recovery at wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 183:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kinyua MN, Elliott M, Wett B, Murthy S, Chandran K, Bott CB (2017) The role of extracellular polymeric substances on carbon capture in a high rate activated sludge A-stage system. Chem Eng J 322:428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li Y, Huang Z, Ruan W, Ren H, Zhao M (2015) ANAMMOX performance, granulation, and microbial response under COD disturbance. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Z, Lu P, Zhang D, Chen G, Zeng S, He Q (2016) Population balance modeling of activated sludge flocculation: investigating the influence of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) content and zeta potential on flocculation dynamics. Sep Purif Technol 162:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lijo L, Malamis S, Gonzalez-Garcia S, Moreira MT, Fatone F, Katsou E (2017) Decentralised schemes for integrated management of wastewater and domestic organic waste: the case of a small community. J Environ Manag 203:732–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma Y, Yin Y, Liu Y (2017a) New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste: biogas versus biofertilizer. Bioresour Technol 241:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma Y, Yin Y, Liu Y (2017b) A holistic approach for food waste management towards zero-solid disposal and energy/resource recovery. Bioresour Technol 228:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marashlian N, El-Fadel M (2005) The effect of food waste disposers on municipal waste and wastewater management. Waste Manag Res 23:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS, Fonoll X, Peces M, Astals S (2014) A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew Sust Energ Rev 36:412–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meerburg FA, Boon N, Van Winckel T, Vercamer JA, Nopens I, Vlaeminck SE (2015) Toward energy-neutral wastewater treatment: a high-rate contact stabilization process to maximally recover sewage organics. Bioresour Technol 179:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Metcalf&Eddy (2014) Wastewater engineering: treatment and resource recovery, 5th edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller MW, Elliott M, Jimenez J, Murthy S, Wett B, Bott CB (2015) Adsorption-style high-rate activated sludge for carbon management and diversion. Proc Water Environ Fed 2015:3723–3728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller MW, Armond JD, Elliott M, Kinyua M, Kinnear D, Wett B, Murthy S, Bott CB (2016) Settling and dewatering characteristics of an A-stage activated sludge process proceeded by shortcut biological nitrogen removal. Int J Water Wastewater Treat 2:1–8Google Scholar
  35. Monino P, Jimenez E, Barat R, Aguado D, Seco A, Ferrer J (2016) Potential use of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste in anaerobic co-digestion with wastewater in submerged anaerobic membrane technology. Waste Manag 56:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monino P, Aguado D, Barat R, Jimenez E, Gimenez JB, Seco A, Ferrer J (2017) A new strategy to maximize organic matter valorization in municipalities: combination of urban wastewater with kitchen food waste and its treatment with AnMBR technology. Waste Manag 62:274–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muga HE, Mihelcic JR (2008) Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. J Environ Manag 88:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nansubuga I, Banadda N, Ronsse F, Verstraete W, Rabaey K (2015) Digestion of high rate activated sludge coupled to biochar formation for soil improvement in the tropics. Water Res 81:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nieuwenhuis E, Langeveld J, Clemens F (2018) The relationship between fat, oil and grease (FOG) deposits in building drainage systems and FOG disposal patterns. Water Sci Technol 77:2388–2396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nogaj TM, Randall AA, Jimenez JA, Takacs I, Bott CB, Miller MW, Murthy S, Wett B (2013) Mathematical modeling of carbon removal in the high-rate activated sludge system: model presentation and application, WEFTECGoogle Scholar
  41. Orhon D (2015) Evolution of the activated sludge process: the first 50 years. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90:608–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Panepinto D, Fiore S, Zappone M, Genon G, Meucci L (2016) Evaluation of the energy efficiency of a large wastewater treatment plant in Italy. Appl Energy 161:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sankai T, Ding G, Emori N, Kitamura S, Katada K, Koshio A, Maruyama T, Kudo K, Inamori Y (1997) Treatment of domestic wastewater mixed with crushed garbage and garbage washing water by advanced Gappei-Shori Johkaso. Water Sci Technol 36:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trzcinski AP, Wang C, Zhang D, Ang WS, Lin LL, Niwa T, Fukuzaki Y, Ng WJ (2017) Performance of A-stage process treating combined municipal-industrial wastewater. Water Sci Technol 75:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. von Sperling M (2007) Activated sludge and aerobic biofilm reactors. IWA Publishing, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu G, Zhou Y, Yang Q, Lee ZM, Gu J, Lay W, Cao Y, Liu Y (2015) The challenges of mainstream deammonification process for municipal used water treatment. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:2485–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang W, Yang P, Xiao P, Xu S, Liu Y, Liu F, Wang D (2015) Dynamic variation in physicochemical properties of activated sludge floc from different WWTPs and its influence on sludge dewaterability and settleability. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 467:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering Faculty, Environmental Engineering DepartmentIstanbul Technical University, Ayazaga CampusIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.School of Chemical and Bioprocess EngineeringUniversity College DublinDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations