Towards a Renewable Future: Assessing Resource Recovery as a Viable Treatment Alternative State of the Science and Market Assessment

Abstract

2015 NTRY1R12aii The Water Environment Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, funds and manages water quality research for its subscribers through a diverse public-private partnership between municipal utilities, corporations, academia, industry, and the federal government. WERF subscribers include municipal and regional water and water resource recovery facilities, industrial corporations, environmental engineering firms, and others that share a commitment to cost-effective water quality solutions. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands, and quality of life.For more information, contact: Water Environment Research Foundation

Mass fluxes of nitrogen and phosphorus through water reclamation facilities: Case study of biological nutrient removal, aerobic sludge digestion, and sidestream recycle

“…At treatment facilities where sludge is digested anaerobically, a number of methods for removing or recovering nitrogen and phosphorus from the sidestream are currently available. For instance, nitrogen and phosphorus can be recovered through engineered precipitation of struvite (Abel-Denee, Abbott, & Eskicioglu, 2018;Battistoni, Pavan, Prisciandaro, & Cecchi, 2000;Latimer, Rohrbacher, Nguyen, Khunjar, & Jeynayagam, 2015;LeCorre, Valsami-Jones, Hobbs, & Parsons, 2009;Shu, Schneider, Jegatheesan, & Johnson, 2006). Alternatively, nitrogen can be removed through advanced biological processes such as "shortcut" nitrogen removal (Abeling & Seyfried, 1992;Ciudad et al, 2005;Mosquera-Corral, González, Campos, & Méndez, 2005;Peng & Zhu, 2006;Turk & Mavinic, 1986;van Kempen, Mulder, Uijterlinde, & Loosdrecht, 2001;Yoo et al, 1999) or partial nitritation with anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) (van Dongen, Jetten, & van Loosdrecht, 2001;Fux, Boehler, Huber, Brunner, & Siegrist, 2002;Joss et al, 2009;Lackner et al, 2014).…”

Economic evaluation of ion-exchange processes for nutrient removal and recovery from municipal wastewater

“…Notwithstanding, there is a valid argument if considering industrial nitrogen synthesis process (Haber-Bosch approach) consume 1-2% of global power production and emit 4-8 tons of CO 2 per ton of fertiliser produced 24 . Although nitrogen only recovery process is feasible, they are not extensively implemented so far 11 . This may change in the future with less availability and rising costs of natural gas that industrial process uses.…”

“…To make the recovered nutrient a marketable product, consistent quality of the recovered nutrients must be reached, such as solid content >95%, dust <1% by weight, 2-3 mm of size for agricultural products, 1-1.25 mm of granular size for golf course turf 11 . Specifications for product to enter a specific market must be met.…”

“…It is to note that recovered nutrient products from wastewater as fertiliser will not likely be able to be marketed with "certified organic". There are potentially four entry points for recovered nutrients products as fertiliser 11 . The recovered products can be sold directly to end-user, wholesaler, broker and dealer or through wholesaler, broker and dealer network to end-user.…”

“…Besides technology, other challenges also remain to hinder the nutrient recovery. These include a lack of viable commercialisation pathway, and limited understanding of the recovered products markets 11 . This study aims at providing an evaluation of performance and economics of IEX processes as tertiary treatment process, for both ammonia and phosphorus removal and recovery, after traditional activated sludge process (aimed at carbon removal) or anaerobic treatment with a combined upflow anaerobic sludge blanket and membrane reactor (anMBR) compared with traditional BNR combined with iron dosing for a 10,000 population equivalent (PE) municipal WWTP.…”