CARBON FOOTPRINT AND ENERGY

FOOTPRINT OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS

R. GORI*, D. ROSSO ** AND C. LUBELLO*

* Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Florence, Italy
** Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of California-
Irvine, USA

SUMMARY: A novel model was developed and applied in this study to estimate carbon- and
energy- footprint of wastewater treatment plants using activated sludge process (ASP) at variable
sludge retention time (SRT) (in the range 2-50 d), temperature (10, 20 and 30 °C), and type of
sludge digestion (aerobic digestion AD and anaerobic digestion AnaD). The reduction in CO2eq
emission for unit of influent organic matter (kgCO2/kg bCOD) using low SRT (at 20°C) and
AnaD was estimated between 33% (at SRT=2 d) and 22% (at SRT = 50 d) if AnaD is used
instead of AD. Energy recovered from biogas when AnaD is used, is reduced from about 0.9 to
0.7 kWh/kg bCOD increasing SRT but the presence of primary sedimentation limit such
reduction. Neverteless, when AnaD is used, energy which can be recovered from biogas is
higher than energy demand required, regardless the value of the SRT. Specific energy required
from combinations with AD range from about 0.7 to 0.88 kWh/kg bCOD with significant effect
of ASP’s temperature. This analysis does not address restrictions on terminal biosolids disposal.

1. INTRODUCTION

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are used to remove carbon- and nitrogen-contaminants
from wastewater and process on a daily basis large amounts of organic matter. Most wastewater
treatment processes are energy intensive and emit directly and indirectly greenhouse gases
(GHGs) (Monteith et al., 2005). Due to emerging concerns with global warming and GHG
emissions, it is critical to understand and minimize carbon footprint (CFP) and energy footprint
(eFP) for wastewater treatment processes. Energy use for wastewater treatment is recognized as
a key constituent in carbon-footprint analyses. However, recent studies indicate that non-CO2
greenhouse gas emission (i.e., CH4, N2O) may have an equal or even more significant weight on
carbon-footprint during wastewater treatment (inter alia de Haas et al., 2008). According to
Kampschreur et al. (2009), 26% of the greenhouse gas footprint of the total water chain can be
attributed to N2O. Hence, there is an urgent need to perform a comprehensive sensitivity analysis
of the effects of energy use and GHG emissions on carbon and energy footprint models for
various types and size of treatment processes.
Although anaerobic wastewater treatment offers improved energy conservation with potential
reduction in GHGs emissions (Cakir and Stenstrom, 2005), amongst the biological processes for

Proceedings Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste
Venice, Italy; 8-11 November 2010
 2010 by CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

wastewater treatment, aerobic activated sludge process (ASP) is the most widely used
throughout the world. Aerobic ASP is an energy intensive process with significant margin for
improvement in terms of carbon- and energy- footprint (Rosso and Stenstrom, 2008). WWTPs
CFP and eFP are affected by a great number of variables and mainly: sludge retention time
(SRT) in the ASP, sludge digestion process, aeration efficiency, type and sequence of biological
processes adopted, temperature in process tanks, types of pollutants, etc. (Rosso et al, 2009).
In ASPs, the SRT determines the net oxygen requirement and the mixed liquor concentration
(MLSS), and is a key parameter relating to the oxygen transfer and removal of rbCOD (Rosso et
al., 2005). High values for ASP’s SRT are also used to reduce sludge production. In fact, ASPs
produce large quantities of sludge biomass (between 0.3 and 0.5 g SSV/kg bCOD removed
according to Metcalf & Eddy, 2003), which may pose a management and disposal challenge and
affect the cost of WWTP operations, accounting for up to 65% of the total plant operating costs
(Liu, 2003). On the other hand, low SRT is beneficial when maximized biogas production is
driving operational choices (more organic matter is degraded in the anaerobic process increasing
biogas production). It is therefor evident that many aspects affect the choice of ASP’s SRT and
consequently CFP and eFP of WWTPs.
CFP of the whole wastewater treatment process is also affected by the disposal of biosolids
leaving the WWTPs. Incineration rapidly converts all residual organic matter to CO2 while
disposal in landfill or land application can represent mid- and long-term sequestration of
biosolids carbon, respectively.
In this study we present a CFP and eFP analysis of WWTPs using on ASP. In particular, we
analyzed the effect on CFP and eFP of: ASP’s SRT (in the range 2-50 d), ASP’s temperature (in
the range 10-30 °C) and the type of sludge digestion (aerobic digestion AD and mesophlic
anaerobic digestion AnaD). Calculations were carried out using a new model developed by the
authors.

2. ESTIMATION OF CFP AND EFP OF WWTPs

2.1 Description of the model for estimation of CFP and EFP

The CFP and eFP of ASP WWTPs were estimated using a COD-based model developed by
Rosso and Gori (submitted). The following contributions to CO2,eq emissions are considered in
the model:
 direct emission from biological precesses (ASP and and sludge processing)
 direct emission from biogas combustion (if AnaD is used for sludge stabilization)
 indirect emission due to off-site electricity production
 offset due to energy production from biogas (if AnaD is used for sludge stabilization)
 indirect emission due to transportation of sludge to the disposal site
 equivalent CO2 emission due to CH4 leakage (if AnaD is used for sludge stabilization)
considering a global warming potential (GWP) of 25 over 100 years (IPCC, 2007)
 nitrous oxide (N2O) emission from biological processes considering a global warming
potential (GWP) of 298 over 100 years (IPCC, 2007).
The following contributions to eFP were considered in the model: aeration of ASP and aerobic
digestion, denitrification mixing, sludge dewatering, digester mixing and heating of sludge and
digester (this latter only for AnaD), energy offset from biogas (if AnaD is used for sludge
stabilization). Energy for pumping was not considered in this study.
Both CFP and eFP are calculated as specific values with reference to the unit of
biodegradable COD (bCOD) removed from wastewater and unit volume of treated wastewater. It
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

is important to highlight that conversion from values refered to the unit of bCOD to unit of
influent wastewater, were made considering a daily per capita volume of 300 l.

2.2 Reference plant and wastewater characteristics

For this study we chose a reference plant consisting of a conventional ASP inclusive of:
headworks/grit removal, primary sedimentation, nitrifying/denitrifying ASP, and secondary
sedimentation. Both mesophilic anaerobic digestion and aerobic digestion were considered, and
sludge was dewatered before biosolids hauling to the disposal site.
Concerning the characteristics of influent to the WWTP, values of a typical domestic
wastewater were used for this study (Table 1).
Sludge production from ASP process, oxygen consumption, nitrification/denitrification
efficiency and CO2 emission were estimated through COD and suspended solids mass balances
according to the approach used in the activated sludge models (ASMs).
Influent wastewater COD was fractionated using mean values of fractions reported in Henze
et al. (2000): soluble biodegradable (SS, 28%, 69.3 mg/l), particulate biodegradable (XS, 46%,
179.5 mg/l), soluble non biodegradable (SI, 9%, 35.1 mg/l), particulate non biodegradable (XI,
17%, 66.3 mg/l).
In order to estimate CO2 emissions from ASP and sludge stabilization processes the following
assumption were made:
 soluble and particulated biodegradable organic matter in wastewater was represented as
C10H19O3N, characterized by values of 2.01 kgCOD/kg pollutant and 1.1 kg CO2/kgCOD
 biomass was represented as C5H7O2N which is characterized by values of 1.42 kgCOD/kg
biomass and 1.95 kg CO2/kgCOD
 values of 1.28 kgCOD/kg pollutant and 1.35 kg CO2/kgCOD were assumed for particulated
biodegradable and both soluble and particulated non biodegradable organic matter. These
values are mean of respective values for proteins and carbohydrates.
The value of 1.28 kgCOD/kg pollutant was used to calculate volatile fractions of TSS:
biodegradable VSS (bVSS, 66%, 140.2 mg/l), non biodegradable VSS (nbVSS, 24%, 51.8 mg/l).
Mineral suspended (iSS) solids were calculated assuming a 10% fraction of TSS (21.3 mg/l).
Combinations considered in this study for calculation of CFP and eFP of WWTPs, are
summarized in (Table 2). For each combination reported in Table 2, values 10, 20 and 30 °C
were considered for the temperature in the ASP. Altough some of the considered combinations
may be at the limits of technology (i.e. very high SRT of ASP and anaerobic digestion or very
short SRT and aerobic digestion), these were nevertheless included in the CFP and eFP analyses
to show boundary conditions.

Table 1 - Characteristics of influent wastewater considered in this study.

Parameter Unit Value
COD mg/L 390
BOD5 mg/L 200
Total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) mg N/L 60
Ammoniacal nitrogen mg N/L 42
Total suspended solids (TSS) mg TSS/L 213.4
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Table 2 - Combinations considered for the calculation of CFP and eFP. *Calculations were made
considering values of 10, 20 and 30 °C for the temperature in the ASP.
SRT of ASP AD AnaD
2 SRT 2-AE* SRT 2-ANA*
5 SRT 5-AE* SRT 5-ANA*
10 SRT 10-AE* SRT 10-ANA*
30 SRT 30-AE* SRT 30-ANA*
50 SRT 50-AE* SRT 50-ANA*

Table 3 - Main assumptions made for calculation of CFP and eFP.

Section Assumption
Primary VSS and iSS removal efficiency = 50%; COD removal efficiency = 32 %
sedimentation (accordingly to values of kgCOD/VSS ratio)
Dissolved oxygen in oxidation tank = 2 mg/l; Kinetic and stoichiometric
ASP parameters were assumed from Metcalf and Eddy (2003) Aeration using fine
bubble diffuers (5 m submergence, specific SOTE 4%); N2O-N emission:
0.5% of nitrified N and 0.5% denitrified N
Aerobic digestion VSS reduction = 40%; Dissolved oxygen in oxidation tank = 1 mg/l; Aeration
(AD) using fine bubble diffuers (4 m submergence, specific SOTE 2.5%)
VSS reduction = 40%; Biogas: 65% as methane and 35% as CO2; Biogas
Anaerobic
production: 1 Nm3/kgVSS for primary sludge; 0.75-0.9 Nm3/kgVSS for
digestion (AnaD)
secondary sludge; Methane fugitive emissions: 2%
Dewatering
Dewatered sludge concentration: 23%
section
Energy Sludge dewatering energy: 0.236 kWh/kg dry solids; Methane combustion
consumption and efficiency: 78 %; Loss in the value of the combusted methane for the upstream
recovery cleanup: 30%; methane specific energy: 35.80 MJ/m3
Emission from Distance of biosolids disposal site: 100 km; Specific CO2 emission for
biosolids transp. transportation using full-loaded trucks: 0.92 kg CO2/km
Emission for Specific CO2 emission for electricity generation: 0.75 kg CO2/kWh; CO2eq
electricity generat. offset from biogas combustion: 0.353 kg CO2/kWh

2.3 Main assumptions for calculation of CFP and eFP

The model developed CFP and eFP is intended to be applicable to different WWTPs and some
assumptions must be taken. The main assumptions made during CFP and eFP calculation for the
considered WWTP and its operating conditions are summarized in Table 3.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Estimation of WWTPs CFP

Firstly we calculated the specific amount of CO2 emitted from ASP and digestion process, due to
the direct transformation of biodegradable organic matter in ASP, digestion and from methane
combustion (Figure 1).
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

CO2 emission from ASP CO2 emission from Digestion

CO2 emission from CH4 combustion Total CO2 emission
1.20

kg CO2 / kg influent bCOD 1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.35

0.30
kg CO2 / influent m3

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Figure 1. Direct specific CO2 emissions (T for ASP = 20°C).

Values reported in Figure 1, which refers to the temperature of 20°C, show that direct CO2
emission range from about 0.9 to 1.15 kgCO2/kg bCOD and from 0.27 to 0.33 kgCO2/m3 if SRT
is increased from 2 to 50 d. Differences between configuration with AD and AnaD are very
limited. The effect of temperature is very limited (few percentage points).
Differences between configurations with AD and those with AnaD are much more significant
if indirect contribution to CO2 emission are considered. Values estimated at 20°C for ASP are
shown in Figure 2. Emissions vary from 0.55 to 0.75 kgCO2/kgbCOD for configurations with
AD and from 0.015 to 0.33 kgCO2/kgbCOD for configurations with AnaD which benefit of
emission offset due to recovery of energy from biogas. In particular, when SRT of ASP is very
short (2 d), indirect contribution to CO2 emission are almost entirely offset by reduction of CO2
emission due to energy recovered from biogas. In practice, although, this scenario may lean
towards an energy deficit due to the higher fouling rated of aeration systems operating in low
SRT processes (IWA, 2009). Indirect CO2eq emissions for power generation are significantly
lower at 2d SRT than 5 d, due to the increased oxygen requirements and nitrification at higher
SRT. At very short SRT, indirect CO2eq are also reduced due to absence of N2O emission due to
the absence of nitrification. In this model we neglected the methane emissions from the ASP off-
gas.
Total CO2eq emissions are shown in Figure 3 for all considered combinations. Values range
from 0.98 to 1.74 kgCO2/kg bCOD for combinations with AnaD and from 1.51 to 2.12
kgCO2/kg bCOD for combinations with AD.
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Transportation Electricity CH4 fugitive emission

N2O Offset from biogas utilization Total specific CO2 emission
0.8
0.7
0.6
kg CO2eq/ kg influent bCOD

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Figure 2. Other contributions to CO2eq emission (T for ASP = 20°C).

Lowest specific CO2eq emission were estimated for SRT 2 – ANA operated at 10 and 20°C,
while the highest value was estimated for the combination SRT 50 – AE operated at 10 °C.
In both the cases of AD and AnaD, for SRT lower than 10 d, there is a crossing between
trends of emission corresponding to different temperature of ASP. It is due to non linearity of
biological processes with temperature.

T = 10°C - AE T = 20°C - AE T = 30°C - AE

T = 10°C - ANA T = 20°C - ANA T = 30°C - ANA
2.2

2.0
kg CO2 eq emitted/kg bCOD influent

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SRT of ASP (d)

Figure 3. Total specific CO2eq emission for combinations considered. Ovals highlight less
realistic combinations of SRT of ASP and digestion process.
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Specific values of CO2eq emission were used to estimate the emission in terms of kgCO2eq/d.
Considering a WWTP with a potential of 100000 p.e., the daily CO2eq emission range from about
8500 kgCO2eq/d in the case of SRT 2 – ANA operated at 20°C, to over 18300 kgCO2eq/d in the
case of SRT 50 – DA operated at 10°C. Previous kgCO2eq/d correspond to the same amount
emitted for the production of almost 11300 and 24500 kWh, respectively, if a value of 0.75
kgCO2/kWh is considered as specific CO2 emissions for electricity generation.

3.2 Estimation of WWTPs eFP

Specific energy demand for wastewater and sludge treatment of considered configurations are
shown in Figure 4 (combinations with AnaD in the upper part and hose with AD in the lower
part). Figure 4 shows that in the case of combinations with AD, SRT significantly affects
specific energy demand for ASP temperature of 10 and 20°C.
Temperature is less influent on specific energy demand for combinations with AnaD, which
show specific energy demand significantly lower than combinations with AD. In particular when
SRT of ASP is lower than 5d the specific energy demand of combinations with AnaD is about
half of that with AD. Results show that in theory energy recovered from biogas is higher than
energy demand required from combinations with AnaD, regardless the value of the SRT.

T = 10 °C T = 20 °C T = 30 °C

Specific energy recovery

1.0

0.8
kWh / kg bCOD influent

0.6

0.4
Specific energy demand
0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4 Net specific energy recovery

ASP + anaerobic digestion
-0.6

-0.8

1.0

0.9
kWh / kg bCOD influent

0.8

0.7

0.6

ASP + aerobic digestion

0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SRT of ASP (d)

Figure 4. Specific energy demand for wastewater and sludge treatment.

 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

This is in line with the field analysis of Wett et al (2007), who proved energy self-sufficiency in
a full-scale WWTP. Specific energy recovered from biogas range from about 0.9 to 0.7 kWh/kg
bCOD when SRT of ASP increases from 2 to 50 d. Such reduction can appear lower than
expected and it is due to the presence of primary sedimentation which ensures that about one
third of the influent bCOD undergoes anaerobic digestion regardless the SRT of the ASP. These
results may differ when chemically enhanced primary treatment is employed.

4. CONCLUSIONS

A novel model was developed and applied in this study to estimate carbon- and energy- footprint
of wastewater treatment plants using activated sludge processes at different SRT, wastewater
temperature, and the type of sludge digestion (AD and AnaD). Results estimate the reduction in
CO2eq emission for unit of influent organic matter using low SRT and AnaD. At 20°C, reduction
in terms of kgCO2/kg bCOD is between 33% (at SRT=2 d) and 22% (at SRT = 50 d) if AnaD is
used instead of AD. Nevertheless, the lower quality of the effluent at low SRT should be taken
into account. Energy recovered from biogas is higher than the energy demand required from
combinations with AnaD, regardless the value of the SRT. In practice, there may be a departure
from this conclusion due to equipment inefficiencies. Energy recovered from biogas is reduced
from about 0.9 to 0.7 kWh/kg bCOD by increasing SRT, but the presence of primary
sedimentation limits such reduction. Specific energy required from combinations with AD range
from about 0.7 to 0.88 kWh/kg bCOD with significant effect of ASP’s temperature.

REFERENCES

Cakir F.Y. and Stenstrom M.K. (2005) Greenhouse gas production: a comparison between
aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technology. Wat. Res., vol. 39, n. 17, pp. 4197-
4203.
de Haas D., Foley J. and Barr K. (2008) Greenhouse gas inventories from WWTPs – The trade-
off with nutrient removal, Proc. Water Environment Federation Sustainability Conference,
National Harbour, MD.
Henze M., Gujer W., Mino T. and van Loosdrecht M.C.M. (2000) Activated Sludge Models
ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3. Scientific and Technical Report No.9. IWA Publishing.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.
Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY, 996 pp.
International Water Association - IWA (2008) Biological Wastewater Treatment – Principles,
Modelling and Design (M. Henze, M.C.M. van Loosdrecht, G.A. Ekama, and D.Brdjanovic
eds.), IWA Publishing, London, UK. ISBN 9781843391883.
Kampschreur M.J., Tan N.C.G., Kleerebezem R., Pcioreanu C., Jetten M.S.M.and van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M. (2008) Effect of Dynamic Process conditions on Nitrogen Oxides
Emission from a Nitrifying Culture, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 429-435.
Liu Y. (2003) Chemically reduced excess sludge production in the activated sludge process.
Chemosphere 50, pp. 1-7.
Metcalf & Eddy, G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton and H. D. Stensel (2003) Wastewater
Engineering, Treatment and Reuse, Fourth Edn, McGraw Hill, NY, 1329 pp.
 Venice 2010, Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

Monteith H.D., Sahely H.R., MacLean H.L. and Bagley, D.M. (2005) A rational procedure for
estimation of greenhouse-gas emissions from municipal wastewater treatment plants, Wat.
Environ. Res. vol. 77, pp. 390-403.
Rosso, D., Iranpour, R. and Stenstrom, M.K. (2005) Fifteen Years of Off-gas Transfer Efficiency
Measurements on Fine-Pore Aerators: Key Role of Sludge Age and Normalized Air Flux.
Wat. Environ. Res. 77(3), pp. 266-273.
Rosso D. and Gori R. A new COD-based model for carbon footprint analysis of activated sludge
wastewater treatment plants. Submitted.
Rosso D., Desai, A.S., Tseng, L.Y. (2009) Effects of Nitrous Oxide Emissions on Process
Carbon Footprint of WWTPs, Proc. IWA 2nd BNR Conference, Krakow, PL
Wett, B.; Buchauer, K.; Fimml, C. (2007) Energy self-sufficiency as a feasible concept for
wastewater treatment systems (2007) Proc. IWA LET Conference, Singapore.