Techno-economic characteristics of wastewater treatment plants retrofitted from the conventional activated sludge process to the membrane bioreactor process

Highlights

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased effluent quality and environmental benefits.

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased energy consumption but not operating cost.

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased the net profit and cost efficiency.

• The advantage of MBR is related to the adopted effluent standard.

• The techno-economy of MBR improves with stricter effluent standards.

Abstract

While a growing number of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are being retrofitted from the conventional activated sludge (CAS) process to the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, the debate on the techno-economy of MBR vs. CAS has continued and calls for a thorough assessment based on techno-economic valuation. In this study, we analyzed the operating data of 20 large-scale WWTPs (capacity≥10000 m³/d) and compared their techno-economy before and after the retrofitting from CAS to MBR. Through cost-benefit analysis, we evaluated the net profit by subtracting the operating cost from the environmental benefit (estimated by the shadow price of pollutant removal and water reclamation). After the retrofitting, the removal rate of pollutants increased (e.g., from 89.0% to 93.3% on average for NH₃-N), the average energy consumption increased from 0.40 to 0.57 kWh/m³, but the operating cost did not increase significantly. The average marginal environmental benefit increased remarkably (from 0.47 to 0.66 CNY/g for NH₃-N removal), leading to an increase in the average net profit from 19.4 to 24.4 CNY/m³. We further scored the technical efficiencies via data envelopment analysis based on non-radial directional distance functions. After the retrofitting, the relative cost efficiency increased from 0.70 to 0.73 (the theoretical maximum is 1), while the relative energy efficiency did not change significantly. The techno-economy is closely related to the effluent standard adopted, particularly when truncating the extra benefit of pollutant removal beyond the standard in economic modeling. The modeling results suggested that MBR is more profitable than CAS given stricter effluent standards.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Membrane bioreactor (MBR) / Conventional activated sludge (CAS) / Cost-benefit analysis / Data envelopment analysis / Net profit

References

[1] Brepols C, Schäfer H, Engelhardt N (2010). Considerations on the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science & Technology, 61(10): 2461–2468

[2] Chang Y T, Zhang N, Danao D, Zhang N (2013). Environmental efficiency analysis of transportation system in China: A non-radial DEA approach. Energy Policy, 58: 277–283

[3] DeCarolis J, Adham S, Pearce W R, Hirani Z, Lacy S, Stephenson R (2007). Cost trends of MBR systems for municipal wastewater treatment. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2007(15): 3407–3418

[4] Djukic M, Jovanoski I, Ivanovic O M, Lazic M, Bodroza D (2016). Cost-benefit analysis of an infrastructure project and a cost-reflective tariff: A case study for investment in wastewater treatment plant in Serbia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59: 1419–1425

[5] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell C A K, Pasurka C (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1): 90–98

[6] Färe R, Grosskopf S, Weber W L (2006). Shadow prices and pollution costs in U.S. agriculture. Ecological Economics, 56(1): 89–103

[7] Fenu A, Roels J, Wambecq T, De Gussem K, Thoeye C, De Gueldre G, Van De Steene B (2010). Energy audit of a full scale MBR system. Desalination, 262(1–3): 121–128

[8] Gabarrón S, Ferrero G, Dalmau M, Comas J, Rodriguez-Roda I (2014). Assessment of energy-saving strategies and operational costs in full-scale membrane bioreactors. Journal of Environmental Management, 134: 8–14

[9] Gao T, Xiao K, Zhang J, Zhang X, Wang X, Liang S, Sun J, Meng F, Huang X (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and technical efficiency evaluation of full-scale membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment using economic approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301: 126984

[10] Hao X D, Li J, van Loosdrecht M C M, Li T Y (2018). A sustainability-based evaluation of membrane bioreactors over conventional activated sludge processes. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 6(2): 2597–2605

[11] Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2010). Economic valuation of environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: An empirical approach for Spain. Science of the Total Environment, 408(4): 953–957

[12] Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2011). Energy efficiency in Spanish wastewater treatment plants: A non-radial DEA approach. Science of the Total Environment, 409(14): 2693–2699

[13] Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2009). Technical efficiency and cost analysis in wastewater treatment processes: A DEA approach. Desalination, 249(1): 230–234

[14] Huang X, Xiao K, Shen Y (2010). Recent advances in membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment in China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 4(3): 245–271

[15] Iglesias R, Simón P, Moragas L, Arce A, Rodriguez-Roda I (2017). Cost comparison of full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on membrane bioreactors. Water Science & Technology, 75(11): 2562–2570

[16] Judd S J (2016). The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with membrane bioreactor technology. Chemical Engineering Journal, 305: 37–45

[17] Krzeminski P, Leverette L, Malamis S, Katsou E (2017). Membrane bioreactors: A review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel configurations, LCA and market prospects. Journal of Membrane Science, 527: 207–227

[18] Lin B, Du K (2015). Energy and CO₂ emissions performance in China’s regional economies: do market-oriented reforms matter? Energy Policy, 78(3): 113–124

[19] Lin H, Chen J, Wang F, Ding L, Hong H (2011). Feasibility evaluation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for municipal secondary wastewater treatment. Desalination, 280(1–3): 120–126

[20] Longo S, Hospido A, Lema J M, Mauricio-Iglesias M (2018). A systematic methodology for the robust quantification of energy efficiency at wastewater treatment plants featuring Data Envelopment Analysis. Water Research, 141: 317–328

[21] Mohsin M, Hanif I, Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Abbas Q, Iqbal W (2021). Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: A DEA-Based way forward for clean power development. Energy Policy, 149: 112052

[22] Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2010). Economic feasibility study for wastewater treatment: A cost-benefit analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 408(20): 4396–4402

[23] Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(12): 3091–3097

[24] Pretel R, Shoener B D, Ferrer J, Guest J S (2015). Navigating environmental, economic, and technological trade-offs in the design and operation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Water Research, 87: 531–541

[25] Sala-Garrido R, Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F (2011). Comparing the efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies through a DEA metafrontier model. Chemical Engineering Journal, 173(3): 766–772

[26] Verrecht B, Maere T, Nopens I, Brepols C, Judd S (2010). The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, 44(18): 5274–5283

[27] Xiao K, Liang S, Wang X, Chen C, Huang X (2019). Current state and challenges of full-scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 271: 473–481

[28] Xiao K, Xu Y, Liang S, Lei T, Sun J, Wen X, Zhang H, Chen C, Huang X (2014). Engineering application of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment in China: Current state and future prospect. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 8(6): 805–819

[29] Young T, Muftugil M, Smoot S, Peeters J (2012). MBR vs. CAS: Capital and operating cost evaluation. Water Practice and Technology, 7(4): 1–8

[30] Yu D, Wang J, Zheng L, Sui Q, Zhong H, Cheng M, Wei Y (2020). Effects of hydraulic retention time on net present value and performance in a membrane bioreactor treating antibiotic production wastewater. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 14(6): 101

[31] Zhou P, Ang B W, Wang H (2012). Energy and CO₂ emission performance in electricity generation: A non-radial directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(3): 625–635

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. L182044) and Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS (No. 2019172).

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1483-6 and is accessible for authorized users.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2021 Higher Education Press