Enhancement of sludge gravitational thickening with weak ultrasound

Abstract

Gravitational thickening is the prevailing method to reduce sludge volume but the process is slow and usually requires addition of polyelectrolyte(s). This paper investigated the potential benefits of sonication on enhancing the sludge gravitational thickening with very low energy dose, so called “weak ultrasound”. Results showed that weak sonication significantly changed the sludge settlability and the main mechanism was release of the loosely bounded extracellular polymeric substances. The changes in sludge behaviors by sonication were strongly influenced by power density and sonication duration. Lower sound frequency was slightly better than higher frequency. Weak sonication (<680 kJ·kg^-1 DS) improved the sludge gravitational thickening while high ultrasonic energy deteriorated the process. Considering both the sludge thickening efficiency and energy consumption, the optimum conditions were 0.15 W·mL^-1, 7 s, and 25 kHz. Under such conditions, the energy dose was only 155 kJ·kg^-1 DS, much lower than literature reports, and the sludge settling time was shortened from 24 h to 12h. Weak sonication could substitute expensive polyelectrolyte coagulant for sludge thickening. Combination of weak sonication and polyelectrolyte could further reduce the settling time to 6 h. The final water content of the thickened sludge was not changed after sonication or polyelectrolyte addition.

Keywords

activated sludge / sonication / settlability / dry weight / extracellular polymeric substances / polyelectrolyte

1

With the fast-evolving global climate change, the energy and carbon neutral municipal wastewater treatment is under the spotlight. Different from the conventional activated sludge process and its variants which are primarily based on the concept of biological oxidation, anaerobic processes have been actively explored for direct COD capture from municipal wastewater, while maximizing the energy recovery and minimizing waste sludge generation (Liu et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). However, it should be noted that anaerobic effluent contains considerable amount of dissolved methane whose release into the environment (Liu et al., 2014) would seriously compromise the energy recovery potential and contribute to significant greenhouse gas emission. As such, increasing effort has been devoted to developing dissolved methane recovery methods, e.g. mechanical degassing (Gu et al., 2017), membrane contactors (Li et al., 2019; Rongwong et al., 2018) etc. It should also be aware that the assessments of various recovery methods are primarily motivated by the energy recovery and consumption, without a thorough consideration of their environmental sustainability and economic viability. In this perspective, we intend to offer additional insights into the cost-benefit of dissolved methane recovery against its emission.

Given an anaerobic effluent with dissolved methane concentration of 21 g/m³ (solubility of methane at 25 °C) (Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2014), without proper recovery, the dissolved methane will inevitably be released into the environment. In consideration of a short lifetime of methane, its 20-year global warming potential has been recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be 84−87 folds of carbon dioxide. Thus, this amount of dissolved methane will cause a carbon emission of (21 g/m³) × 84=1.76 kg CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated, while compromising the overall energy recovery efficiency. In fact, such a carbon emission is equivalent to the carbon emission from generating (1.76 kg CO₂e/m³)/(0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh)=1.78 kWh/m³ of electricity through coal combustion, with a factor of 0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh of electricity produced from coal (U.S.-Energy-Information-Administration, 2020). It is obvious that dissolved methane in anaerobic effluent is becoming a barrier towards the energy- and carbon-neutral municipal wastewater treatment if a proper measure is not in place for its recovery.

So far, several methods have been developed for dissolved methane recovery. For example, an average dissolved methane concentration of 17.1 g/m³ was observed in an anaerobic effluent at 30 °C, of which nearly 90% could be recovered by means of a mechanical degasser at an energy cost of 0.12 kWh/m³ (Gu et al., 2017). Therefore, the recoverable energy could be calculated to be (15.4 g/m³)/(16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol ×37.8 MJ/m³ (methane energy content) × 35% (electricity conversion efficiency)/(3.6 MJ/kWh) = 0.079 kWh/m³ wastewater treated. Thus, the net energy utilized for degassing was estimated to be 0.041 kWh/ m³ wastewater treated, which could lead to a carbon emission by (0.041 kWh/ m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 40.6 g CO₂/m³, with coal as the fuel for electrical energy production. On the other hand, the residual dissolved methane after recovery eventually resulted in a direct carbon emission of (1.71 g/m³)×84 =144 g CO₂e/m³. As such, the overall carbon emission associated with dissolved methane after recovery could be determined to be 185 g CO₂e/m³ wastewater treated which was only about 13% of that in the scenario of the business-as-usual (i.e. without dissolved methane recovery: 17.1 g/m³ × 84 =1436 g CO₂e/m³).

In another study by Li et al. (2019), an omniphobic membrane process was proposed for harvesting dissolved methane from anaerobic effluent with a saturated dissolved methane concentration of 16.4 g/m³ at 35°C. Approximately 0.04 MJ/m³ of energy was needed for achieving recovery efficiencies beyond 90%, equivalent to 0.01 kWh/m³, which was close to the theoretical value reported for membrane-based methane recovery (Crone et al., 2017; Velasco et al., 2021). In this case, the energy recovered from dissolved methane could easily offset the processing energy, i.e. a net energy gain of (16.4 g/m³) × 90%/ (16 g/mol) × 22.4 L/mol × 37.8 MJ/m³ × 35%/(3.6 MJ/kWh)–0.01 kWh/m³ = 0.066 kWh/m³, which was equivalent to a carbon offsetting of (0.066 kWh/m³) × (0.99 kg CO₂e/kWh) = 65.3 g CO₂e/m³. However, the residual methane after 90% of recovery could contribute to (1.64 g/m³) × 84 = 138 g CO₂e/m³, suggesting a net methane-associated carbon emission of 72.7 CO₂e/m³ which was only about 5.3% of that in the case where dissolved methane recovery was not practiced (i.e. 16.4 g/m³ × 84 = 1378 g CO₂e/m³). In addition, methane solubility is inversely related to effluent temperature, indicating that the methane recovery would be more necessary at lower temperature.

It should be realized that chemicals are generally required during membrane degassing, e.g. alkaline in the omniphobic membrane process (Li et al., 2019), and the potential increases in the capital and operation costs associated with membrane degassing should also be taken into a serious account in assessing the environmental sustainability and economic viability. In fact, the dissolved methane recovery rate of membrane contactors had been reported to be 0.05 mol methane/(m²·h) (i.e. 0.8 g methane/(m²·h)) at a recovery efficiency of 96% (Velasco et al., 2021). For a middle-sized anaerobic process treating 200,000 m³/d of municipal wastewater with a 21 g/m³ dissolved methane at 25°C, the membranes needed for dissovled methane recovery would be (200,000 m³/d) × (21 g/m³)/(0.8 g/(m²·h))= 218,750 m², indicating a significant increase in the captital investment and maintenance cost. In addition, membrane wetting, fouling and concentration polarization will make the operation of membrane contactors more challenging (Crone et al., 2016). Moreover, the energy required for upgrading and compressing recovered dissolved methane should also be considered, which had been reported to be about 0.011 kWh/m³ (Crone et al, 2016). Obviously, without the consideration of these factors, the energy-based assessment as currently reported in the literature, to a great extent, is misleading.

As illustrated in Fig.1, a multiple-dimensional assessment framework of techniques for dissolved methane recovery should be exercised. For example, compared to membrane contactors, mechanical degasser would not reach the energy-neutral recovery of dissolved methane, but it has the advantages of chemical-free, simple structure, very low capital investment and operation cost with a smaller footprint. Lastly, it should be noted that the dissolved methane recovery technologies are still at the infant stage, further research is needed to make them more technologically feasible, economically viable and environmentally sustainable.

Fig.1 Multi-dimensional assessment of techniques for dissolved methane recovery methods.

Full size|PPT slide

References

[1] Chen Y G, Yang H Z, Gu G W. Effect of acid and surfactant treatment on activated sludge dewatering and settling. Water Research, 2001, 35(11): 2615–2620

[2] Yin X, Han P F, Lu X P, Wang Y R. A review on the dewaterability of bio-sludge and ultrasound pretreatment. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2004, 11(6): 337–348

[3] Feng X, Deng J C, Lei H Y, Bai T, Fan Q J, Li Z X. Dewaterability of waste activated sludge with ultrasound conditioning. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(3): 1074–1081

[4] Yasuhiko W, Kazuhiro T. Innovative sludge handing through pelletization/thickening. Water Research, 1999, 33(15): 3245–3252

[5] SWSDE. Guide of Water and Wastewater Treatment Design. 2nd ed. Beijing: Chinese Arch Eng Publishing Company, 2001

[6] Suslick K S. Sonochemistry. Science, 1990, 247(4949): 1439–1445

[7] Chu C P, Chang B V, Liao G S, Jean D S, Lee D J. Observations on changes in ultrasonically treated waste-activated sludge. Water Research, 2001, 35(4): 1038–1046

[8] Gonze E, Pillot S, Valette E, Gonthier Y, Bernis A. Ultrasonic treatment of an aerobic activated sludge in a batch reactor. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 2003, 42(12): 965–975

[9] Bougrier C, Albasi C, Delgenes J P, Carrere H. Effect of ultrasonic, thermal and ozone pre-treatments on waste activated sludge solubilisation and anaerobic biodegradability. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 2006, 45(8): 711–718

[10] Tiehm A, Nickel K, Zellhorn M, Neis U. Ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization. Water Research, 2001, 35(8): 2003–2009

[11] Nickel K, Neis U. Ultrasonic disintegration of biosolids for improved biodegradation. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2007, 14(4): 450–455

[12] Yin X, Lu X P, Han P F, Wang Y R. Ultrasonic treatment on activated sewage sludge from petro-plant for reduction. Ultrasonics, 2006, 44(supplement): E397–E399

[13] Na S, Kim Y U, Khim J. Physiochemical properties of digested sewage sludge with ultrasonic treatment. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2007, 14(3): 281–285

[14] Bien J, Wolny L. Changes of some sewage sludge parameters prepared with an ultrasonic field. Water Science and Technology, 1997, 36(11): 101–106

[15] Kim Y U,Kim B I.Effect of ultrasound on dewaterability of sewage sludge. Japanese Journal of Applied Physiscs. Part 1, 2003, 42: 5898–5899

[16] Riera-Franco de Sarabia E, Gallego-Juarez J A, Rodriguez-Corral G, Elvira-Segura L, Gonzalez-Gomez I. Application of high-power ultrasound to enhance fluid/solid particle separation processes. Ultrasonics, 2000, 38(1-8): 642–646

[17] Bien J, Wolny L. Changes of some sewage sludge parameters prepared with an ultrasonic eld. Water Science and Technology, 1997, 36(11): 101–106

[18] Wang F, Wang Y, Ji M.Mechanisms and kinetics models for ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, 123(1–3): 145–150

[19] Dewil R, Baeyens J, Goutvrind R. The use of ultrasonics in the treatment of waste activated sludge. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2006, 14(1): 105–113

[20] Wang F. Influence of ultrasonic disintegration on sludge characteristics and zero waste activated sludge production process. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tianjin: Tianjin University, 2006 (in Chinese)

[21] Andrew D E, Mary A H. Standards Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington D C: American Public Health Association, 1998

[22] Hua I, Hoffmann M R. Optimization of ultrasonic irradiation as an advanced oxidation technology. Environmental Science & Technology, 1997, 31(8): 2237–2243

[23] Schläfer O, Onyeche T, Bormann H, Schroder C, Sievers M. Ultrasound stimulation of micro-organisms for enhanced biodegradation. Ultrasonics, 2002, 40(1–8): 25–29

[24] Mikkelsen L H. The shear sensitivity of activated sludge - Relations to filterability, rheology and surface chemistry. Colloid and Surface A, 2001, 182(1–3): 1–14

[25] Emir E, Erdincler A. The role of compatibility in liquid-solid separation of wastewater sludges. Water Science and Technology, 2006, 53(7): 121–126

[26] Keiding K, Nielsen P H. Desorption of organic macromolecules from activated sludge: Effect of ionic composition. Water Research, 1997, 31(7): 1665–1672

[27] Zhang P Y, Zhang G M, Wang W. Ultrasonic treatment of biological sludge: Floc disintegration, cell lysis and inactivation. Bioresource Technology, 2007, 98(1): 207–210

[28] Kopp J, Dichtl N. Prediction of full-scale dewatering results by determining the water distribution of sewage sludges. Water Science and Technology, 2001, 42(11): 141–149

Acknowledgements

Authors thank financial supports from Furong Scholar Plan of Hunan Province, China and the State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment (No. QA200903). We also thank Dr. Ajay Kumar for English polishing.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg