Advertisement

BioEnergy Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 217–228 | Cite as

A Cyanobacterial Sidestream Nutrient Removal Process and Its Life Cycle Implications

  • Carlos Quiroz-AritaEmail author
  • John J. Sheehan
  • Nawa Raj Baral
  • Alexander Hughes
  • Graham Peers
  • Brock Hodgson
  • Sybil Sharvelle
  • Thomas H. Bradley
Article
  • 498 Downloads

Abstract

This study proposes a novel integration of a municipal wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) with a cyanobacterial nutrient removal process for sidestream wastewater treatment. A life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was used to determine the effectiveness and environmental performances of the integrated system. The LCA is populated by models of wastewater process engineering, material balance, cyanobacterial growth, and kinetics of anaerobic digestion. The cyanobacteria growth model incorporates chlorophyll synthesis, nitrogen uptake, photosynthesis, centrate inhibition, and competition for nitrogen between cyanobacteria and nitrifiers. Modeling results are validated against experiments with Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 grown in sludge centrate. With a maximum specific growth rate of 1.09 day−1, the nitrogen removal rate of the proposed WWTF would be increased by 15% when compared to the baseline wastewater treatment facility with a biological nutrient removal process. Incorporating the cyanobacterial nutrient removal process as the sidestream wastewater treatment of a conventional activated sludge process reduces the total nitrogen concentrations discharged from the WWTF from 25.9 to 15.2 mg 1−1. Methane yield was found to be increased by 4% of the baseline value when cyanobacterial biomass was co-digested with the activated sludge. Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions were found to be reduced by 8% and 17%, respectively, relative to a baseline wastewater treatment facility. Overall, a cyanobacteria-based sidestream municipal wastewater treatment process could be an effective and environmentally sustainable biological nutrient removal process in the future addressing the water-energy-food nexus.

Keywords

Sidestream wastewater treatment Biological nutrient removal Centrate Cyanobacteria Life cycle assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge National Science Foundation grant number 1332404. This publication was also partially made possible by USEPA grant RD835570. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the grantee and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USEPA. Further, USEPA does not endorse the purchase of any commercial products or services mentioned in the publication. The authors also acknowledge Lincoln H. Mueller, Jr., Utilities Project Manager and the City of Fort Collins, CO for their support providing access to Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF), space for the installation of the experimental work of this research, and operational plant and laboratory data concerning the wastewater processes.

Supplementary material

12155_2019_9963_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (607 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 607 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    EPA, D.M., Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. USEPA, , 1980Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arita CQ, Peebles C, Bradley TH (2015) Scalability of combining microalgae-based biofuels with wastewater facilities: a review. Algal Res 9:160–169Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chisti Y (2007) Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnol Adv 25(3):294–306Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robertson D et al (2011) A new dawn for industrial photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 107(3):269–277Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quiroz-Arita C, Sheehan JJ, Bradley TH (2017) Life cycle net energy and greenhouse gas emissions of photosynthetic cyanobacterial biorefineries: challenges for industrial production of biofuels. Algal Res 26:445–452Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quinn JC, Catton KB, Johnson S, Bradley TH (2013) Geographical assessment of microalgae biofuels potential incorporating resource availability. Bio Energy Res 6(2):591–600Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wigmosta MS, Coleman AM, Skaggs RJ, Huesemann MH, Lane LJ (2011) National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand. Water Resour Res 47(3)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arita CQ et al (2016) A geographical assessment of vegetation carbon stocks and greenhouse gas emissions on potential microalgae-based biofuel facilities in the United States. Bioresour Technol 221:270–275Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Batan L, Quinn J, Willson B, Bradley T (2010) Net energy and greenhouse gas emission evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 44:7975–7980Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EPA, Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs (2007) United States environmental protection agency. DC, Washington, p 20460Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rittmann BE and McCarty PL (2012) Environmental biotechnology: principles and applications. Tata McGraw-Hill EducationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Metcalf and Eddy (2015) Wastewater engineering treatment and resource recovery. McGraw-Hill series in civil and environmental engineering, Boston: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dapena-Mora A, van Hulle SWH, Luis Campos J, Méndez R, Vanrolleghem PA, Jetten M (2004) Enrichment of Anammox biomass from municipal activated sludge: experimental and modelling results. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 79(12):1421–1428Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sengupta S, Pandit A (2011) Selective removal of phosphorus from wastewater combined with its recovery as a solid-phase fertilizer. Water Res 45(11):3318–3330Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forrest A et al (2008) Optimizing struvite production for phosphate recovery in WWTP. J Environ Eng 134(5):395–402Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang J, Burken JG, Zhang X(J), Surampalli R (2005) Engineered struvite precipitation: impacts of component-ion molar ratios and pH. J Environ Eng 131(10):1433–1440Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    You S et al (2003) Nitrification efficiency and nitrifying bacteria abundance in combined AS-RBC and A2O systems. Water Res 37(10):2281–2290Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson NO, Mikkelsen RL, Hesterberg DL (2003) Struvite precipitation in anaerobic swine lagoon liquid: effect of pH and Mg: P ratio and determination of rate constant. Bioresour Technol 89(3):229–236Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EPA. States Nutrient Criteria Plans. 2014 02/17/2014 02/26/2014]; Available from: http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/states-nutrient-criteria-plans
  20. 20.
    Craggs R et al (2011) Algal biofuels from wastewater treatment high rate algal ponds. Water Sci Technol 63(4):660–665Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green FB, Bernstone LS, Lundquist TJ, Oswald WJ (1996) Advanced integrated wastewater pond systems for nitrogen removal. Water Sci Technol 33(7):207–217Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    García J, Green BF, Lundquist T, Mujeriego R, Hernández-Mariné M, Oswald WJ (2006) Long term diurnal variations in contaminant removal in high rate ponds treating urban wastewater. Bioresour Technol 97(14):1709–1715Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Craggs RJ, Lundquist TJ, and Benemann JR (2013) Wastewater treatment and algal biofuel production, in Algae for biofuels and energy, Springer 153–163Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park J, Craggs R, Shilton A (2011) Wastewater treatment high rate algal ponds for biofuel production. Bioresour Technol 102(1):35–42Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Llorens M, Saez J, Soler A (1993) Primary productivity in a deep sewage stabilization lagoon. Water Res 27(12):1779–1785Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carberry J, Henshaw F (1989) Biokinetic parameters of a photosynthetic waste stabilization process. Water Sci Technol 21(6–7):647–658Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou W, Li Y, Min M, Hu B, Chen P, Ruan R (2011) Local bioprospecting for high-lipid producing microalgal strains to be grown on concentrated municipal wastewater for biofuel production. Bioresour Technol 102(13):6909–6919Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Selvaratnam T, Henkanatte-Gedera SM, Muppaneni T, Nirmalakhandan N, Deng S, Lammers PJ (2016) Maximizing recovery of energy and nutrients from urban wastewaters. Energy 104:16–23Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dai G et al (2008) Differential sensitivity of five cyanobacterial strains to ammonium toxicity and its inhibitory mechanism on the photosynthesis of rice-field cyanobacterium Ge–Xian–Mi (Nostoc). Aquat Toxicol 89(2):113–121Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    DAI GZ, QIU BS, Forchhammer K (2014) Ammonium tolerance in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803 and the role of the psbA multigene family. Plant Cell Environ 37(4):840–851Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cai T, Ge X, Park SY, Li Y (2013) Comparison of Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 and Nannochloropsis salina for lipid production using artificial seawater and nutrients from anaerobic digestion effluent. Bioresour Technol 144:255–260Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drath M, Kloft N, Batschauer A, Marin K, Novak J, Forchhammer K (2008) Ammonia triggers photodamage of photosystem II in the cyanobacterium Synechocystis sp. strain PCC 6803. Plant Physiol 147(1):206–215Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Batan L et al (2010) Net energy and greenhouse gas emission evaluation of biodiesel derived from microalgae. Environ Sci Technol 44(20):6Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Campbell PK, Beer T, Batten D (2011) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from microalgae in ponds. Bioresour Technol 102(1):50–56Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Collet P, Lardon L, Hélias A, Bricout S, Lombaert-Valot I, Perrier B, Lépine O, Steyer JP, Bernard O (2014) Biodiesel from microalgae – life cycle assessment and recommendations for potential improvements. Renew Energy 71(0):525–533Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Frank E et al (2013) Life cycle comparison of hydrothermal liquefaction and lipid extraction pathways to renewable diesel from algae. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18(1):137–158Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Frank ED et al (2011) Life-cycle analysis of algal lipid fuels with the GREET model. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Handler RM, Shonnard DR, Kalnes TN, Lupton FS (2014) Life cycle assessment of algal biofuels: influence of feedstock cultivation systems and conversion platforms. Algal Res 4(0):105–115Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ponnusamy S, Reddy HK, Muppaneni T, Downes CM, Deng S (2014) Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from algal bio-crude oils extracted under subcritical water conditions. Bioresour Technol 170(0):454–461Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Quinn JC, Davis R (2015) The potentials and challenges of algae based biofuels: a review of the techno-economic, life cycle, and resource assessment modeling. Bioresour Technol 184:444–452Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quinn JC, Smith TG, Downes CM, Quinn C (2014) Microalgae to biofuels lifecycle assessment-multiple pathway evaluation. Algal Res 4:116–122Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vasudevan V, Stratton RW, Pearlson MN, Jersey GR, Beyene AG, Weissman JC, Rubino M, Hileman JI (2012) Environmental performance of algal biofuel technology options. Environ Sci Technol 46(4):2451–2459Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fang LL, Valverde-Pérez B, Damgaard A, Plósz BG, Rygaard M (2016) Life cycle assessment as development and decision support tool for wastewater resource recovery technology. Water Res 88:538–549Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Luo D, Hu Z, Choi DG, Thomas VM, Realff MJ, Chance RR (2010) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol production process based on blue-green algae. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8670–8677Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30(5):701–720Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, C.E., Regulation #85 (2012) Nutrients management control regulation 5 CCR 1002-85, in water quality control comission. CO, U.SGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Colorado SO (2015) Colorado climate plan: state level policies and strategies to mitigate and adapt. CO, U.SGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    IPCC, (2006), Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol. 2, energy. National greenhouse gas inventories programme, IGES: JapanGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    EnviroSim. BioWin. Retrieved from https://envirosim.com/products/biowin . 2017; Available from: https://envirosim.com/products/biowin
  50. 50.
    thinkstep, GaBi, in sustainability software. 2018, Retrieved from https://www.thinkstep.com/software: Germany
  51. 51.
    Lincoln H, Mueller J (2016) Analysis of nutrient removal at the drake water reclamation facility. Colorado State University. LibrariesGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Speece RE (2008) Anaerobic biotechnology and odor/corrosion control for municipalities and industries. Archae PressGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Loewenthal R, Kornmüller U, Van Heerden E (1994) Modelling struvite precipitation in anaerobic treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 30(12):107–116Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Packer A, Li Y, Andersen T, Hu Q, Kuang Y, Sommerfeld M (2011) Growth and neutral lipid synthesis in green microalgae: a mathematical model. Bioresour Technol 102(1):111–117Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Formighieri C (2015) Solar-to-fuel Conversion in Algae and Cyanobacteria. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim HW, Vannela R, Zhou C, Harto C, Rittmann BE (2010) Photoautotrophic nutrient utilization and limitation during semi-continuous growth of Synechocystis sp. PCC6803. Biotechnol Bioeng 106(4):553–563Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kim HW, Vannela R, Zhou C, Rittmann BE (2011) Nutrient acquisition and limitation for the photoautotrophic growth of Synechocystis sp. PCC6803 as a renewable biomass source. Biotechnol Bioeng 108(2):277–285Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rittmann BE, McCarty PL (2001) Environmental biotechnology principles and applications. In: McCarty PL (ed) McGraw-Hill series in water resources and environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Luong J (1987) Generalization of Monod kinetics for analysis of growth data with substrate inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng 29(2):242–248Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Quinn J, de Winter L, Bradley T (2011) Microalgae bulk growth model with application to industrial scale systems. Bioresour Technol 102(8):5083–5092Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lawrence AW, McCarty PL (1969) Kinetics of methane fermentation in anaerobic treatment. J Water Pollut Control Fed 41:R1–R17Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vavilin V et al (2008) Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: an overview. Waste Manag 28(6):939–951Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    O'Rourke JT (1968) Kinetics of anaerobic treatment at reduced temperatures. Department of Civil Engineering 160:448Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Markou G, Angelidaki I, Georgakakis D (2013) Carbohydrate-enriched cyanobacterial biomass as feedstock for bio-methane production through anaerobic digestion. Fuel 111:872–879Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Garcia-Heras J (2003) Reactor sizing, process kinetics and modelling of anaerobic digestion of complex wastes. Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. p. 31–43Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Masse L, Massé DI, Kennedy KJ, Chou SP (2002) Neutral fat hydrolysis and long-chain fatty acid oxidation during anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse wastewater. Biotechnol Bioeng 79(1):43–52Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shimizu T, Kudo K, Nasu Y (1993) Anaerobic waste-activated sludge digestion–a bioconversion mechanism and kinetic model. Biotechnol Bioeng 41(11):1082–1091Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Quinn JC, Hanif A, Sharvelle S, Bradley TH (2014) Microalgae to biofuels: life cycle impacts of methane production of anaerobically digested lipid extracted algae. Bioresour Technol 171:37–43Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Varel V, Chen T, Hashimoto A (1988) Thermophilic and mesophilic methane production from anaerobic degradation of the cyanobacterium Spirulina maxima. Resour Conserv Recycl 1(1):19–26Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Posten C, Walter C (2012) Microalgal biotechnology potential and production. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lebrero R, Toledo-Cervantes A, Muñoz R, del Nery V, Foresti E (2016) Biogas upgrading from vinasse digesters: a comparison between an anoxic biotrickling filter and an algal-bacterial photobioreactor. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 91(9):2488–2495Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Soil & Crop Science DepartmentColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Civil & Environmental EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations