IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i17p6303-d1228821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Influent Composition and Operating Conditions on Carbon and Nitrogen Removal from Urban Wastewater in a Continuous-Upflow (Micro)Aerobic Granular Sludge Blanket Reactor

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Lanzetta

    (Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy)

  • Francesco Di Capua

    (School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, via dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy)

  • Balamurugan Panneerselvam

    (Department of Community Medicine, Saveetha Medical College, SIMATS, Chennai 602105, India)

  • Davide Mattioli

    (Laboratory Technologies for the Efficient Use and Management of Water and Wastewater, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA), Via M.M. Sole 4, 40129 Bologna, Italy)

  • Giovanni Esposito

    (Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy)

  • Stefano Papirio

    (Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Naples, Italy)

Abstract

Aerobic granular sludge is an interesting alternative to the conventional activated sludge (CAS) system and modified-Ludzack–Ettinger (MLE) process for biological wastewater treatment, as it allows a more cost-effective and simultaneous removal of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) compounds in a single stage. In this study, (micro)aerobic C and N removal from synthetic urban wastewater was investigated in a continuous-double-column-upflow aerobic granular sludge blanket (UAGSB) system. The UAGSB reactor was operated under different dissolved oxygen (DO) ranges (0.01–6.00 mg∙L −1 ), feed C/N ratios (4.7–13.6), and hydraulic retention times (HRTs) (6–24 h). At a DO range of 0.01–0.30 mg∙L −1 , feed C/N ratio of 13.6, and HRT of 24 h, the UAGSB achieved the highest chemical oxygen demand (COD), N-NH 4 + , and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) removal efficiencies of 86, 99, and 84%, respectively. A preliminary assessment of the energy and economic savings associated with the process investigated was also carried out. The impact of capital and operating costs mainly related to the energy consumption of the aeration was taken into account. The assessment reveals that the capital and energy expenses of the UAGSB reactor would result in cost savings of around 14 and 7%, respectively, compared with a MLE system.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Lanzetta & Francesco Di Capua & Balamurugan Panneerselvam & Davide Mattioli & Giovanni Esposito & Stefano Papirio, 2023. "Impact of Influent Composition and Operating Conditions on Carbon and Nitrogen Removal from Urban Wastewater in a Continuous-Upflow (Micro)Aerobic Granular Sludge Blanket Reactor," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6303-:d:1228821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6303/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6303/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abdelsalam Zidan & Mahmoud Nasr & Manabu Fujii & Mona G. Ibrahim, 2023. "Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Downflow Hanging Sponge Reactors for Treating High-Strength Organic Wastewater," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Anang & Mahmoud Nasr & Manabu Fujii & Mona G. Ibrahim, 2024. "Synergism of Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainable Development Goals Techniques to Evaluate Downflow Hanging Sponge System Treating Low-Carbon Wastewater," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6303-:d:1228821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.