Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment of osmotic microbial fuel cells for simultaneous wastewater treatment and resource recovery

  • LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

An osmotic microbial fuel cell (OsMFC) is derived from the integration of a forward osmosis (FO) membrane into a conventional microbial fuel cell (MFC), with enhanced performance in bioelectricity generation from organic matter and recovery of high-quality water. The environmental impacts of this newly developed technology, however, have not been studied. To understand and potentially reduce the environmental impacts of the OsMFC technology, the environmental impacts have been assessed.

Methods

An attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) model has been developed to evaluate the cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of the OsMFC based on a lab-scale prototype. The International Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) method has been applied to calculate and characterize the environmental impacts of treating 1 L of water by using the OsMFC technology in GaBi 8.7. Sensitivity and scenario analyses have been employed to assess the environmental impact variations based on changing power densities and different disposal methods, respectively.

Results and discussion

The results indicate that several factors including raw material extraction, system operation, and end-of-life (EoL) stages have relatively large impacts in certain categories. The raw material extraction and system operation take up 50.04% and 32.06% of global warming potential (GWP), respectively. The EoL expends 98.02% of ecotoxicity potential (ETP), 54.31% of eutrophication potential (EP), and 52.24% of human toxicity potential (HTP). A comparison of the OsMFC with other bioelectrochemical systems (BESs) reveals that it has higher GWP due to the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) sheeting used to construct the cell and the stainless steel used to build the cathode electrode, but comparable acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), and respiratory inorganics (RI). The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the OsMFC are also benchmarked with those of the conventional wastewater treatment methods, and it shows that the OsMFC has higher GHG emissions than the conventional wastewater treatment methods at the current power density. However, the results may change dramatically with the change of materials and cell configurations.

Conclusions

According to the analysis, cell materials, cell configuration, electricity usage during the operation stage, and disposal methods are major problems to solve in the development of the OsMFC technology. Enhancement of power density and alternation of cell materials and configuration may turn out to be effective methods to alleviate the environmental impacts and increase market competitiveness of the OsMFC technology in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Mamun A, Baawain MS, Dhar BR, Kim IS (2017) Improved recovery of bioenergy and osmotic water in an osmotic microbial fuel cell using micro-diffuser assisted marine aerobic biofilm on cathode. Biochem Eng J 128:235–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Althaus H-J, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, Jungbluth N, Osses M, Primas A (2007) Life cycle inventories of chemicals. Final report ecoinvent data v2. 0 No 8

  • Bauen A, Berndes G, Junginger M, Londo M, Vuille F, Ball R, Bole T, Chudziak C, Faaij A, Mozaffarian H (2009) Bioenergy–a sustainable and reliable energy source. A review of status and prospects. IEA Bioenergy, Paris

  • Bhattarai K, Stalick WM, Mckay S, Geme G, Bhattarai N (2011) Biofuel: an alternative world energy and economic crises. J Environ Sci Health, Part A 46:1424–1442

  • Boustead I (2005) Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry: Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). APME. http://inference.org.uk/sustainable/LCA/elcd/external_docs/pmma_31116f01-fabd-11da-974d-0800200c9a66.pdf. Assessed 14 Dec 2018

  • Buonocore E, Mellino S, De Angelis G, Liu G, Ulgiati S (2016) Life cycle assessment indicators of urban wastewater and sewage sludge treatment. Ecol Indic 94(3):13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron RD (1980) Toxicity of landfill leachates. J Water Pollut Control Fed 760–769

  • Corominas L, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera S, Shaw A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res 45(15):5480–5492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar BR, Lee H-S (2013) Membranes for bioelectrochemical systems: challenges and research advances. Environ Technol 34:1751–1764

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Du Z, Li H, Gu T (2007) A state of the art review on microbial fuel cells: a promising technology for wastewater treatment and bioenergy. Biotechnol Adv 25:464–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DuPont (2012) DuPont Teflon PTFE DISP 30 Fluoropolymer Resin. https://fuelcellearth.com/wp-content/uploads/converted_files/pdf/DISP_30.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2017

  • EIA US (2019) Monthly energy review. https://eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2019

  • Faze, NR, Grime, GM, Bower, TA, Christy, AD, Bakshi, BR (2014) life cycle analysis of a microbial desalination cell. ASABE, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 13–16 July 2014

  • Foley JM, Rozendal RA, Hertle CK, Lant PA, Rabaey K (2010) Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells. Environ Sci Technol 44:3629–3637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ge Z, He Z (2012) Effects of draw solutions and membrane conditions on electricity generation and water flux in osmotic microbial fuel cells. Bioresour Technol 109:70–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ge Z, Ping Q, Xiao L, He Z (2013) Reducing effluent discharge and recovering bioenergy in an osmotic microbial fuel cell treating domestic wastewater. Desalination 312:52–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • He L, Du P, Chen Y, Lu H, Cheng X, Chang B, Wang Z (2017) Advances in mirobial fuel cells for wastewater treatment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 71:388–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) Environmental management: life cycle assessment; principles and framework. ISO. https://iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 28 Apr 2018.

  • Kelly, PT ∓ He, Z (2014). Nutrients removal and recovery in bioelectrochemical systems: a review. Bioresour technol 153:351-360

  • Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TAG (2006) Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. J Membr Sci 284:17–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li W-W, Yu H-Q, He Z (2014) Towards sustainable wastewater treatment by using microbial fuel cells-centered technologies. Environ Sci Technol 7:911–924

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Logan BE (2010) Scaling up microbial fuel cells and other bioelectrochemical systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:1665–1671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Logan BE, Wallack MJ, Kim KY, He W, Feng Y, Saikaly PE (2015) Assessment of microbial fuel cell configurations and power densities. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2:206–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Qin M, Yuan H, Abu-Reesh IM, He Z (2014) When bioelectrochemical systems meet forward osmosis: accomplishing wastewater treatment and reuse through synergy. Water 7:38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Bian X, Wang H, Wang X, Ren Y, Li X (2018) Simultaneously recovering electricity and water from wastewater by osmotic microbial fuel cells: performance and membrane fouling. Front Env Sci Eng 12:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mi B, Elimelech M (2010) Organic fouling of forward osmosis membranes: fouling reversibility and cleaning without chemical reagents. J Membr Sci 348:337–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Niero M, Pizzol M, Bruun HG, Thomsen M (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in Denmark including sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. J Clean Prod 68:25–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pant, D, Van Bogaert, G, Diels, L, Vanbroekhoven, K (2010). A review of the substrates used in microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production. Bioresour technol, 101(6):1533-1543. Chicago

  • Pant D, Singh A, Van Bogaert G, Alvarez-Gallego Y, Diels L, Vanbroekhoven K (2011) An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bioelectrochemical systems (BESs) for sustainable energy and product generation: relevant and key aspects. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(2):1305–1313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pant D, Singh A, Van Bogaert G, Olsen SI, Nigam PS, Diels L, Vanbroekhoven K (2012) Bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy production and product recovery from organic wastes and industrial wastewaters. RSC Adv 2:1248–1263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pardeshi P, Mungray A (2014) High flux layer by layer polyelectrolyte FO membrane: toward enhanced performance for osmotic microbial fuel cell. Int J Polym Mater 63:595–601

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qin M, Ping Q, Lu Y, Abu-Reesh IM, He Z (2015) Understanding electricity generation in osmotic microbial fuel cells through integrated experimental investigation and mathematical modeling. Bioresour Technol 195:194–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rabaey K, Verstraete W (2005) Microbial fuel cells: novel biotechnology for energy generation. Trends Biotechnol 23:291–298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman SM, Eckelman MJ, Onnis-Hayden A, Gu AZ (2016) Life-cycle assessment of advanced nutrient removal technologies for wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol 50(6):3020–3030

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G (2002) Integrating Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle Assessment for Manageing Costs and Environmental Impacts in Supply Chain. In: Seuring S, Goldback M (ed) Cost Management in Supply Chains, Physica-Verlag HD, pp 127–146

  • Rossi R, Jones D, Myung J, Zikmund E, Yang W, Alvarez-Gallego Y, Pant D, Evans PJ, Page MA, Cropek DM, Logan BE (2018) Evaluating a multi-panel air cathode through electrochemical and biotic tests. Water Res 148:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabeen AH, Noor ZZ, Ngadi N, Almuraisy S, Raheem AB (2018) Quantification of environmental impacts of domestic wastewater treatment using life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 190:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro C, Arbizzani C, Erable B, Ieropoulos I (2017) Microbial fuel cells: from fundamental to applications. A review. J Power Sources 356:225–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shemfe M, Gadkari S, Yu E, Rasul S, Scott K, Head I, Gu S, Sadhukhan J (2018) Life cycle, techno-economic and dynamic simulation assessment of bioelectrochemical systems: a case of formic acid synthesis. Bioresour Technol 255:39–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shibasaki M, Warburg N, Eyerer P (2006) Upscaling effect and life cycle assessment. In: Processings of the 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium

  • Stockes JR, Horwath A (2010) Supply-chain environmetnal effects of wastewater utilities. Environ Res Lett 5(1):014015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Zhang X, Zhu Z, Kong Y, Gao K, Yao W (2016) Influence of various operating conditions on cleaning efficiency in sequencing batch reactor (SBR) activated sludge process. Part V: chemical cleaning model. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 63:52–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Werner CM, Logan BE, Saikaly PE, Amy GL (2013) Wastewater treatment, energy recovery and desalination using a forward osmosis membrane in an air-cathode microbial osmotic fuel cell. J Membr Sci 428:116–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu S, Zou S, Yang Y, Qian G, He Z (2018) Enhancing the performance of an osmotic microbial fuel cell through self-buffering with reverse-fluxed sodium bicarbonate. Chem Eng J 349:241–248

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang E, Chae K-J, Kim IS (2016) Comparison of different semipermeable membranes for power generation and water flux in osmotic microbial fuel cells. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 91(8):2305–2312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Qin M, Yang X, He Z (2017) Sustainable operation of osmotic microbial fuel cells through effective reproduction of polyelectrolyte draw solutes facilitated by cathodic pH increase. J Clean Prod 168:1143–1149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Cheng S, Wang X, Huang X, Logan BE (2009) Separator characteristics for increasing performance of microbial fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 43:8456–8461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang F, Brastad KS, He Z (2011) Integrating forward osmosis into microbial fuel cells for wastewater treatment, water extraction and bioelectricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 45:6690–6696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Yuan H, Deng Y, Zha Y, Abu-Reesh IM, He Z, Yuan C (2018) Life cycle assessment of a microbial desalination cell for sustainable wastewater treatment and saline water desalination. J Clean Prod 200:900–910

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X-Z, Zhang F, Li W-W, Li J, Li L-L, Yu H-Q, Huang M-S, Huang T-Y (2016) Insights into enhanced current generation of an osmotic microbial fuel cell under membrane fouling condition. J Membr Sci 504:40–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors also would like to thank Dr. Zheng Ge for his help with data collection.

Funding

This publication is made possible by NPRP # 6-289-2-125 from Qatar national research fund (a member of Qatar foundation).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Jingyi Zhang & Chris Yuan

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Heyang Yuan & Zhen He

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Soochow University, Suzhou, 215131, China

    Yelin Deng

  4. Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

    Ibrahim M Abu-Reesh

Authors
  1. Jingyi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heyang Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yelin Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ibrahim M Abu-Reesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhen He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhen He or Chris Yuan.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Almudena Hospido

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1354 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, J., Yuan, H., Deng, Y. et al. Life cycle assessment of osmotic microbial fuel cells for simultaneous wastewater treatment and resource recovery. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1962–1975 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01626-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01626-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation