Carbon and nutrient scavenging from sewage and flue gas with MaB-flocs

Sofie Van Den Hende, Sem Desmet, Han Vervaeren, Nico Boon

Brussels, 22 October 2010 AquaFUELs Roundtable Meeting Enbichem, University College West-Flanders, Kortrijk, Belgium LabMET, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Enbichem

Micro-algae for biofuel production

Written documents Micro-algae + biofuel Google: 883 000 results Science Direct: 505 publications

Micro-algae for biofuel production seem promising

Publications greatly outnumber the industrial implementations

Industrial implementations Micro-algae + biofuel In Europe: ?

Not yet economically viable cause microalgal biomass is expensive

Micro-algal biomass production at lower cost

Main costs
Carbon Flue gas

Water and nutrients (N, P)

Sewage

Harvesting: up to 50 %
(Richmond, 2004)

Bio-flocculation

Bio-flocculation offers advantages compared to micro-algae cultures

50m

Micro-algal Bacterial flocs MaB-flocs Microalgae and bacteria

(Van Den Hende et al, 2010)

Micro-algae difficult to harvest MaB-flocs settle by gravity

Bacteria Organic carbon

CO2
Microalgae

O2

Interaction CO2 and O2

4

Addition of flue gas in sewage fed reactors

Sewage as a cheap H2O, C, N, P source Sewage C:N = 3-7 vs micro-algae C:N = 6-15
(Benemann, 2003; van Harmelen and Oonk, 2006)

+ Flue gas Provide extra C to adjust C:N ratio

+ Micro-algae increase pH -> ammonium volatilization -> non optimal pH for micro-organisms

Provide CO2, NOx, SO2 to avoid high pH

MicrobialResourceManagement foracheapermicroalgalbiomassproduction

Therefore we investigated...

+ + =

...theproductionofaquaticbiomass: MicroalgalBacterialflocs=MaBflocs combinedwiththepolishing ofprimarytreatedsewage andfluegas inalabscalephotobioreactor

Cheap resources
Influent Primary treated sewage MWWTP Aquafin, Harelbeke

Flue gas Model flue gas coal power plant

(Xu et al, 2004)

Sedimentationandflotationtank

12 % CO2 300 ppmv NO 200 ppmv SO2 0.6 L gas h-1 -> 0.0025 vvm
7

MaB-floc reactor
Labscale reactor Air bubble photobioreactor Circulation pump: counter flow 4 L working volume Sequencing Batch Reactor HRT= 0.67 days PFD ~ 100 mol PAR m-2 s-1

React 6.5h

Settle 0.5h

Fill +react 0.5h

Withdraw 0.5h

MaB-flocs Local micro-algae strains Activated sludge

(Van Den Hende et al, 2010)

1 g VSS L-1
8

Analysis
Wastewater and effluent TIC, TOC, N, P, S Turbidity, pH Flue gas and off gas CO2, NO, NO2, SO2, O2 T, P MaB-flocs Productivity of VSS Sludge volume index SVI Chlorophyll a, Pheophytine a Physiological condition: A664/A665a Autotrophic index AI
(APHA, 1985)
9

Experimentalsetup

Experiment

Influent

Gasflow rate (Lh1) 0.6

Biomass

Time (days) 32

MaB CONTROLS NoGas NoMaB RH2O

Sewage

MaBflocs

Sewage Sewage Deionised water

0.0 0.6 0.6

MaBflocs / /

13 19 4

10

Results

MaB-flocs MaB-flocs Sewage treatment Sewage treatment C, N, P, pH andturbidity removal C, N, P and turbidity Flue gas treatment Flue gas treatment
CO2,,NOx & SO2 removal CO2 NOx & SO2

11

Results

MaB-flocs MaB-flocs Sewage treatment Sewage treatment C, N, P, pH andturbidity removal C, N, P and turbidity Flue gas treatment Flue gas treatment
CO2,,NOx & SO2 removal CO2 NOx & SO2

12

MaB-floc quality
Fast settling flocs Average SVI MaB: 57 ml g-1 TSS NoGas: 111 ml g-1 TSS
50m

Chlorellasp.

Good incorporation of micro-algae 19 3 mg Chlorophyll a g-1 VSS No significant decrease of the physiological condition by adding flue gas A664/A665a between 1.0 and 1.7 Pheophytine a vs Chlorophyll a MaB 1.54 0.06 vs NoGas 1.58 0.02
13

Bacteria

Phormidium sp.

MaB-floc quantity

Biomass productivity 0.05 - 0.19 g Lreactor-1 day-1 Lipid concentration 12 % of DW (first results E. Ryckebosh) Extrapolate to industrial scale Correction factor to extrapolate to open pond system: 0.19 80 % of a year operational -> Max. 60 ton microalgal bacterial biomass ha-1 year-1 (Max. 7 ton lipids ha-1 year-1)

14

Results

MaB-flocs MaB-flocs Sewage treatment Sewage treatment C, N, P, pH andturbidity removal C, N, P and turbidity Flue gas treatment Flue gas treatment
CO2,,NOx & SO2 removal CO2 NOx & SO2

15

A good effluent quality

Discharge standards for a Flemish MWTP are feasible Average values > 100.000 PE 10 mg TN L-1 1 mg TP L-1

N PO43 NH4+N NO2N

MaB

NO3N

PO43

16

An adequate N and P removal

Very high NH4+ removal efficiency 94 6 % Daily nitrogen removal 27.1 4.1 mg N L-1 day-1 PO43- removal efficiency was significantly higher with a higher HRT 67 13 % if HRT = 0.67 days vs 99 2 % if HRT=1.33 days Daily PO43- removal 2.3 0.9 mg P-PO43- L-1 day-1
17

A good turbidity removal

28 times lower turbidity of sewage in MaB-floc reactor Influent: 44.2 15.3 FTU Effluent: 1.6 0.6 FTU
MaB MaB

18

A neutral pH was maintained

With sewage the pH stabilized around 6.7 (MaB-reactor) With deionised water the pH decreased to 4.5 (RH20) Buffering capacity of sewage and micro-algal growth

19

Results

MaB-flocs MaB-flocs Sewage treatment Sewage treatment C, N, P, pH andturbidity removal C, N, P and turbidity Flue gas treatment Flue gas treatment
CO2,,NOx & SO2 removal CO2 NOx & SO2

20

A good off gas quality

ConcentrationNO,NO2orSO2 (mg/Nm)

SO2 NOx

High removal efficiencies 49 % CO2 88 % NOx 99 % SO2 Sewage reinforced removal of NO Off gas concentrations lower than Flemish discharge standards
Daily averages for a CPP, Ruien, Electrabel

CO2 MaB

O2

NO NO2 Component

SO2

21

Extrapolation to industrial scale

Large pond area needed for flue gas treatment Correction factor for extrapolation to an open pond system: 0.19 80 % of a year operational Min. 2000 ha for 50 % reduction of CO2 of a 50 MW plant CO2 credits 1775 ha-1 year -1 (15.30 ton-1 CO2) NOx credits Only some countries (100 ton-1 NOx Netherlands), not yet in Belgium Flue gas is cheap carbon source algae, algae not a treatment for all industrial flue gas

22

Conclusions
Good productivity of MaB-flocs combined with a successful treatment of sewage and flue gas Bottlenecks still exist
Large areas are needed How to valorise this biomass in the most sustainable way? Only data on lab scale

Future research should include

Valorisation of the aquatic biomass Implementation on pilot scale (light/dark cycle)

23

Thankyou foryourattention
sofie.van.den.hende@howest.be labmet.ugent.be www.howest.be

Enbichem

Discharge norms for off gas and reference O2

Er =

(21Or).Em (21Om)

A correction for off gas concentrations is needed before comparing to norms To avoid diluting off gas This O2 reference depends on fuel and installation Diesel: 3 % - coal: 6 % - biomass: 11 % In algal technology O2 is produced (+6 %) -> Om > Or -> Er > Em This makes discharge norms more stringent for oxygen producing gas treatment Policy makers -> Adjustment needed
25

Or :referenceO2concentration(%) Om :measuredO2concentration(%) Em:measuredconcentration(mg/Nm) Er:correctedconcentration(mg/Nm)