FEATURE
pubs.acs.org/est
Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy Producer Can
This be Achieved?
Perry L. McCarty,*,†,‡ Jaeho Bae,‡ and Jeonghwan Kim‡
†
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega MC 4020, Stanford, California 94305, United States
‡
Department of Environmental Engineering, INHA University, Namgu, Yonghyun dong 253, Incheon, Republic of Korea
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Downloaded via UNIV NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA on August 29, 2019 at 05:31:26 (UTC).
’ INTRODUCTION
Water, food, and energy are three of the major resource issues
facing the world today. In order to help address these issues,
domestic wastewater is now being looked at more as a resource
than as a waste, a resource for water, for energy, and for the plant
fertilizing nutrients, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P).1 Use of
reclaimed wastewater for landscape and crop irrigation and
indeed for domestic consumption is a widely accepted and
growing practice to save water and to make use of the fertilizing
elements it contains. Similarly, use of domestic wastewater as a
source of energy has a long history, especially through the
anaerobic conversion of wastewater’s organic content into
methane (CH4) gas, a useful biofuel.2 However, through the
conventional practice of aerobic wastewater treatment combined
with anaerobic sludge digestion, only a portion of the energy
potential of wastewater is captured.3 That contained in the
dissolved organic fraction is not recovered, but is removed
instead by aerobic processes that require much energy. As a
result with traditional approaches, more energy is consumed in
wastewater treatment than is gained through digestion.
What might we do better toward more complete recovery of
the three important resource potentials of domestic wastewaters?
Water reuse is already widely practiced where water is in limited
supply, but this often increases the energy needed for treatment
because of increased water quality requirements for reuse.1
Reducing treatment energy requirements can help offset this
need, particularly through more efficient capturing of the biofuel
potential in wastewater itself. Reducing net energy requirements
for wastewater treatment is a complementary, not an alternative
goal to water reuse. The same can be said with respect to nutrient
recovery. Additionally, climate change concerns associated with
fossil fuel consumption, as well as increasing energy costs,
necessitate that greater efforts be made toward better efficiency
and more sustainable use of wastewater’s energy potential. While
r 2011 American Chemical Society
more efficient water and nutrient recovery from wastewater are
important goals in themselves, the focus of this article is how we
can more completely recover wastewater’s energy content.
Wastewater treatment accounts for about 3% of the U.S.
electrical energy load,4 similar to that in other developed
countries.5 The energy needs for a typical domestic wastewater
treatment plant employing aerobic activated sludge treatment
and anaerobic sludge digestion is 0.6 kWh/m3 of wastewater
treated, about half of which is for electrical energy to supply air
for the aeration basins.3,5 With conventional approaches involv-
ing aerobic treatment a quarter to half of a plants energy needs
might be satisfied by using the CH4 biogas produced during
anaerobic digestion, and other plant modifications might further
reduce energy needs considerably.4 However, if more of the
energy potential in wastewater were captured for use and even
less were used for wastewater treatment, then wastewater treatment
might become a net energy producer rather than a consumer.
Energy Potential in Domestic Wastewater. Table 1 contains
a summary of three energy-related characteristics of domestic
wastewater: the energy resource contained in wastewater organ-
ics, the external fossil-fuel energy requirements for the produc-
tion of equivalent amounts of the fertilizing elements N and P,
and the energy that might be gained from wastewater’s thermal
content. Concerning energy associated with N and P, ∼7% of the
world’s natural gas production was used in 1990 to fix atmo-
spheric nitrogen through the Haber-Bosch Process to satisfy the
demand for N.6 8 Somewhat less is associated with P produc-
tion. From a broad environmental perspective world fossil fuel
consumption could be reduced through the direct use of waste-
water N and P for fertilizer instead of using manufactured
fertilizers. Why do we spend energy to rid wastewaters of
fertilizing elements, rather than saving energy by using them
for plant fertilization?
There is also potential energy to be gained from the thermal
heat contained in wastewater, energy that may be captured
through use of heat pumps for low-energy use such as in the
heating of buildings, a practice sometimes used in areas with cold
winter climates such as Sweden.9 Heat pumps represent an
efficient way to use electrical energy for heating, and operate
akin to a refrigeration unit. Electrical energy is used to extract
heat from a source—air, ground, or wastewater—and transfer
the heat to an area of need such as a building. The source
becomes colder and the building warmer. A measure of energy
effectiveness is the coefficient of performance (COP), which is
Published: July 12, 2011
7100 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology
Table 1. Energy Characteristics of a Typical Domestic Wastewater
typical concentrationsa maximum potential from
constituent (mg/L) organic oxidationb
organics (COD)
total 500
refractory 180
suspended 80
dissolved 100
biodegradable 320
suspended 175
dissolved 145
nitrogen
organic 15
ammonia 25
phosphorus 8 0.02
water
totals
a
After Tchobanoglous and Burton.42 b Based upon a theoretical 3.86 kWh energy production/kg COD oxidized to CO2 and H2O.3 c Based upon
production energy of 19.3 kWh/kg N by Haber-Bosch Process and 2.11 kWh/kg P after Gellings and Parmenter.6 d Energy associated with a 6 °C change
in water temperature through heat extraction.
the ratio of the amount of heat energy transferred per unit of
electrical energy used to drive the heat pump compressor.
Typical values are in the range of 2 5, with 3 4 being common.
In mild climates, air is often the source from which heat is
extracted, but in cold climates winter air temperatures may be too
cold for such use. In such conditions, ground or groundwaters, or
indeed sufficiently warm wastewater provide other options. With
wastewater, the heat energy associated with a 6 10 °C drop in
water temperature is what might be available, providing the final
temperature is sufficiently above the freezing point. The potential
of a heat pump to be economical is in large measure dependent
upon the relative unit energy cost of alterative heating fuels such
as natural gas or fuel oil. Where alternative available fuels are
much less expensive than electricity, the potential for wastewater
to serve as an energy source for heat pumps diminishes.
The most direct and commonly exploited and useful energy
source in wastewater is the organic fraction as measured by the
chemical oxygen demand (COD), which indicates the amount of
oxygen (O2) required to oxidize the organic material to carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). In Table 1 the organic fraction
is divided between dissolved and suspended, and between
biodegradable and refractory. Suspended solids may be concen-
trated in a settling tank, with the resulting primary sludge
anaerobically digested for CH4 production, but CH4 results only
from the biodegradable fraction. Through thermal, chemical, or
electrical processes, some of the refractory portion may be
conditioned to increase biodegradability and CH4 production,2
but the energy cost for this may offset the gains. Thermal
processes such as incineration have the potential to extract
energy from both the biodegradable and refractory fractions of
the sludge. However, unless water content can be reduced below
∼30%, more energy is required for incineration than is produced
through combustion.10 Thus, thermal processes are generally not
energy producers.
The soluble organic fraction cannot be concentrated easily and
so is subjected to treatment processes that can treat dilute
FEATURE
energy (kWh/m3)
required to produce thermal heat available for
fertilizing elementsc heat-pump extractiond
0.31
0.39
0.67
0.56
0.29
0.48
7.0
1.93 0.79 7.0
streams with short detention times. Here, aerobic treatment
processes have been found to be very effective, albeit with a
relatively high cost in energy. An energy-savings goal would be to
use a process that both captures the energy potential in the
dissolved organics and meets effluent standards effectively.
Anaerobic versus Microbial Fuel Cells for Treating Dis-
solved Organics. A major challenge is to capture the energy
potential of the dissolved organic component in domestic waste-
water, and to do so with little offsetting energy expenditure and
costs. One possibility is to replace secondary aerobic treatment
with secondary anaerobic treatment. Another is an evolving
novel method, microbial fuel cells (MFCs), which accomplish
direct biological conversion of organic energy into electricity, an
approach that is hoped may achieve more efficient conversion
than is currently possible with anaerobic treatment.11 With the
anaerobic approach CH4-driven engines are used to turn gen-
erators to produce electricity. Here only about 30 40% of the
CH4 energy is converted into electricity,12 the remainder is given
off as heat, which may or may not be useful. Chemical fuel cells
offer another approach to produce electricity from CH4, perhaps
increasing the efficiency of conversion to 50%.12 An important
question is whether MFCs, which are enjoying much current
research,13 are likely to meet or exceed such transfer efficiencies
and to do so at comparable or lower cost? A brief review of each
option is in order.
Some energy is always lost in a conversion process. In
anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater about 8% of the
potential energy is lost in the conversion of higher energy
organics such as carbohydrates into CH4, a lower energy organic.
Another 7% is lost from the conversion of a portion of the
organics into the cells of microorganisms necessary to carry out
the reactions. Wastewater treatment itself is not 100% efficient,
and so additional losses result here, perhaps 5%. These combined
losses total about 19%, meaning that the CH4 produced would
contain only about 81% of the original biodegradable organic
energy potential. Through combustion only about 35% of the
7101 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology
CH4 energy might be converted into electricity, the remaining
65% is given off as heat.12 Overall then, the electricity so
produced would contain only about 28% of the original energy
potential in the biodegradable wastewater organics. Perhaps this
could be increased to 40% with more efficient electrical genera-
tion or through the use of chemical fuel cells.12 However, the heat
produced from CH4 combustion need not be lost, but can be
used for heating buildings or other purposes.
Energy losses do result with MFCs as well, and they can be
substantial.11,14,15 Power production is the product of current
and cell voltage. First there is the Coulombic loss,11 the portion
of wastewater organics that are not converted into current. This
loss may be similar to an anaerobic system with a 7% loss to
microbial growth and 5% loss due to treatment inefficiency, or
about 12% combined. Then there is the loss in electrochemical
potential or voltage, which translates as a decrease below the
theoretical value of about 1.1 V for wastewater organics.11 For
example, if the effective MFC voltage were half of that or 0.55 V,
then 50% of the potential energy would be lost. Combined with
the Coulombic loss, transfer of energy from the soluble organics
to electricity would be 44%, still perhaps higher than with
anaerobic treatment, but not much. However, voltage losses in
MFCs currently tend to be much greater than 50%. Typical losses
are 0.1 V at the anode and 0.5 V at the cathode for a combined
loss of 0.6 V or over half of the theoretical value.14 Further
substantial voltage loss results from the associated movement of
electrons through electrical wires and especially from ion trans-
port between electrodes, the latter is a function of distance
between electrodes, equaling about 1 V/cm of distance with
typical wastewater. The most optimistic projections for MFCs
result from studies with high organic concentrations and simple
substrates.13,14 With low reactor organic concentrations asso-
ciated with efficient wastewater treatment more voltage loss is
expected.15 Thus achieving the electrical generation efficiency
that is already practical with anaerobic systems presents a great
challenge for MFCs. Also, a MFC system has been estimated to
cost 800 times that of an anaerobic system based upon available
technologies,14 thus presenting another major challenge. These
and other challenges11,13,14,16 suggest several major break-
throughs are needed for MFCs to become competitive with
electricity generation through anaerobic wastewater treatment.
Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment of Domestic Waste-
water. Complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater
has the potential to achieve net energy production while meeting
stringent effluent standards. Anaerobic wastewater treatment is
well over a century old, starting with the relatively inefficient
septic and Imhoff tank processes.17 However, over the past 50
years more efficient anaerobic processes have been developed
leading to suggestions in the 1980s that they be applied to more
fully treat domestic wastewaters.18,19 Since then there have been
a number of applications of full-scale direct anaerobic treatment
of domestic wastewater, particularly in developing countries such
as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Egypt, and India, where anaerobic
treatment is considered to be a low-cost wastewater treatment
alternative.20 22
Low temperature and low organic concentrations are often cited
as barriers to direct anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewaters.
However, many laboratory studies have shown good performance
at temperatures as low as 5 °C and with hydraulic retention times
(HRT) of only a few hours.23 25 Biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) removals expected with present anaerobic reactors range
from 70 to 80%, not quite sufficient to meet stringent regulatory
7102
FEATURE
standards.22,26 30 Because of this and other experiences, it has
been commonly concluded that effluent “polishing” or a post-
treatment step is necessary to meet effluent standards.29,31,32
However, recent studies with anaerobic membrane bioreactors
indicate that polishing may be accomplished within an anaerobic
reactor itself while providing a good quality effluent with low
suspended solids and BOD concentrations.33 35
Hypothetical Anaerobic Treatment System for Energy
Recovery and Efficient Treatment. What might be the char-
acteristics of a system designed for the efficient anaerobic treat-
ment of domestic wastewater? Good treatment efficiency and low
cost relative to that of conventional activated sludge treatment
would be necessary. Additionally, CH4 is a powerful greenhouse
gas with a global warming potential about 25 times that of CO2,36
and thus must not be allowed to escape to the atmosphere.37 As a
useful biofuel, CH4 should instead be captured and used as a
renewable source of energy. To meet U.S. effluent standards of
30 mg/L for both BOD and total suspended solids, the system
should be designed to achieve an average effluent concentration of
15 mg/L for each. A hypothetical anaerobic treatment system to
illustrate the potential outcomes of such treatment is illustrated in
Figure 1. This includes a conventional primary settling tank in
order to remove settleable suspended materials before secondary
treatment, with resulting biosolids sent to a conventional anaero-
bic digester. The effluent then passes to a secondary anaerobic
membrane bioreactor that can prevent loss of biological solids to
the effluent and thus maintain a sufficiently high solids retention
time (SRT) as required for efficient biodegradation of organics.2 A
countercurrent air-stripping unit is the final process shown, the
purpose of which is to remove and use the dissolved CH4,18 as well
as to add O2 to the effluent stream.
Membrane bioreactors are widely used today for aerobic waste-
water treatment, as they are capable of producing a high quality
effluent with low suspended solids concentration and small
footprint relative to traditional aerobic treatment systems, but
have a higher energy usage as required to reduce membrane
fouling.38 However, a potential significant reduction in the mem-
brane energy cost might be obtained using a new anaerobic reactor
design, the anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (AFMBR),
which combines a membrane system with an anaerobic fluidized
bed reactor (AFBR).35
An AFBR contains particulate media such as granular activated
carbon (GAC) that is suspended in the reactor by the upward
velocity of the fluid being treated. Wastewater treatment is
effected by a biofilm attached to the media. The AFBR is
particularly effective for low strength wastewaters as it has good
mass transfer characteristics and can retain a high concentration
of active microorganisms without organism washout at short
detention times of minutes to a few hours,2 a necessity for
economical anaerobic treatment of low strength wastewaters. By
placing membranes within the reactor itself, the moving action of
the suspended media along the membranes reduces fouling, and
at low energy expenditure.35
In an initial AFMBR study to treat a dilute wastewater of about
500 mg COD/L at a reactor detention time of 5 h, the total
energy expenditure for operating the reactor and fluidizing the
GAC media used was 0.058 kWh/m3 of wastewater treated,
about one-tenth of the energy requirement for a typical aerobic
membrane bioreactor.35 Achieved was an effluent COD of 7 mg/L
(99% removal) and less than 1 mg/L of suspended solids. While
much yet needs to be done to evaluate effectiveness with
domestic wastewater under ambient conditions and to optimize
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 1. A hypothetical system for complete anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater.
performance, the potential for anaerobic domestic wastewater
treatment to be energy producing, cost-effective, and to meet
environmental discharge requirements has been demonstrated.
Comparisons with Conventional Activated Sludge Treat-
ment. An evaluation was made of the potential benefits of anaerobic
domestic wastewater treatment compared to a conventional acti-
vated sludge system with sludge digestion, assuming wastewater
composition listed in Table 1. Figure 2a illustrates that with full
anaerobic treatment a doubling of CH4 production over conventional
aerobic treatment is obtained, and energy production greatly exceeds
the energy needs for plant operation (Figure 2c). Anaerobic domestic
wastewater treatment could be a net energy producer. Another
significant advantage is that the quantity of digested sludge resulting
from anaerobic treatment is much less than with aerobic treatment
(Figure 2b), another highly significant cost as well as energy benefit.
Issues That Need Addressing. While complete anaerobic
domestic wastewater treatment has potential energy and cost
savings, there are important issues that need to be addressed.
First, for climate change concerns, CH4 must not be allowed to
escape to the atmosphere but should be collected and used.
Energy for stripping CH4 is anticipated to be less than 0.05 kWh/m3,
as much less CH4 would have to be transferred than with O2 in an
aerobic treatment system, and both have similarly low solubility.
Because of its importance, research on cost and energy-efficient
methods for such CH4 capture is needed. An associated problem
that also requires more attention is sulfate (SO42-) reduction to
sulfide (S2-), which competes with CH4 production and pro-
duces a toxic and corrosive gas (H2S).2,37
Another issue is the removal of wastewater nutrients, which is
being required more frequently because of the adverse environ-
mental impacts that nutrients can have on receiving waters.
There are many approaches here that can be used with anaerobic
treatment such as chemical precipitation for P 30,39 or its
conversion into struvite (NH4MgPO4 3 6H2O) for recovery as
fertilizer.39 For N removal, the traditional approach with nitrifi-
cation and denitrification is highly energy consuming as well as
7103
FEATURE
wasteful of the fertilizing potential offered. A less energy-wasteful
approach is the newer anammox process, which oxidizes ammo-
nia (NH3) with nitrite (NO2 ) to produce harmless N2 gas.40
This is a low-oxygen-consuming process that does not require
organics for denitrification, organics that are better converted
into CH4 for energy production. Another option aimed at
recovering both N and P nutrients and being applied in Europe
is source-separation of urine so that it does not become part of
the domestic wastewater. Urine contains a majority of the N and
P nutrients and might be treated separately and less expensively
to recover the nutrients for use in fertilizer.41
In water-poor areas where the treated wastewater might be
used for crop or landscape irrigation, both the water and the
nutrients can be reused, and energy requirements are signifi-
cantly less than for potable reuse where reverse osmosis may be
required. When coupled with complete anaerobic treatment,
reuse for irrigation is perhaps one of the best ways to capture the
full resource potential of wastewaters. Anaerobic secondary
treatment to reduce energy and operating costs for municipal
wastewater treatment has good potential, more pilot as well as
fundamental studies to better explore options for effluent CH4
removal and to optimize treatment would appear worthwhile.
What Can We Do Now? While complete anaerobic treatment
of domestic wastewater has perhaps the best current potential for
capturing wastewater’s organic energy content, retrofitting exist-
ing conventional aerobic wastewater treatment plants to anae-
robic facilities could be costly. The complete anaerobic approach
might best be applied with new treatment systems once sufficient
experience with them is gained. In the mean time, other practices
can help to significantly reduce the overall energy requirements
for water supply and treatment, and better capture wastewater’s
total resource potential.4 Energy requirements in aerobic waste-
water treatment systems can be reduced through upgrading
energy-inefficient equipment, better control of aeration systems
to deliver only the O2 actually needed, and through the use of more
energy-efficient aeration diffusers. Reducing the solids retention
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2. Comparative estimates of CH4, sludge, and energy produc-
tion per cubic meter of wastewater treated for full anaerobic treatment
versus conventional aerobic treatment with sludge digestion. (a) CH4
production (STP) associated with primary sludge digestion (blue) and
secondary treatment (red). (b) Volume of digested sludge resulting
from primary treatment (blue) and from secondary treatment (red).
(c) Biogas energy produced (blue) and energy used in overall waste-
water treatment (red).
times in aeration basins also results in smaller O2 and energy
requirements, with more of the wastewater organics converted
into biosolids that can be sent to digesters for increased CH4
production. Also many thermal, physical, chemical, and electrical
methods are now available that increase the biodegradability of
biosolids with potential for reducing overall energy requirements.2
Perhaps the most readily adaptable approach to reduce external
energy requirements with existing treatment plants is to make full
use of the CH4 produced from conventional anaerobic digesters
through use of combined heat and power (CHP) systems (co-
generation). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimates that of the 16 000 municipal wastewater treatment
facilities operating in the U.S., roughly 1000 operate with a total
influent flow rate greater than 19 000 m3/day, a size considered
sufficient for CHP.12 However, only 544 of these facilities employ
anaerobic digestion, and only 106 of these now utilize the biogas
produced to generate electricity and/or thermal energy. EPA
estimates that if all of the 544 treatment plants that already have
anaerobic digestion adapted CHP, the energy reduction would be
equivalent to removing the emissions of approximately 430 000
cars.12 The bioenergy production potential here is significant.
7104
FEATURE
Another change in thinking directed toward more energy-
efficient systems is the use of distributed, rather than the
centralized treatment systems favored in the past due to econo-
mies of scale. Centralized plants are generally located down
gradient in urban areas, permitting gravity wastewater flow to the
treatment plant, while the demand for reclaimed wastewater
generally lies up gradient. This means higher energy demands for
pumping of the reclaimed wastewater back to areas of need.
These energy costs can be reduced through use of smaller
distributed treatment plants located directly in water short areas.
The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County has satellite
treatment systems located in up-gradient communities where
reclaimed wastewater is applied to percolation beds for mixing
with groundwaters used for domestic consumption. The bioso-
lids produced are sent through a trunk sewer to a centralized
plant located near the Pacific coast, where sufficient CH4 is
produced to satisfy most of the energy needs through a CHP
system at the plant. Distributed treatment systems are even used
at small scale. The upscale Solaire apartment complex, located
adjacent to the Hudson River on Manhattan Island, New York
City, has its own membrane biological treatment system in the
basement to reclaim 95 m3/day of apartment wastewater for
irrigation of its rooftop gardens and for use in toilets and the
building’s cooling system. Excess wastewater and biosolids are sent
to New York City’s North River Wastewater Treatment Plant for
biogas and energy production. Wastewater energy is thus captured
efficiently, and the demand on the city’s water system is reduced, as
is the load on the North River Plant. The Monterey, CA, Regional
Water Pollution Control Plant is located in a prime vegetable-
producing but water-short agricultural area, and uses anaerobic
treatment coupled with CHP to produce 50% of the plants energy
requirements. The 76,000 m3/day of reclaimed water produced is
applied to 4900 ha containing vegetable crops to satisfy their need
for both irrigation water and plant nutrients, thus all three of
wastewater’s important resources are being utilized. These exam-
ples well demonstrate how overall energy requirements for treat-
ment can be reduced through more energy-efficient practices in
addition to capturing wastewater’s energy potential, while simul-
taneously capturing its water and fertilizing nutrient resources.
Today there is increased understanding of the importance of
working toward better sustainability in our water and wastewater
treatment systems. Toward this end the further development and
wider application of advanced treatment systems, such as the
anaerobic membrane bioreactor, that can better capture the full
energy and the water and nutrient resource potential contained
in wastewater is a highly desirable goal.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Phone: 650-723-4131; fax: 650-725-3164; e-mail: pmccarty@
stanford.edu.
’ BIOGRAPHY
Dr. McCarty is Emeritus Professor at Stanford University and
WCU Professor at Inha University in Korea. He is coauthor of
the textbooks, Chemistry for Environmental Engineering and
Science and Environmental Biotechnology Principles and Applica-
tions. He is recipient of the Tyler Prize for Environmental
Achievement and the Stockholm Water Prize. Dr. Bae is Pro-
fessor in the Department of Environmental Engineering at Inha
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology
University with primary interests in biogas recovery from solid
wastes and wastewaters. Dr. Kim is an Assistant Professor in the
same department at Inha University. The main focus of his
research is on the development and use of membrane processes.
’ ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication was supported by the WCU (World Class
University) program through the National Research Foundation
of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology (grant number R33-10043).
’ REFERENCES
(1) Asano, T.; Burton, F. L.; Leverenz, H. L.; Tsuchihashi, R.;
Tchobanoglous, G. Water Reuse, Issues, Technologies, and Applications;
McGraw-Hill: New York, 2007; p 1570.
(2) Speece, R. E., Anaerobic Biotechnology and Odor/Corrosion
Control; Archae Press: Nashville, TN, 2008; p 586.
(3) Owen, W. F. Energy in Wastewater Treatment; Prentice-Hall, Inc.:
Englewood Cliffs, 1982; p 373.
(4) EPA Office of Water. Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Energy
Conservation, EPA 832-F-06-024; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency: Washington DC, 2006; p 7.
(5) Curtis, T. P., Low-energy wastewater treatment: strategies and
technologies. In Environmental Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Mitchell, R., Gu,
J. D., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
(6) Gellings, C. W.; Parmenter, K. E., Energy efficiency in fertilizer
production and use. In Knowledge for Sustainable Development—An
Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems; Gellings, C. W.,
Blok, K., Eds.; Eolss Publishers: Oxford, 2004; Vol. II, pp 419 450.
(7) Galloway, J. N.; Cowling, E. B. Reactive nitrogen and the world:
200 years of change. Ambio 2002, 31 (2), 64–71.
(8) Krichene, N. World crude oil and natural gas: A demand and
supply model. Energy Econ. 2002, 24, 557–576.
(9) Lindtrom, H. O. Experiences with a 3.3 MW heat pump using
sewage water as heat source. J. Heat Recovery Syst. 1985, 5 (1), 33–38.
(10) WEF-ASCE. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, 1992; Vol. II, p 829.
(11) Logan, B. E.; Hamelers, B.; Rozendal, R.; Schroder, U.; Keller,
J.; Freguia, S.; Aelterman, P.; Verstraete, W.; Abaey, K. Microbial fuel
cells: Methodology and technology. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40 (17),
5181–5192.
(12) Opportunites for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-430-R-07-003; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 42.
(13) Pant, D.; Van Bogaert, G.; Diels, L.; Vanbroekhoven, K. A review
of the substrates used in microbial fueld cells (MFCs) for sustainable
energy production. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101 (6), 1533–1543.
(14) Rozendal, R. A.; Hamelers, H. V. M.; Rabaey, K.; Keller, J.;
Buisman, C. J. N. Towards practical implementation of bioelectrochem-
ical wastewater treatment. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26 (8), 450–459.
(15) Liu, H.; Logan, B. E. Electricity generation using an air-cathode
single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a
proton exchange membrane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4040–4046.
(16) Pant, D.; Singh, A.; Van Bogaert, G.; Gallego, Y. A.; Diels, L.;
Vanbroekhoven, K. An introduction to the life cycle assessment (LCA)
of bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy and product
generation: Relevance and key aspects. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev.
2011, 15, 1305–1313.
(17) McCarty, P. L., One hundred years of anaerobic treatment. In
Anaerobic Digestion 1981; Hughes, D. E.; Stafford, D. A.; Wheatley, B. I.;
Baader, W.; Lettinga, G.; Nyns, E. J.; Verstraete, W.; Wentworth, R. L.,
Eds., Elsevier Biomedical Press Inc.: Amsterdam, 1981; pp 3 22.
(18) Lettinga, G.; Roersma, R.; Grin, P. Anaerobic treatment of raw
domestic sewage at ambient-temperatures using a granular bed UASB
reactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1983, 25 (7), 1701–1723.
7105
FEATURE
(19) Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic sewage treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol.
1987, 21 (1), 14–21.
(20) Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Preface. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 1–2.
(21) van Haandel, A. C.; Lettinga, G., Anaerobic Sewage Treatment, A
Practical Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.:
West Sussex, 1994; p 226.
(22) van Haandel, A.; Kato, M. T.; Cavalcanti, P. F. F.; Florencio, L.
Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of domestic
wastewater. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 21–38.
(23) Switzenbaum, M. S.; Jewell, W. J. Anaerobic attached-film expanded-
bed reactor treatment. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1980, 52 (7), 1953–1965.
(24) Dague, R. R.; Banik, G. C.; Ellis, T. G. Anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor treatment of dilute wastewater at psychrophilic tempera-
tures. Water Environ. Res. 1998, 70 (2), 155–160.
(25) Tseng, S. K.; Lin, M. R. Treatment of organic wastewater
by anaerobic biological fluidized bed reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 1994,
29 (12), 157–166.
(26) Oliveira, S. C.; Von Sperling, M. Reliability analysis of waste-
water treatment plants. Water Res. 2008, 42 (4 5), 1182–1194.
(27) Leitao, R. C.; Silva-Filho, J. A.; Sanders, W.; van Haandel, A. C.;
Zeeman, G.; Lettinga, G. The effect of operational conditions on the
performance of UASB reactors for domestic wastewater treatment.
Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 52 (1 2), 299–305.
(28) Noyola, A.; Capdeville, B.; Roques, H. Anaerobic treatment of
domestic sewage with a rotating stationary fixed-film reactor. Water Res.
1988, 22 (12), 1585–1592.
(29) Langenhoff, A. A. M.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute
wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor: Effect of low temperature.
Water Res. 2000, 34 (15), 3867–3875.
(30) Aiyuk, S.; Amoako, J.; Raskin, L.; van Haandel, A.; Verstraete,
W. Removal of carbon and nutrients from domestic wastewater using a
low investment, integrated treatment concept. Water Res. 2004, 38 (13),
3031–3042.
(31) Foresti, E.; Zaiat, M.; Vallero, M. V. G. Anaerobic processes as
the core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater treatment:
consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 3–19.
(32) Chernicharo, C. A. L. Post-treatment options for the anaerobic
treatment of domestic wastewater. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006,
5, 73–92.
(33) Hu, A. Y.; Stuckey, D. C. Treatment of dilute wastewaters using
a novel submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor. J. Environ. Eng.
2006, 132 (2), 190–198.
(34) Berube, P. R.; Hall, E. R.; Sutton, P. M. Parameters governing
permeate flux in an anaerobic membrane bioreactor treating low-
strength municipal wastewaters: A literature review. Water Environ.
Res. 2006, 78 (8), 887–896.
(35) Kim, J.; Kim, K.; Ye, H.; Lee, E.; Shin, C.; McCarty, P. L.; Bae, J.
Anaerobic fluidized bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 576–581.
(36) Forster, P.; Ramaswamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.;
Fahey, D. W.; Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D. C.; Myhre, G.; Naganga, J.;
Prinn, R.; Raga, G.; Schutz, M.; Van Dorland, R., Changes in atmo-
spheric constitutents and in radiative forcing. In Climate change 2007:
The Physical Science Base, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change, Soloman, S., Qin, D.; Manning, M.;
Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M.; Miller, H. L., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007.
(37) Noyola, A.; Morgan-Sagastume, J. M.; Lopez-Hernandez, J. E.
Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for domestic
wastewater: odor control and energy/resource recovery. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Bio/Technol. 2006, 5, 93–114.
(38) Wastewater Management Fact Sheet, Membrane Bioreactors; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC, 2007; p 9.
(39) de-Bashan, L. E.; Bashan, Y. Recent advances in removing
phosphorus from wastewater and its future use as fertilizer (1997 2003).
Water Res. 2004, 38 (19), 4222–4246.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106
Environmental Science & Technology FEATURE

(40) Strous, M.; VanGerven, E.; Zheng, P.; Kuenen, J. G.; Jetten,
M. S. M. Ammonium removal from concentrated waste streams with the
anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) process in different reactor
configurations. Water Res. 1997, 31 (8), 1955–1962.
(41) Larsen, T. A.; Alder, A. C.; Eggen, R. I. L.; Maurer, M.; Lienert,
J. Source separation: Will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater
handling? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6121–6125.
(42) Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F. L., Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York,
1991; p 1334.

7106 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2014264 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7100–7106