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 compositionFile | 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.