Lijó Lucía, Malamis Simos, González-García Sara, Moreira María Teresa, Fatone Francesco, Katsou Evina
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, UK.
Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece.
J Environ Manage. 2017 Dec 1;203(Pt 2):732-740. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.053. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
This study assesses from an environmental perspective two different configurations for the combined treatment of wastewater and domestic organic waste (DOW) in a small and decentralised community having a population of 2000. The applied schemes consist of an upflow anaerobic blanket (UASB) as core treatment process. Scheme A integrates membranes with the anaerobic treatment; while in Scheme B biological removal of nutrients in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is applied as a post treatment to UASB effluent. In energy-related categories, the main contributor is electricity consumption (producing 18-50% of the impacts); whereas in terms of eutrophication-related categories, the discharge of the treated effluent arises as a major hotspot (with 57-99% of the impacts). Scheme B consumes 25% more electricity and produces 40% extra sludge than Scheme A, resulting in worse environmental results for those energy categories. However, the environmental impact due to the discharge of the treated effluent is 75% lower in eutrophication categories due to the removal of nutrients. In addition, the quality of the final effluent in Scheme B would allow its use for irrigation (9.6 mg N/L and 2 mg P/L) if proper tertiary treatment and disinfection are provided, expanding its potential adoption at a wider scale. Direct emissions due to the dissolved methane in the UASB effluent have a significant environmental impact in climate change (23-26%). Additionally, the study shows the environmental feasibility of the use of food waste disposers for DOW collection in different integration rates.
本研究从环境角度评估了在一个拥有2000人口的小型分散社区中，用于联合处理废水和生活有机废物（DOW）的两种不同配置。所应用的方案均以升流式厌氧污泥床（UASB）作为核心处理工艺。方案A将膜与厌氧处理相结合；而在方案B中，序批式反应器（SBR）中的生物营养物去除作为UASB出水的后处理工艺。在与能源相关的类别中，主要贡献者是电力消耗（产生18 - 50%的影响）；而在与富营养化相关的类别方面，处理后出水的排放成为主要热点（占影响的57 - 99%）。方案B的电力消耗比方案A多25%，产生的污泥比方案A多40%，导致这些能源类别方面的环境结果更差。然而，由于营养物的去除，方案B处理后出水排放对富营养化类别的环境影响降低了75%。此外，如果提供适当的深度处理和消毒，方案B最终出水的质量将允许其用于灌溉（9.6毫克氮/升和2毫克磷/升），从而扩大其在更广泛规模上的潜在采用。UASB出水中溶解甲烷导致的直接排放对气候变化有重大环境影响（23 - 26%）。此外，该研究还展示了以不同整合率使用食物垃圾处理器收集生活有机废物的环境可行性。
