2294

IWA Publishing 2013 Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

Working with energy and mass balances: a conceptual

framework to understand the limits of municipal
wastewater treatment
J. M. Garrido, M. Fdz-Polanco and F. Fdz-Polanco

ABSTRACT
At present all municipal waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) are energy consumers. Electrical
energy requirements for oxygen transfer are large in secondary biological systems. Nevertheless,
from a thermodynamic point of view chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an energy source.
Combustion of every kilogram of COD releases 3.86 kWh of energy. In this manuscript some
measures are presented, from a conceptual point of view, in order to convert the actual concept of
wastewater treatment as an energy sink to an energy source concept. In this sense, electrical selfsufciency in carbon removal WWTPs could be obtained by increasing the sludge load to the
anaerobic sludge digester. Nitrogen removal increases the energy requirements of WWTPs. The use
of a combined two-stage biological treatment, using a high loaded rst stage for carbon removal and
a second stage combined nitricationanammox process for nitrogen removal in the water line,

J. M. Garrido (corresponding author)

Chemical Engineering Department,
School of Engineering,
University of Santiago de Compostela,
Campus Sur,
E-15782,
Santiago de Compostela,
Spain
E-mail: juanmanuel.garrido@usc.es
M. Fdz-Polanco
F. Fdz-Polanco
Department of Chemical Engineering and
Environmental Technology,
University of Valladolid,
47011 Valladolid,
Spain

offers a way to recover self-sufciency. This is not a proven technology at ambient temperature, but
its development offers an opportunity to reduce the energy demand of WWTPs.
Key words

| COD balance, energy balance, nitrogen balance, wastewater treatment sustainability

INTRODUCTION
Wastewater is a mixture rich in water (>99%), with a small
amount of pollutants (<1%) that in wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) are transformed into by-products (carbon
dioxide and sludge). Regardless of the technology used
and the size of the facilities, at present almost all municipal
WWTPs using aerobic biological processes for removing
organic matter are net electrical energy consumers. Aerobic
processes used are net energy consumers due to the fact that
the oxidation of organic matter requires oxygen transfer, and
aeration systems demand high amounts of electrical energy.
Additionally, nitrogen treatment processes consume more
electrical energy than processes simply removing chemical
oxygen demand (COD) due to the additional oxygen and
pumping requirements for the nitricationdenitrication
process (Jonasson ).
Accepting as specic energy parameter the source electrical energy use intensity (EUI), dened as annual energy
used on the facility divided by the average inuent ow
(kWh/m3), the literature overview shows big differences
among different facilities. EUI average values of
0.78 kWh/m3 treated wastewater were reported in the
doi: 10.2166/wst.2013.124

USA (US EPA & US ED ). Lidkea () analyzed

three Canadian WWTPs with average ow rate of
56,000 m3/d, and found an average EUI value of
0.35 kWh/m3. EUI in WWTPs of Flanders is on average
0.30 kWh/m3 (Fenu et al. ). Jonasson (), comparing
several European facilities, obtains an EUI average value of
0.30 kWh/m3 for Austria and 0.47 kWh/m3 for Sweden.
EUI due to secondary treatment accounts for 0.2 kWh/m3
treated water in these two countries. Differences between
these two countries are related to energy consumption for
pumping. The use of membrane technologies increases
energy consumption. EUI associated with the use of membrane bioreactors is between 0.8 and 1.2 kWh/m3. The use
of conventional activated sludge (CAS) equipped with tertiary
membrane ltration and ultraviolet disinfection increases
EUI up to 0.593 kWh/m3 (Fenu et al. ; Maere et al. ).
Nevertheless, from a thermodynamic point of view,
organic matter in wastewater can be considered not as an
energy sink but an energy source. All the organic compounds included in the wastewater contain energy stored
within their chemical bonds. However, recovery of most of

2295

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

this energy, in terms of electricity, is a difcult task in

WWTPs. A large fraction of this energy is dissipated as
residual heat when secondary aerobic biological reactors
are used. At commercial level, only anaerobic digestion of
either wastewater or sludge may recover a fraction of this
energy in the biogas. However, only sludge methanization
may be used in cold or temperate regions of the world.
Digester gas-fueled electric power generators are used to
recuperate energy from biogas. Cogeneration units using
internal combustion engines are the most widely used
energy recovery systems in WWTPs. They convert 3042%
of the energy into electricity. Fuel cells also may be used
for recovering energy from methane. Nevertheless, electrical
efciency of fuel cells is not much larger, between 36 and
45%. Moreover, cogeneration using fuel cells is more
expensive than internal combustion engines (Brown &
Caldwell ). Energy recovery using microbial fuel cells
or microbial electrolysis cells is still a challenge, due to
some concerns related to energy losses, high costs, and feasibility of using such technologies in full-scale facilities (Logan
et al. , ; McCarty et al. ).
To perform energy balances, it is necessary to calculate
the energy content (EC) of the wastewater. The paper of
Shizas & Bagley () seems to be the rst experimental
approach to determine the energy stored in domestic wastewater. Using an oven to dry the samples and a calorimeter
bomb, they found that the heat of combustion (UC) is largely dependent on the fraction considered: wastewater
(
UC 3.2 kJ/g dry); primary sludge (
UC 15.9 kJ/g
dry); secondary sludge (
UC 12.4 kJ/g dry); anaerobically digested sludge (
UC 12.7 kJ/g dry). Converting
these experimental values based on dry matter into values
based on COD the new calculated values are very similar
for all fractions: raw wastewater (
UC 14.70 kJ/g
COD); primary sludge (
UC 11.12 kJ/g COD); secondary sludge (
UC 12.05 kJ/g COD); an aerobically
digested sludge (
UC 11.68 kJ/g COD). Taking COD as
reference, the experimental values of the energy stored in
the different streams of the WWTP did not vary so much.
In a more recent paper, Heidrich et al. () present
experimental results for two samples of wastewater from
different facilities; both samples were dried in an oven or
by freezing in order to minimize loss of volatiles. For
oven-dried samples the EC values were 22.5 and 17.7 kJ/
kg COD while for freeze-dried samples the values reported
are 28.7 and 17.8 kJ/kg COD. Heidrich et al. () obtained
larger values than those of Shizas & Bagley (), as the
former authors corrected the combustion heat obtained
taking into account a possible formation of nitric acid

Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

from nitrogen gas during the experiments. Differences in

the experimental values obtained between the experimental
data of Shizas & Bagley () and Heidrich et al. () are
suggesting that another methodology should be followed in
order to set the value of the heat of combustion of organic
matter.
COD is a conservative parameter easy to measure and
follow during wastewater treatment. COD may be converted
to methane in anaerobic digesters. Considering stoichiometry, it is easy to set that 1 kg CH4 is equivalent to 4 kg
COD. By applying Hesss law and stoichiometry of the reactions, and adopting from Perry () that the heat of
combustion of methane is 55.53 kJ/g CH4, the heat of combustion of COD is calculated as:

UC 55:53 kJ=g CH4 =4 g COD=g CH4
13:88 kJ=g COD
This theoretical value of 13.88 kJ/g COD is in good
agreement with the experimental value 14.70 kJ/g COD proposed by Shizas & Bagley () for raw wastewater. Thus,
this energy potential, equivalent to 3.856 kWh per every
kilogram of COD oxidized, will be considered throughout
the calculations.
This work will show how the concept of a WWTP as
energy sink processes may be converted to energy source
systems in the near future, at least from a theoretical
point of view. For doing so, mass and energy balances will
be analyzed, considering a 400,000 population equivalent
(p.e.) municipal WWTP. For this purpose, different scenarios to treat wastewater and meet nutrient and COD
discharge limits will be considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Wastewater treatment plant
Energy and mass benchmarking will be considered to analyze a municipal WWTP of 400,000 p.e., treating
74,500 m3/d wastewater and an organic load of 50,000 kg
COD/d. The population equivalent of this plant was xed
at 125 g COD/(p.e.d) and 12 g total nitrogen (TN)/(p.e.d),
which are equivalent to the 60 g biochemical oxygen
demand/(p.e.d) considered by the European urban wastewater treatment directive 91/271/EEC (EC ). The plant
layout of the facility included in the water line at least a primary treatment, secondary CAS treatment and anaerobic

2296

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

sludge digester, as common elements for benchmarking

(Figure 1). Modication of this basic facility included two
scenarios that would be used for analyzing a WWTP designed
for COD removal and three additional scenarios for analyzing WWTPs designed for nutrients removal.

Scenarios for COD WWTPs

Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

COD balances
COD balances were calculated using a spreadsheet (Excel).
The information required to perform COD balances in the
secondary treatment, apparent biomass yield and oxygen
requirements, was determined with the assistance of
Biowin software.
Assumptions considered during the study

Scenario 1. Conventional facility for carbon removal; Apparent biomass yield in the CAS was xed at 0.5 g COD/g COD
and efciency of primary sedimentation was xed at 30%.
Scenario 2. Improving primary sedimentation. Similar to
scenario 1 but efciency of primary sedimentation was
increased to 40%, by using lower overow rates and
adding occulants in the primary sedimentation tanks as
suggested by Siegrist et al. ().

Scenarios considered for nutrient removal WWTPs

Scenario 3. Conventional nutrient removal plant. A predenitrication process was considered as the nutrients removal
system.
Scenario 4. Similar to scenario 3, but autotrophic nitrogen
removal of the centrate is considered by using a system combining both partial ammonia oxidation and anammox
processes.
Scenario 5. Autotrophic nitrogen removal in the water line is
considered as tertiary treatment. High-rate CAS operated
with very low solids retention time (SRT) was considered
as secondary treatment in order to increase secondary
sludge production.

Energy requirements of the physical stages (e.g. pumping,

degritting, operation of primary and secondary settlers,
sludge dewatering units) and the sludge treatment are xed
at 20 Wh/(p.e.d). This value is similar to that of only
19.2 Wh/(p.e.d) reported for Austria by Jonasson ().
EUI for the physical stages is only 0.135 kWh/m3, and
8,000 kWh/d are required for treating the 74,500 m3/d
above indicated. By doing that it is assumed that these physical stages are optimized and that energy consumption due
to these operations cannot be reduced to a perceptible
extent. Specic energy consumption associated with
oxygen transfer in the biological stages was xed at 1.0 kg
O2/kWh, which is in between the typical oxygen transfer
capabilities associated with various types of aerator (Metcalf
& Eddy ). Thus, the oxidation of 1 kg COD in the CAS
requires 1 kWh electrical consumption.
Mass and energy balances are carried out following
COD evolution along the WWTP, while energy balances
are performed using the EC or combustion enthalpy
(
UC), so the EC of a stream in the ow diagram can be
calculated as a function of the COD mass ux (FCOD), and
assuming an EC of 3.856 kWh for each kilogram COD
(Equation (1)):
ECkWh=d FCOD kg COD=d UC kWh=kg COD
(1)

Figure 1

Mass (% COD, referred to the inuent) and energy (MWh/d) balances for
scenario 1, a conventional WWTP for 400,000 p.e.

Total COD of raw wastewater (50,000 kg/d) was divided

into four COD fractions as suggested in Metcalf & Eddy
(), and considering the typical characteristics of raw
sewage (Rieger et al. ): soluble inert COD (SI), 4% total
COD; soluble biodegradable COD (SS), 10% of total COD;
particulate inert COD (XI), 20% of total COD; and particulate biodegradable COD (XS), 66% of total COD. SI was
neither oxidized nor separated in the sedimentation units of
the WWTP. A fraction of XI is separated as primary sludge,
and the remaining fraction present in the primary treated
wastewater is wasted in the secondary sludge. This COD fraction cannot be methanized. XS may be partly oxidized in the

2297

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

Water Science & Technology

CAS or methanized in the anaerobic digester. It was assumed

that secondary sludge was composed of a mixture of XS and
XI. Futhermore, microorganisms generated during secondary
treatment were included in the XS fraction. SS is partly oxidized and partly converted by microorganisms in the CAS.
TN mass ux in the inuent was 4,800 kg/d. For nutrient
removal scenarios 4 and 5, TN removal was xed at 80% in
accordance with the 92/271/EEC European urban wastewater directive (EC ).
Biomethanization of the biodegradable COD fractions
of primary and secondary sludge is supposed to be similar.
The differences in the methane capacity obtained for these
sludges are related to the presence of a large fraction of XI
in the secondary sludge. Sixty-nine percent of COD destruction of XS was xed in the anaerobic digester (Kabouris et al.
) in order to calculate COD transformation in methane.
Thus EC of biogas was calculated (Equation (2)):
ECkWh=d 0:69 FCOD-XS kg COD=d
UC kWh=kg COD

(2)

where FCOD-XS (kg COD/d) represented the COD mass ux

associated with biodegradable particulate COD for primary
and secondary sludges. Electrical efciency of fueled electric power generators was xed at 35% (Brown &
Caldwell ).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analyzing a conventional WWTP there is a rst question to

elucidate: is it possible to obtain a positive energy balance?
The answer is clear: if the EC of the wastewater is higher
than the energy requirements of the WWTP, the plant
could be an energy source. Electrical energy requirements
of the conventional WWTP are xed at 63 Wh/(p.e.d)
(Jonasson ). This amount is equivalent to 0.34 kWh/m3
treated wastewater in the considered WWTP. In our scenario of 400,000 p.e. and 50,000 kg COD/d the electrical
energy requirements per day amount to 25,200 kWh/d.
Nevertheless, the gross energy associated with wastewater
COD is much larger, 203,500 kWh/d. If the whole COD
amount could be converted into methane, 71,225 kWh/d
electricity would be generated. This was calculated by
xing efciency of the electricity generator at 35%. This
rst result is conclusive. The wastewater holds much more
energy than that necessary to operate WWTPs. Nevertheless

67.10

2013

from a practical point of view this limit will be lower. First,

nonbiodegradable COD, accounting for 24% of total COD
in this study, cannot be transformed to methane. Second, a
fraction of biodegradable COD will be lost in the water
line due to its oxidation in the CAS. Thus, the goal is to
demonstrate the technical feasibility of the energy recuperation processes.

COD removal scenarios

Scenario 1
Figure 1 depicts the mass and energy balances of the conventional WWTP designed for carbon removal. Mass
balances were performed using a basis of 100% for the
50,000 kg/d COD mass load to the WWTP and assuming
that primary clarication efciency is 30% (COD). Energy
balances were calculated by using Equation (2), thus are proportional to the COD mass ux. Apparent biomass yield was
estimated to be 0.5 kg COD/kg COD, using the Biowin
simulation software, corresponding to a CAS operated
with a SRT of around 7 d.
Assuming these parameters the electrical energy requirements of the plant were estimated as 24.5 MWh/d;
8 MWh/d (33%) are associated with the energy requirements of the physical stages and 16.5 (67%) are required
for the oxygen transfer in CAS. The energy potential of the
methane oxidation is much larger, 56.3 MWh/d. Nevertheless, the electricity produced by the biogas internal
combustion engine was 19.7 MWh/d, only covering 80.5%
of the electricity requirement of the WWTP. The balances
clearly demonstrate that it is not possible to reach an energetically
self-sufcient
WWTP
maintaining
this
conventional operation strategy. EUI was 0.33 kWh/m3
treated. Electricity consumption in this kind of scenario
could be reduced considering the use of high efcient aeration systems, with oxygen transfer capabilities of 1.72.2 kg
O2/kWh (Svardal & Kroiss ). The assumption of 1 kg
O2/kWh considered in the present study represents the typical capability of the aerators (Metcalf & Eddy ).
Biogas was the only source for energy production and
aeration the main energy consumer. A rst energy bottleneck
may be identied in Figure 1: the low efciency of the primary system allows that 70% COD goes to the aerobic
biological process, consuming oxygen to burn the organic
matter to produce carbon dioxide and residual heat. Another
limitation was related to the low efciency of anaerobic digestion, which only transforms into biogas 29.2% of the inuent

2298

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

COD. Thus, self-sufciency of the plant could be improved by

increasing primary sludge production (scenario 2).
Scenario 2
A route to modify the mass and energy balances is to change
the efciency of primary sedimentation from 30 to 40%
(Figure 2). This may be done by using lower overow rates
and adding occulants to the inuent (Siegrist et al. ).
The higher COD efciency of primary sedimentation
increases the mass/energy load to the anaerobic digester,
decreasing the amount of COD that will be oxidized and
the energy requirements of the CAS. The electrical energy
requirements of the plant were estimated as 22.0 MWh/d.
Energy requirements of CAS diminished from 16.5 to
14 MWh/d. The electricity produced in the internal combustion engine was also 22.0 MWh/d, and the facility achieved
self-sufciency. Other possible strategies to improve or
increase biogas production in the WWTP could be: (i) to
increase COD mass ux of primary sludge by using primary
ltration units; (ii) to improve COD methanization in the
anaerobic digester using, for example, thermal hydrolysis

Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

processes; and (iii) to use the anaerobic digestion process.

From these three alternatives, only the second seems to be
an option as the use of primary membrane technologies is
not a proven technology and the third is recommended for
sub(tropical) climate conditions (van Lier ), limiting
its use in cold and temperate climate regions.
Nutrient removal scenarios
Other scenarios that should be considered include those
WWTPs that should meet nutrients limits. Phosphorus
removal itself, using either physical or biological processes,
does not exert a strong effect on internal energy balances.
However, nitrogen removal exerts a strong inuence on the
energy requirements of the WWTP. Oxygen requirements
associated with nitrogen removal are very large, and comparable to those associated with organic carbon removal.
For a conventional nutrient removal system, using
nitricationdenitrication processes, ammonia oxidation
requires a large amount of oxygen, around 4.57 kg O2/kg
oxidized-N. Thus, energy requirements of nitrication are
around 4.57 kWh/kg oxidized-N. Moreover, 4.57 kWh electricity is lost with every kilogram of nitrate discharged in the
efuent. The denitrication reaction offers not only an
opportunity of removing TN or recovering alkalinity in the
wastewater. It is also a way of recovering energy; 2.86 kg
COD are oxidized per kg NO

3 -N denitried. Thus,
2.86 kWh electricity is saved per kg NO

3 -N denitried.
Scenario 3

Figure 2

Mass (% COD, in relation to the inuent) and energy (MWh/d) balances for
scenario 2; efciency of primary sedimentation was 40%.

Figure 3

To quantify the standard conditions a predenitrication

CAS system was considered, assuming an apparent biomass
yield of 0.5 kg COD/kg-COD and a SRT of around 7 d.
Nitrogen content, associated with the particulate COD
fractions, was 0.06 kg N/kg COD. Figure 3 shows the

COD percentage and balance (in relation to 100% in the inuent) and total nitrogen balance (9.6 units in the inuent, associated with 100 COD units) for scenario 3 (left) and 4 (right).

2299

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

evolution of TN and COD mass balances for scenario 3.

Considering wastewater composition, 100 mass units of
COD are associated with 9.6 mass units of TN in the
inuent. Nitrogen load treated in the WWTP was 4,800 kg
TN/d. TN of the primary inuent was the same as in the
inuent. Nitrogen recycled in the centrate counteracted
nitrogen separated in the primary sludge. From the 9.6 TN
units present in the inuent, 20% of TN was washed out
with the efuent (1.9 units), and 59% TN was removed by
using the denitrication reaction (5.7 TN mass units). Electrical requirement was 33.7 MWh/d, which is much higher
than the 24.5 MWh/d estimated for scenario 1, with the
COD removal WWTP. Nitrogen removal itself accounted
for 9.2 MWh/d of the electrical requirements. On the
other hand, energy generation was the same as for scenario
1, 19.7 MWh/d. EUI was 0.45 kWh/m3 and electricity generated only covered 58.5% of the electricity requirements.
Thus, the use of the conventional nutrient removal system,
using nitricationdenitrication processes, moves wastewater treatment away from self-sustainability. This does
not mean that electrical self-sufciency cannot be achieved
in nutrient removal WWTPs, but makes it more difcult.
In this sense, Nowak et al. () presented two examples
of Austrian WWTPs designed for nitrogen removal, in
which self-sustainability was achieved: the WolfgangseeIschl and the Strass WWTPs. For the rst WWTP, the efciency of both primary sedimentation and COD
transformation in methane in the anaerobic digester was
high, 37 and 61.8% respectively, and makes possible
self-sufciency. The self-sufciency for the Strass WWTP
was favored, among other factors, by the low N to COD
ratio of the inuent, of only 0.07 g N/g COD, and the high
electrical efciency of the electric power generator used,
40% which was 5% higher than that considered for the present work.
Another possible alternative for reducing the energy
requirements of the WWTPs might be the use of autotrophic nitrogen removal processes using both partial
ammonia oxidation to nitrite and the anammox reaction
(Siegrist et al. ). Nevertheless the oxygen requirement
of this autotrophic process is still large, around 2.22 kg
O2/kg N removed.

Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

oxidized to nitrate (0.2 TN units). The secondary CAS is a

conventional denitrication process, which should treat a
lower TN amount that that estimated for scenario 3 (8.0
versus 9.6 TN units, respectively). Energy requirements
and generation of scenario 4 (33.6 and 19.7 MWh/d,
respectively) are almost the same as those obtained for
scenario 3. Denitried nitrogen considered for both scenarios was the same (5.7 units). Whatever the scenario,
ammonia is oxidized to nitrogen gas as the nal product
using either conventional nitrogen removal or anammox
reaction. Nitrogen nitrate considered in the efuent of
scenario 4 was the same as that in scenario 3. Thus, electron acceptor and energy requirements associated with
oxygen transfer are almost the same in both scenarios.
Nevertheless, the use of the anammox process reduces
denitrication requirements in the CAS, allowing optimization of primary sedimentation as was analyzed in
scenario 2.
Scenario 5
The use of autotrophic nitrogen removal systems, using nitrifying and anammox biomass, will be considered in the water
line. This process is still under development by several
research groups (Siegrist et al. ). On the other hand,
TN removal in scenario 5 was similar to that of 88% referred
to by these authors for the anammox reaction. Eleven percent was transformed to nitrate and the remaining 1% was
assimilated by the biomass. Figure 4 depicts the plant
layout of the WWTP with secondary treatment for COD
removal at SRT of 1 d, using, for example, a high-rate aeration CAS and autotrophic tertiary treatment for nitrogen
removal. Electrical requirements diminished from
33.7 MWh/d of scenario 3 to 23.9 MWh/d. An EUI of
only 0.32 kWh/m3 was estimated. This process is selfsufcient as energy generation due to biogas combustion is
estimated to be 26.7 MWh/d, covering 111% of the energy
requirements of the plant.

Scenario 4
The WWTP is similar to that of scenario 3 (Figure 3), but
now an autotrophic removal process, e.g. Canon process
(Third et al. ), is considered for treating TN of the centrate. Eleven percent of TN treated with this process will be

Figure 4

Nitrogen and COD balances considering 100 g COD as basis of calculus in the
WWTP, considering autotrophic nitrogen removal in the water line.

2300

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

Water Science & Technology

Summary
Table 1 summarizes the main results obtained in the ve
different scenarios analyzed. It should be stressed that
most of the results were obtained using a simple thermodynamic analysis. The main objective of this study was to
determine the thermodynamic limitations of sewage treatment. Of the gross energy associated with wastewater
COD, only a fraction can be recovered as electricity. For
doing this, WWTP design capacity was xed at 400,000 p.e.,
in which an anaerobic digester was used for sludge stabilization. Other authors (Svardal & Kroiss ) presented
energy balances for WWTPs with different design capacities
ranging from 5,000 to more than 100,000 p.e.
Electrical self-sufciency is possible in those WWTPs
designed for carbon removal, e.g. by increasing the amount
of COD treated in sludge anaerobic digesters (scenario 2).
For those WWTPs in which nitrogen removal is required,
self-sufciency depends on other variables, e.g. COD/N
ratio of the inuent, efciency of anaerobic digesters or the
use of high efciency electric power generators. Combined
two-stage biological treatment, as proposed in scenario 5,
using a high loaded rst stage for carbon removal and a
second autotrophic nitrication/denitrication stage for
nitrogen removal in the water line, offer an opportunity to
recover the electrical self-sufciency. This process still is
under development, and represents a challenge to reduce
the energy consumption. Other researchers presented interesting proposals for recovering energy, water, and nutrients
from WWTPs. Verstraete & Vlaeminck () propose the
use of a new process, ZeroWasteWater, but its future application probably might be limited to those WWTPs in which
resource recovery is an issue. ZeroWasteWater implies a
Table 1

67.10

2013

large number of modications in both the WWTP and the

sewerage system, in order to increase the inuent COD concentration, and also relies on the development of the
autotrophic nitrogen removal process at ambient temperature. Another possible strategy to recover energy is the use
of anaerobic technology, but its application is limited to
(sub)tropical regions (van Lier ). In this sense, development of autotrophic nitrication/denitrication processes in
the water line is also an opportunity to reduce nitrogen content of the anaerobic efuents.

CONCLUSIONS
Energy self-sufciency in COD WWTPs could be obtained
by increasing the sludge load to the anaerobic sludge digester. This could be accomplished by increasing efciency of
primary sedimentation, diminishing sludge age in the CAS
or improving sludge destruction in the anaerobic digester.
Nitrogen removal increases the energy requirements of
the WWTPs. More effort should be put into nutrient
removal CAS, by diminishing nitrate (energy) washout
with the efuent. The use of the anammox process for treating the centrate is not a way for directly reducing energy
requirements. However, this process reduces denitrication
requirements in the CAS, allowing an increase in primary
sludge and methane production in the plant. On the other
hand, the use of the anammox process in the water line
offers a way to recover self-sufciency. This could be
obtained by using a secondary high-rate CAS and tertiary
autotrophic nitrogen removal technologies. This is not a
proven technology, but its development for treating nitrogen
in the water line offers an opportunity to recover the energy
sustainability of the WWTPs.

Comparison of the results obtained in the ve different scenarios analyzed

Electricity

Electricity

Self-

consumption

generation

sufciency

Scenario

(MWh/d)

(MWh/d)

(%)

1. Conventional
WWTP

24.5

19.7

2. Improving
primary
sedimentation

22.0

22.0

3. Conventional N
removal

33.7

19.7

58.5

4. Anammox
(centrate)

33.6

19.7

58.6

5. Anammox
(water line)

23.9

80.5
100

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science
and Technology, through the Novedar-Consolider Project,
which funded this study (CSD200700055).

REFERENCES

26.7

111

Brown & Caldwell Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power

Technologies for Wastewater Facilities. EPA 832-R-10-006.
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/publications.cfm
(accessed 24 September 2012).

2301

J. M. Garrido et al.

Working with energy and mass balances

EC (European Community) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of

21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment. OJ
L135 (30 May), 4052.
Fenu, A., Roels, J., Wambecq, T., De Gusem, K., Thoeye, C., De
Gueldre, G. & Van der Steene, B. Energy audit of a full
scale MBR system. Desalination 262, 121128.
Heidrich, E. S., Curtis, T. P. & Dolng, J. Determination of the
internal chemical energy of waste water. Environmental
Science and Technology 45 (2), 827832.
Jonasson, M. Energy Benchmark for Wastewater Treatment
Processes: A Comparison between Sweden and Austria.
Master Thesis, Dep. of Industrial Electrical Engineering and
Automation. Faculty of Engineering, Lund University,
Sweden.
Kabouris, J. C., Tezel, U., Pavlostathis, S. G., Engelmann, M.,
Dulaney, J. A., Todd, A. C. & Gillette, R. A. Mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge and fat,
oil, and grease. Water Environment Research 81 (5), 476485.
Lidkea, T. R. Energy use by sewage treatment plants. http://
www.rstv.ca/energy-use-by-sewage-treatment/ (accessed 24
September 2012).
Logan, B. E., Hamelers, B., Rozendal, R., Schrder, U., Keller, J.,
Freguia, S., Aelterman, P., Verstraete, W. & Rabaey, K.
Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology.
Environmental Science and Technology 40 (17), 51815192.
Logan, B. E., Call, D., Cheng, S., Hamelers, H. V. M., Sleutels,
T. H. J. A., Jeremiasse, A. W. & Rozendal, R. A.
Microbial electrolysis cells for high yield hydrogen gas
production from organic matter. Environmental Science and
Technology 42 (23), 86308640.
Maere, T., Verrecht, B., Moerenhout, S., Judd, S. & Nopen, I.
BSM-MBR: a benchmark simulation model to compare
control and operational strategies for membrane bioreactors.
Water Research 45 (6), 21812190.
McCarty, P. L., Bae, J. & Kim, J. Domestic wastewater
treatment as a net energy producer can this be achieved?.
Environmental Science and Technology 45 (17), 71007106.

Water Science & Technology

67.10

2013

Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wastewater Engineering. Treatment and

Reuse. 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nowak, O., Keil, S. & Fimmi, C. Examples of energy selfsufcient municipal nutrient removal plants. Water Science
and Technology 64 (1), 16.
Perry, R. H. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook. 6th edn,
Section 3, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rieger, L., Gillot, S., Langergraber, G., Ohtsuki, T., Shaw, A.,
Takacs, I. & Winkler, S. Guidelines for using Activated
Sludge Models. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Shizas, I. & Bagley, D. M. Experimental determination of
energy content of unknown organics in municipal wastewater
streams. Journal of Energy Engineering 130 (2), 4553.
Siegrist, H., Salzgeber, D., Eugster, J. & Joss, A. Anammox
brings WWTP closer to energy autarky due to increased
biogas production and reduced aeration energy for Nremoval. Water Science and Technology 57 (3), 383388.
Svardal, K. & Kroiss, H. Energy requirements for waste
water treatment. Water Science and Technology 64 (6),
13551361.
Third, K. A., Paxman, J., Schmid, M., Strous, M., Jetten, M. S. M. &
Cord-Ruwisch, R. Treatment of nitrogen-rich wastewater
using partial nitrication and anammox in the CANON
process. Water Science and Technology 52 (4), 4754.
US EPA & US ED Energy START performance ratings.
Technical methodology for wastewater treatment plants.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_
performance/wastewater_tech_desc.pdf?2485-b56f
(accessed 24 September 2012).
van Lier, J. B. High-rate anaerobic wastewater treatment:
diversifying from end-of-pipe treatment to resource-oriented
conversion techniques. Water Science and Technology 57 (8),
11371148.
Verstraete, W. & Vlaeminck, S. E. ZeroWasteWater: shortcycling of wastewater resources for sustainable cities of the
future. International Journal of Sustainable Development
and World Ecology 18 (3), 253264.

First received 3 October 2012; accepted in revised form 25 January 2013

Copyright of Water Science & Technology is the property of IWA Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.