Development of a tool for improving the management of gaseous emissions in UASB-based sewage treatment plants

被引：7

作者：

Chernicharo C.A.L. ^{[1
]}

Brandt E.M.F. ^{[2
]}

Bressani-Ribeiro T. ^{[1
]}

Melo V.R. ^{[1
]}

Bianchetti F.J. ^{[1
]}

Motafilho C.R. ^{[1
]}

McAdam E. ^{[3
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos 6.627, Campus Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, 31.270-901, MG

[2] Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Engineering College, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Campus UFJF, Juiz de Fora, 36036-330, MG

[3] Cranfield University, Cranfield Water Science Institute, Bedfordshire

来源：

Water Practice and Technology | 2017年 / 12卷 / 04期

关键词：

Anaerobic-based STPs; Biogas; Carbon footprint; Diffuse methane emission; Diffuse sulfide emission; Energy recovery;

D O I：

10.2166/wpt.2017.097

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

This study aimed at developing a simple tool for improving the management of gaseous emissions in UASB-based sewage treatment plants (STPs), considering different scenarios for the management of sludge, biogas and gaseous emissions (especially sulfide and methane). For small STPs (<10,000 inhab.), simple alternatives for the use of biogas were considered (e.g. for excess sludge hygienization and household usages). For medium- (>10,000; <100,000) and large-scale (>100,000 inhab.) STPs, other biogas uses were considered, such as in sludge dryers, boilers or combined heat and power engines for electricity generation and heat recovery. All these possibilities were grouped in an interactive spreadsheet containing an extensive database of factors that affect gaseous emissions and energy balance in STPs. The tool can be important for decision makers choosing the best gaseous emissions management practices in UASB-based STPs. Carbon footprint should be the main decision factor when evaluating alternatives for the management of gaseous emissions. © IWA Publishing 2017.

引用

页码：917 / 926

页数：9

共 23 条

[1]

Andreoli C.V., Von Sperling M., Fernandes F., Sewage Sludge: Treatment and Final Disposal (Lodo de esgotos: Tratamento e disposição final), Departamento De Engenharia Sanitária E Ambiental - UFMG, (2001)

[2]

Borges E.S.M., Godinho V.M., Chernicharo C.A.L., Thermal hygienization of excess anaerobic sludge: A possible self-sustained application of biogas produced in UASB reactors, Water Sci. Technol, 52, 10-11, pp. 227-234, (2005)

[3]

Brandt E.M.F., Duarte F.V., Vieira J.P.R., Melo V.M., Souza C.L., Araujo J.C., Chernicharo C.A.L., The use of novel packing material for improving methane oxidation in biofilters, Journal of Environmental Management, 182, pp. 412-420, (2016)

[4]

Water and Sewage Services Background (Diagnóstico Dos Serviços De Água E Esgotos - 2014), (2016)

[5]

Table of Consumption of Electric Energy - Electric Showers - Edition 03/2016(Tabela De Consumo De Energia elétrica - Chuveiros elétricos - Edição 03/2016), (2016)

[6]

Annual Estimates of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Brazil (Estimativas Anuais De Emissões De Gases De Efeito Estufa No Brasil), (2017)

[7]

Brown N., Methane Dissolved in Wastewater Exiting UASB Reactors: Concentration Measurement and Methods for Neutralisation, (2006)

[8]

Chernicharo C.A.L., Anaerobic Reactors, (2007)

[9]

Chernicharo C.A.L., Van Lier J.B., Noyola A., Ribeiro T.B., Anaerobic sewage treatment in Latin America, Anaerobic Biotechnology: Environmental Protection and Resource Recovery, pp. 263-296, (2015)

[10]

Gloria R.M., Motta T.M., Silva P.V.O., Costa P., Brandt E.M.F., Souza C.L., Chernicharo C.A.L., Stripping and dissipation techniques for the removal of dissolved gases from anaerobic effluents, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 33, 4, pp. 713-721, (2016)

← 1 2 3 →