Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPryce, D
dc.contributor.authorKapelan, Z
dc.contributor.authorMemon, FA
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-18T10:58:18Z
dc.date.issued2022-09-11
dc.date.updated2022-11-18T08:11:39Z
dc.description.abstractIn the plight for sustainable development and to support net zero ambitions for climate change mitigation, a broad range of aeration strategies have been developed with the hope of improving efficiency to minimize environmental and economic costs associated with the wastewater treatment processes. However, a balance is levied between reducing oxygen availability and hindering aerobic processes thus compromising performance. In the present work, we evaluate and compare the sustainability of a range of investigated strategies including continuous aeration (CA) at different dissolved oxygen (DO) setpoints (0.5 mg/L, 2.5 mg/L, 4.5 mg/L) and intermittent aeration (IA) at different oxic-anoxic portions (2.5 h on/0.5 h off, 2.0 h on/1.0 h off, 1.5 h on/1.0 h off). To achieve this, an eco-efficiency assessment is performed based on the results of previous life cycle impact and costing analyses for each strategy, while also incorporating a third factor to account for their respective treatment performance. The results demonstrate a clear pattern of increased sustainability for the IA strategies (0.54–0.56 Pt/m3), compared to the CA strategies (0.76–0.77 Pt/m3). While only negligible difference was observed within each aeration type, the trade-off between environmental and economic efficiency and treatment performance was distinct in CA strategies. At the individual pollutant level, IA strategies demonstrated decreasing sustainability for total phosphorous (TP) removal as the anoxic cycle portion increased, while CA at 0.5 mg/L was shown to be the most sustainable strategy for the removal of this pollutant (0.61 Pt/m3). Further work is suggested to incorporate the relative N2O emissions generated by each strategy and to investigate other strategies based on automated control.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Councilen_GB
dc.format.extent134005-
dc.identifier.citationVol. 374, article 134005en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134005
dc.identifier.grantnumberEP/L015412/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/131809
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-0779-083X (Memon, Fayyaz A)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectSustainable developmenten_GB
dc.subjectNet zeroen_GB
dc.subjectClimate changeen_GB
dc.subjectWastewater treatmenten_GB
dc.subjectLife cycle analysisen_GB
dc.titleA comparative evaluation of the sustainability of alternative aeration strategies in biological wastewater treatment to support net-zero futureen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-11-18T10:58:18Z
dc.identifier.issn0959-6526
exeter.article-number134005
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData availability: No data was used for the research described in the article.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1786
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Cleaner Productionen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cleaner Production, 374
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-09-02
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-09-11
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-11-18T10:55:46Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2022-11-18T10:58:23Z
refterms.panelBen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-09-11


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).