The large global warming potential (GWP) of nitrous oxide (N2O) is currently of general concern for the water industry, especially in view of a new regulatory framework concerning the carbon footprint (CFP) of water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs). N2O can be generated through different biological pathways and from different treatment steps of a WRRF. The use of generic emission factors (EF) for quantifying the emissions of WRRFs is discouraged. This is due to the number of different factors that can affect how much, when and where N2O is emitted from WRRFs. The spatial and temporal variability of three WRRFs in Europe using comparable technologies is presented. An economically feasible and user-friendly method for accounting for the contribution of anoxic zones via direct gas emission measurements was proven. The investigation provided new insights on the contribution from the anoxic zones versus the aerobic zones of biological WRRF tanks and proved the unsuitability of the use of a single EF for the three WRRFs. Dedicated campaigns for N2O emissions assessment are to be advised. However, similarities in the EF magnitude can be found considering treatment strategy and influent water composition

Multi-point monitoring of nitrous oxide emissions in three full-scale conventional activated sludge tanks in Europe / Giacomo Bellandi, Jose Porro, Elisa Senesi, Cecilia Caretti, Simone Caffaz, Stefan Weijers, Ingmar Nopens, Riccardo Gori. - In: WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. - ISSN 0273-1223. - ELETTRONICO. - 77:(2018), pp. 880-890. [10.2166/wst.2017.560]

Multi-point monitoring of nitrous oxide emissions in three full-scale conventional activated sludge tanks in Europe

BELLANDI, GIACOMO
;
Cecilia Caretti;Riccardo Gori
2018

Abstract

The large global warming potential (GWP) of nitrous oxide (N2O) is currently of general concern for the water industry, especially in view of a new regulatory framework concerning the carbon footprint (CFP) of water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs). N2O can be generated through different biological pathways and from different treatment steps of a WRRF. The use of generic emission factors (EF) for quantifying the emissions of WRRFs is discouraged. This is due to the number of different factors that can affect how much, when and where N2O is emitted from WRRFs. The spatial and temporal variability of three WRRFs in Europe using comparable technologies is presented. An economically feasible and user-friendly method for accounting for the contribution of anoxic zones via direct gas emission measurements was proven. The investigation provided new insights on the contribution from the anoxic zones versus the aerobic zones of biological WRRF tanks and proved the unsuitability of the use of a single EF for the three WRRFs. Dedicated campaigns for N2O emissions assessment are to be advised. However, similarities in the EF magnitude can be found considering treatment strategy and influent water composition
2018
77
880
890
Giacomo Bellandi, Jose Porro, Elisa Senesi, Cecilia Caretti, Simone Caffaz, Stefan Weijers, Ingmar Nopens, Riccardo Gori
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
880.full.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia: Versione finale referata (Postprint, Accepted manuscript)
Licenza: Open Access
Dimensione 498.46 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
498.46 kB Adobe PDF
wst2017560supp.docx

accesso aperto

Descrizione: supplementary info
Tipologia: Versione finale referata (Postprint, Accepted manuscript)
Licenza: Open Access
Dimensione 222.76 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
222.76 kB Microsoft Word XML

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1127947
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact