Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Energy generation in the treatment of effluent from washing of municipal T

solid waste collection trucks
Vinicius Mattos de Mello, Damázio Daniel de Lima Santos, Rafael Coury Sadock Freitas,
⁎
Lidia Yokoyama, Magali Christe Cammarota
School of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The washing of vehicles used to collect Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) requires 400–500 L of water for each
Anaerobic bacteria vehicle, producing effluent with characteristics similar to the leachate from young sanitary landfills. The
Solid waste treatment process commonly used for this type of effluent is coagulation/flocculation. In this study, effluents
Wastewater from three sites were submitted to physicochemical treatment alone or combined with anaerobic biological
Pretreatment
treatment. Physicochemical treatment has better results with effluents with high total suspended solids (TSS)
Energy
content. For effluents with low TSS concentrations, this treatment has high turbidity removal but low chemical
oxygen demand (COD) removal. The anaerobic biodegradability and the methane generation potential from raw
effluents or after physicochemical treatment were evaluated with and without nutritional supplementation. The
effluent after physicochemical treatment does not require nutritional supplementation, obtaining 92% COD
removal (final COD of 168 mg/L) and specific methane production of 150.6 mL methane (STP)/g CODremoved. A
comparison of operational cost between the physicochemical and anaerobic biological processes for treating
20 m3/day of effluent showed that the latter, in addition to presenting low cost, can generate up to 13.5 kWh/
day for the MSW collecting company.

Introduction pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate

The increase in world population and the high degree of urbaniza-
tion confirm the need for proper management and disposal of municipal
solid waste (MSW). In addition, population growth leads to increased
food production, which generates large amounts of waste originating
from crop, livestock, poultry, and pig farming, among others, which
require environmentally appropriate treatment [1,2].
Reducing the release of pollutants in the environment to mitigate
their effects on fauna and flora, in addition to energy recovery from
waste, has been studied worldwide and shown to be promising [3–5].
Biogas generated from the anaerobic digestion contains 35–65% me-
thane and can be used to produce heat and/or electricity and as fuel for
vehicles, requiring different levels of treatment according to the in-
tended application [6–8]. In addition to its potential for electricity
generation and competitiveness in relation to the main fuels used in
industry, the use of biomethane can help reducing the greenhouse ef-
fect. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
change is more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-
year period (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/
gases/ch4.html).
Between collection and final disposal of MSW, there is a time gap of
up to 24 h. During this time, the biodegradation process of the organic
fraction of this waste begins, releasing a liquid with high pollution
potential and unpleasant odor. To clean and reduce the odor of garbage
trucks, they are washed daily in the garages of MSW collection com-
panies. This procedure generates effluent with characteristics similar to
leachate produced in young sanitary landfills, which contain con-
siderable concentrations of biodegradable organic matter [9].
Such effluents are generally directed to physicochemical treatment
in order to achieve discharge standards, and in some rare cases, reuse
quality for trucks washes [10]. Physicochemical methods include air
stripping, precipitation/coagulation/flocculation, chemical oxidation
processes, activated carbon adsorption, membrane processes (micro-
filtration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis), ion

Abbreviations: BOD5,20, biochemical oxygen demand (5 days/20 °C); COD, chemical oxygen demand; MSW, municipal solid waste; PAC, polyaluminium chloride;
STP, standard temperature and pressure; TSS, total suspended solids; VSS, volatile suspended solids
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Biochemical Engineering, School of Chemistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Av. Athos da
Silveira Ramos, 149, Bl. E, Sl. 203, Ilha do Fundão, 21941-909 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
E-mail address: christe@eq.ufrj.br (M.C. Cammarota).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.09.009
Received 10 October 2016; Received in revised form 8 October 2017; Accepted 24 September 2018
2213-1388/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

exchange, electrochemical treatment, and flotation [10]. Among these Table 1

methods, coagulation-flocculation is widely used as a relatively simple Characteristics of MSW collection companies and effluents generated in the
technology, which employs abundant and low cost chemicals, and is washing of MSW collection vehicles.
reliable, since operating conditions are optimized to take into account Site A Site B Site C
wastewater content [11].
Most particles suspended in wastewater have a negative charge, Characteristics of companies
Number of collection vehicles 50 47 33
which causes them to suffer an electrostatic repulsion as they approach
Carrying capacity (t MSW/trip) 8–19 8–19 9
each other. This repulsion does not allow particles to agglomerate, Water consumption (L/vehicle) 400 450 400–500
causing them to remain suspended. Coagulation and flocculation occur Water consumption (m3/d) 20 21 17
in successive steps intended to destabilize the charges of the particles. Characteristics of effluents
Coagulants with charges opposite to those of the suspended solids are pH 6.5 6.7 6.0
added to the water to neutralize the negative charges on dispersed non- Total alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L) 718 150 na
settable solids. Once the charge is neutralized, the small-suspended Volatile acidity (mg HAc/L) 1044 65 na
Total COD (mg/L) 2433 2307 21,734
particles are capable of sticking together. A high-energy, rapid-mix to Soluble COD (mg/L) 1749 472 na
properly disperse the coagulant and promote particle collisions is BOD5,20 (mg/L) 1443 934 1455
needed to achieve good coagulation and formation of the microflocs. Oils and Greases (mg/L) 1117 11 2101
Following coagulation, flocculation, which is a gentle mixing stage, Total nitrogen (mg/L) 34 5 na
Ammonia nitrogen (mg/L) 33 0.5 na
increases the particle size from submicroscopic microfloc to visible
Total organic carbon (mg/L) 642 160 na
suspended particles. The microflocs are brought into contact with each Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.6 0.3 na
other through the slow mixing process. The floc size continues to build TSS (mg/L) 785 638 17,410
through additional collisions and interaction with inorganic polymers VSS (mg/L) 424 482 na
formed by the coagulant or with organic polymers added. Once the floc Turbidity (NTU) 163 na na
Chlorides (mg/L) 337 35 na
has reached its optimum size and strength, the water is ready for the Sulfates (mg/L) 5 16 na
separation process (sedimentation, floatation, or filtration) [11].
Even though coagulation/flocculation processes require skilled op- na = not available.
erators, present continuous consumption of chemicals and electricity,
and generate sludge that must be properly disposed [11], MSW col- containers and stored at 4 °C until analysis. Effluents were characterized
lection companies still prefer coagulation/flocculation to treat the in terms of pH, total organic carbon (TOC), biochemical oxygen de-
generated effluents. Thus, in these facilities, the effluents are not mand (BOD5,20), chemical oxygen demand (COD), alkalinity, volatile
treated by anaerobic biological processes, which have advantages acidity, chlorides, sulfates, oils and greases (O&G), total and ammonia
compared with physicochemical treatments such as biogas production nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total and volatile suspended solids,
that can be recycled, smaller amount of sludge (biomass) to be dis- using methods described in item “Analytical methods”.
carded, and mainly, lower power consumption and thus lower oper-
ating costs [8,12].
This study aimed to compare efficiency and operational cost of Physicochemical treatment of effluents
physicochemical and anaerobic biological treatments of water used to
wash garbage trucks that collect municipal solid wastes (MSW). The Physicochemical treatment was evaluated with effluents from sites
potential for power generation from biogas was also estimated, which A and C to suit different purposes. In effluent from site A, physico-
can be used in the treatment unit of the waste collecting company. chemical treatment was applied to remove TSS and O&G present at high
concentration in order to adapt the effluent to subsequent anaerobic
Materials and methods biological treatment. In effluent from site C, physicochemical treatment
was applied to obtain final effluent with reuse quality. Fig. 3 shows the
Origin, sampling, and characterization of effluents from the washing of sequence of unit processes studied for effluents generated in sites A and
garbage trucks used for MSW transport C.
Coagulation/flocculation tests were carried out in Jar Test with 1 L
The study was conducted with effluents generated in three MSW beakers containing 300 mL of effluent, ferric chloride (FeCl3 38% w/w),
collection and transportation companies, herein after called sites A, B, and polyaluminium chloride (PAC 12% w/w). After adjusting the pH to
and C, whose data are in Table 1. The companies consume 17–21 m3 of the desired value with NaOH 0.1 mol/L, the mixture was stirred at
water per day, obtained from the drinking water supply network and 120 rpm (2 s−1) for 1–5 min, and the stirring speed was reduced to
their Wastewater Treatment Plant (when the quality of the treated ef- 40 rpm (0.67 s−1) for 20–60 min, followed by a rest period of 1 h for the
fluent allows reuse). sedimentation of flocks. After this period, a supernatant sample was
The truck cleaning process consists of the following steps: sweeping collected for analysis.
bucket and segregation of solids, degreasing of equipment with de- To determine the coagulation/flocculation pH, pH values between 4
tergent, rinsing with clean water, and lubrication. The effluent gener- and 9 were evaluated by fixing the FeCl3 and PAC concentrations. To
ated goes to a Wastewater Treatment Plant (on site or in a Waste determine the optimal coagulant concentration, FeCl3 concentrations
Treatment Center) composed of equalization tank for load homo- from 5 to 550 mg/L were evaluated, while maintaining the PAC con-
genization (only on C site); screening and grit chamber for retention of centration and the pH indicated in the previous step. By fixing the FeCl3
coarse solids and to prevent unwanted deposits in the subsequent concentration at values shown in the last assay, the PAC concentration
treatment compartments (only on C site); water/oil separator, coagu- varied from 12 to 120 mg/L. All assays were conducted in duplicate,
lation/flocculation, and sedimentation tank (common steps in the three and the process efficiency was determined by turbidity analysis and
sites); sand filter (only on site A); tank for disinfection with sodium COD of the supernatant, presented as mean values.
hypochlorite; and tank for storage of treated effluent. Solids separated Coagulation/flocculation tests were carried out in batches, with a
in the treatment are sent to a public or private company for sanitation. total duration of 1.4 to 2 h, depending on the agitation conditions
Grab (sites A and B) or composite samples (site C) of effluent were employed (1 min for pH adjustment +1–5 min for coagulation
collected at the exit of the water/oil separator (sites A and B) or in the +20–60 min for flocculation +60 min for sedimentation).
equalization tank (site C). Effluents were transferred to polypropylene

106
V.M.d. Mello et al.
Anaerobic biological treatment of effluents
The anaerobic biological treatment was evaluated for effluents from
sites A and B. In site B, the effluent had characteristics compatible with
the anaerobic biological treatment; therefore, it was directly assessed in
the collected effluent. In site A, the anaerobic biological treatment was
evaluated in the effluent after the coagulation/flocculation step to re-
duce TSS and O&G concentrations. This pretreatment was carried out in
the best condition found in the physicochemical treatment, except for
the coagulant concentration, which was reduced to 80 mg/L. Fig. 3
shows the sequence of unit processes studied for effluents generated in
sites A and B.
Anaerobic biodegradation tests were conducted in 100-ml penicillin
flasks with volume of 90 mL, sealed with rubber plugs and aluminum
seals coupled to 60-ml plastic syringes to measure the biogas produc-
tion over time. The sludge used as inoculum was collected in anaerobic
reactor operating in a poultry slaughtering industry (VSS 22 g/L) and
was added to flasks for an initial proportion of volatile suspended solids
(VSS): COD of 1:1. The effluent had pH adjusted to 7.0 ± 0.2 with
NaHCO3 and supplementation with macro and micronutrients was
achieved by adding a macronutrient solution (11.16 g/L NH4Cl and
2.57 g/L KH2PO4) for a COD:N:P ratio of 350:5:1. A micronutrient so-
lution (2 g/L FeCl3·6H2O, 0.05 g/L ZnCl2, 2 g/L CoCl2·6H2O, 0.05 g/L
NiCl2.6H2O) was added in some experiments at a ratio of 1 mL/L [12].
After mixing the sludge with the effluent, the flasks were kept at
30 ± 2 °C until biogas production stabilization, which occurred at
8 days in the experiments that evaluated the addition of micronutrients
and at 15 days in the experiments that evaluated the addition of mac-
ronutrients. At the end of the test, the biogas produced was transferred
from syringes to gas ampoules for methane percentage analysis. Then,
the flasks were opened and the supernatant submitted to pH and COD
analyses. Assays were performed in four replicates with raw effluent
(effluent from site B) or effluent submitted to coagulation/flocculation
pretreatment (effluent from site A).
Analytical methods
pH, COD, BOD5,20, O&G, TSS, turbidity, chlorides, and sulfates were
determined as recommended in Standard Methods [13]. Volatile acidity
and alkalinity were determined by potentiometric method as re-
commended by Dilallo and Albertson (1961) [14] and Ripley et al.
(1986) [15], respectively. Total organic carbon and total nitrogen were
determined in Shimadzu equipment (model TOC-VCPN and TNM-1).
Ammonia nitrogen was determined by selective ion electrode in
Corning ion analyzer. Biogas was submitted to analysis in CG VARIAN
Micro chromatograph model CP-4900.
Operating costs of physicochemical treatments
A comparison of physicochemical treatment costs applied in ef-
fluents from sites A (such as pretreatment) and C (such as a single
treatment) was performed for 20 m3/d effluent, considering the con-
sumption of chemicals and electric energy involved in the treatment.
The unit value of each item considered in the costs was obtained from
the main suppliers of commercial chemicals: 50% sodium hydroxide w/
v (US$ 0.96/L), 38% ferric chloride w/w and density of 1.38 g/ml (US$
1.56/L), and 12% aluminum polychloride (PAC) w/w and density of
1.31 g/ml (US$ 1.48/L). The cost of electricity was based on the
average amount paid by MSW collecting companies to the local elec-
tricity distribution company (US$ 0.23/kWh). The rapid and slow
mixing times determined on bench scale were maintained for the cal-
culations on an industrial scale and the power consumption of these
stages was corrected to a daily volume of 20 m3. The sludge transpor-
tation and final disposal costs were not considered in this survey.
107
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113
Estimation of the energy potential of methane generated in the anaerobic
biological treatment
An estimate of the methane energy potential on an industrial scale
(for 20 m3/d of effluent) was conducted for the same operating condi-
tions of the bench anaerobic biodegradation test (initial COD of
2000 mg/L, 30 °C) conducted with effluent from site A after physico-
chemical treatment and raw effluent from site B. Two scenarios were
considered to estimate the energy produced from methane on an in-
dustrial scale: Scenario 1 – in which data obtained in bench scale were
extrapolated to industrial scale; Scenario 2 – in which less optimistic
values were used.
The methane volume (VCH4 ) was calculated from the Eq. (1) below.
SMP 30 ∘ C × VEffluent × S0 × η
VCH 4 (m3) =
106 (1)
where:
SMP 30 ∘C : Specific methane production at 30 °C, ml CH4/g
CODremoved
VEffluent : Effluent volume, 20,000 L
S0: COD effluent into the reactor, 2 g/L
η: COD removal, in %
106: Factor used for conversion of ml into m3
To obtain Energy Potential (EP), Eq. (2) below was applied.
VCH 4 × PCICH 4 × η
EP (kWh) =
3600 (2)
where:
VCH4 : Methane volume (30 °C), m3
PCICH4 : Energy content of methane, 35,800 kJ/m3 [16]
η: Conversion efficiency from thermal energy to electrical energy,
33% [17]
3600: Conversion factor from h to s.
Results and discussion
Characterization of effluents generated in the washing of trucks used for
MSW collection
The effluents generated on sites A and B contain a reasonable
amount of organic matter, measured as total COD in Table 1. However,
the fraction of dissolved organic matter (COD soluble/COD total) is
very different: 0.72 and 0.21 for effluents from sites A and B, respec-
tively. Whereas effluent from site A has oils and grease concentration
(O&G) 100 times higher than effluent from site B; it appears that much
of the soluble COD of effluent from site A is emulsified and/or dissolved
O&G, not retained on the sample filtering. Effluent from site A also has
higher concentration of total suspended solids compared to effluent
from site B, which proves the need for a physicochemical pretreatment
to reduce suspended solids and O&G of this effluent.
Effluent from site C has the highest organic matter concentration
(COD) among the three effluents evaluated. Whereas the BOD5,20/COD
ratio is extremely low for this effluent (0.07), and the TSS and O&G
concentrations are also very high. It could be inferred that the organic
matter is mainly found in the insoluble form, which indicates that a
coagulation/flocculation treatment is the best alternative for this ef-
fluent.
Miranda et al. (2005) [18] describes the adverse effects of O&G on
the performance of a full-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
(UASB) treating wastewater from the slaughterhouse and meat-packing
plant. The O&G/COD ratio above 20% in the influent produced the
gradual reduction in system efficiency, resulting in biomass washout
and a general failure of the system (effluent from site A showed O&G/
COD ratio of 46%). The removal of O&G from the influent using a
physicochemical system (coagulation/flocculation) improved the phy-
sical characteristics of the anaerobic sludge, controlling the biomass
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

Fig. 1. Turbidity and COD of effluent from site A after coagulation/flocculation with different initial pH values (60 mg/L FeCl3 and 12 mg/L PAC – Fig. 1A) and of
FeCl3 concentrations (12 mg/L PAC, pH 8 – Fig. 1B); and effluent from site C after coagulation/flocculation under different initial pH values (250 mg/L FeCl3 and
24 mg/L PAC – Fig. 1C), FeCl3 concentrations (24 mg/L PAC, pH 7 – Fig. 1D), and PAC concentrations (150 mg/L FeCl3 and pH 7 – Fig. 1D).

washout. Reactor performance was significantly improved when the O&
G/COD ratio of the influent was maintained at 10%.
Due to its lower TSS and especially O&G concentration, effluent
from site B can be directly referred to a biological treatment. The
BOD5,20/COD ratio of 0.40–0.59 observed in effluents from sites A and
B, as well as the acidity of 1044 mg/L (probably due to the presence of
volatile fatty acids) in effluent from site A, confirms the similarity of
these effluents to leachate from young landfills and the need for bio-
logical treatment [19]. The ammonia, chloride, and sulfate concentra-
tions in both effluents are low, which make them suitable for anaerobic
biological treatment; however, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations
are insufficient, requiring nutrient supplementation [12].
Physicochemical treatment of effluents
Only effluents from sites A and C were submitted
physicochemical treatment due to their high O&G (both) and TSS (ef-
fluent from site C) concentrations. Fig. 1A shows the final turbidity and
COD values in the coagulation/flocculation of effluent from site A with
60 mg/L FeCl3 (120 rpm, 1 min), 12 mg/L PAC (40 rpm, 20 min), and
different initial pH values. Higher turbidity removals (90.8%) were
obtained at pH 9. However, to reduce the consumption of chemicals
and operating costs on an industrial scale, pH 8 was adopted for the
selection of the FeCl3 concentration because high turbidity removal was
also observed in this condition (89.6%). Fig. 1C shows the initial pH
variation of effluent from site C using 250 mg/L FeCl3 (120 rpm, 5 min)
and 24 mg/L PAC (40 rpm, 60 min). It appears that smaller turbidity
and COD values were obtained in assay at pH 7; therefore, this condi-
tion was selected for coagulant and flocculant concentration variation
assays.
At pH 8 and 12 mg/L PAC (in the same mixing conditions men-
to tioned above), the best turbidity reduction results (99.2%) of effluent

108
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

Table 2 The coagulation/flocculation process of effluent from site A has

Results of coagulation/flocculation of effluent from the washing of MSW col- little effect on COD, varying from 1920 to 2233 mg/L. Considering the
lection trucks on site C. initial total COD of the effluent (2433 mg/L), COD removals from 9 to
pHi FeCl3 PAC Final Turbidity Final COD 21% were achieved. As much of COD in this effluent was in soluble
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (mg/L) form (72%), leaving only 28% of COD in the particulate form, the re-
moval values obtained were consistent with the expected coagulation/
pH evaluation
flocculation.
5 250 24 30.5 ± 0.7 351 ± 8
6 250 24 30.5 ± 2.1 339 ± 15 Méndez-Novelo et al. (2005) [20] performed Jar-tests with leachate
7 250 24 25.5 ± 0.7 321 ± 36 originating from landfill aged less than 4 years and FeCl3 as coagulant,
8 250 24 35.0 ± 1.4 363 ± 6 obtaining COD removals from 0 to 47%. The authors concluded that the
9 250 24 37.0 ± 1.4 387 ± 16
high percentage of soluble COD (96%) and the low TSS concentration
Evaluation of the FeCl3 concentration (73 mg/L) impaired the physicochemical treatment of the effluent. This
7 50 24 27.5 ± 2.1 1168 ± 204 situation is similar to that found for effluent from site A, with high
7 150 24 21.5 ± 2.1 299 ± 15
7 250 24 24.5 ± 0.7 308 ± 13
percentage of soluble COD and low TSS concentration.
7 350 24 33.5 ± 3.5 328 ± 40 The condition selected for the physicochemical pretreatment of this
7 450 24 33.0 ± 1.4 308 ± 12 effluent was pH 8.0, 80 mg/L FeCl3, and 12 mg/L PAC. The turbidity
7 550 24 40.0 ± 1.4 318 ± 9 and COD parameters were used to evaluate the coagulation/floccula-
Evaluation of the PAC concentration tion for easier execution. However, this condition was repeated to
7 150 12 22.0 ± 1.4 293 ± 21 provide pretreated effluent for the anaerobic biodegradability assay by
7 150 24 23.5 ± 3.5 334 ± 12
analyzing the following parameters in the supernatant: pH 7.6, tur-
7 150 48 23.5 ± 2.1 305 ± 8
7 150 72 26.5 ± 3.5 302 ± 3
bidity 12 NTU, COD 2038 mg/L, and O&G 44 mg/L. Therefore, the
7 150 96 22.5 ± 0.7 290 ± 31 coagulation/flocculation process performed well in the effluent pre-
7 150 120 21.5 ± 2.1 291 ± 20 treatment removing most of the turbidity, oils, and greases. However,
the effluent was not good enough for reuse or release into water bodies
according to standards required by the Brazilian environmental legis-
from site A were achieved in assay with 400 mg/L FeCl3 (Fig. 1B). lation, especially with regard to COD. Therefore, the effluent required
Again, in order to reduce the consumption of chemicals and operating subsequent biological treatment.
costs, 80 mg/L of FeCl3 was adopted as the best condition for the
physicochemical pretreatment of the effluent, as turbidity reduction Anaerobic biological treatment of effluents
was also observed at this concentration (90.9%). For the FeCl3 con-
centration variation of effluent from site C, Fig. 1D illustrates that the Anaerobic biodegradability tests were conducted with effluent from
best results were obtained in assay with 150 mg/L. However, Fig. 1E site A after coagulation-flocculation and with the raw effluent from site
shows similar results for all the evaluated flocculant concentrations. B. The effluent from site C was not subjected to anaerobic biodegrad-
Therefore, the lowest concentration was selected to reduce costs ability tests because of its high concentration of oil and grease (O&G).
(12 mg/L). As the hydrolysis of these substances is slower than other organic
Tables 2 and 3 show the final turbidity and COD values after phy- fractions, they may accumulate in bioreactors and cause considerable
sicochemical treatment of effluents from sites C and A, respectively. The nuisance in the biological treatment. Moreover, the O&G adsorption on
coagulation/flocculation of effluent from site C had final turbidity va- the surface of the sludge in anaerobic processes may decrease the
lues from 22 to 40 NTU and COD from 290 to 1168 mg/L. Considering transport velocity of soluble compounds to the cells and the conversion
initial total COD of 21734 mg/L, removals above 90% were obtained, to methane [21,22].
which were consistent with the higher TSS values found in this effluent In a first test, effluents from sites A and B were supplemented with N
and supports the indication of physicochemical treatment. The best and P and the need for micronutrient supplementation was evaluated.
cost-benefit ratio for the physicochemical treatment of this effluent was Fig. 2A shows the average biogas volume accumulated with both ef-
pH 7.0, 150 mg/L FeCl3 and 12 mg/L PAC, resulting in a final effluent fluents under these conditions. In a second test, the micronutrient so-
with 22 NTU of turbidity and COD of 293 mg/L, which make it suitable lution was removed, and the need for correction of N and P con-
for reuse within the company. centrations was evaluated with effluent from site A following
physicochemical treatment and with the raw effluent from site B
Table 3 (Fig. 2B). The addition of macro (Fig. 2B) or micronutrients (Fig. 2A)
Results of coagulation/flocculation of effluent from the washing of MSW col- did not contribute to increased biogas production, indicating that the
lection trucks on site A.
macro and micronutrient levels do not need to be corrected in the
pHi FeCl3 (mg/L) PAC (mg/L) Final Turbidity (NTU) Final COD (mg/L) anaerobic biological treatment of effluents. Although all trials were
conducted with similar initial organic matter concentration, effluent
pH evaluation
4 60 12 67 2135
from site A, on average, produced twice the biogas volume than effluent
5 60 12 98 2102 from site B. This result can be attributed to the removal of inhibitory
6 60 12 101 2193 compounds by the physicochemical treatment applied to effluent from
7 60 12 64 2185 site A, which contributed to increased biogas production.
8 60 12 17 2223
The data in Table 4 indicate that there was a high COD reduction
9 60 12 15 2091
(over 90%) following anaerobic biological treatment in all conditions
Evaluation of the FeCl3 concentration
evaluated. As observed for the biogas production, the COD removal did
8 5 12 28 2090
8 15 12 24 2063 not show any difference between assays with and without supple-
8 40 12 18 2083 mentation of nitrogen, phosphorus, and micronutrients. The final COD
8 60 12 16 2105 values in the supernatant, with and without supplementation, remained
8 80 12 12 2038 below the maximum value allowed by Brazilian environmental legis-
8 100 12 8 2017
lation to release into receiving bodies (200 mg/L).
8 200 12 3 1978
8 400 12 1 1920 The composition of biogas analyzed at the end of the experiments,
presented CH4 and N2 as major constituents, a lower amount of CO2,

109
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

were observed for effluents from sites A and B, respectively. These data
were used to calculate the potential to generate energy from methane.
There are no data in literature on anaerobic biological treatment of
effluents generated from the washing of MSW collection trucks. Thus, a
comparison of SMP values obtained with leachates from municipal
landfills was made. Kheradmand et al. (2010) evaluated the anaerobic
treatment of leachate in a laboratory-scale anaerobic digester under
mesophilic conditions and obtained 12–42 mL CH4/g CODremoved [23].
Kennedy and Lentz (2000) treated leachate with COD from 3210 to
9190 mg/L, yielding from 290 to 340 mL CH4/g CODremoved [24]. Luo
et al. (2015), evaluating various types of anaerobic reactors to treat
fresh leachate, concluded that 60–96% of COD can be removed; the
methane production ranged from 300 to 400 mL/g CODremoved for
leachate with BOD5,20/COD ratio greater than 0.4 under COD feeding of
5–100 g/L [25].
It follows that the SMP values obtained in this study are much
greater than those obtained for some leachates, probably due to higher
concentrations of inhibitors such as ammonia, metals, and sulfate in the
latter [26], while with other fresher leachates, higher SMP obtained is
due to their higher organic matter concentration.

Comparison of costs between physicochemical and physicochemical followed

by biological anaerobic treatments

Table 5 shows the amount of chemicals used to reach, on an in-

Fig. 2. Effect of supplementing effluents with micronutrients (A – all flasks
supplemented with N and P) and macronutrients (B) on biogas production
(30 °C, 1 atm).
and a trace of water vapor. The percentage of methane was used in the
calculation of the specific methane production (SMP), which was higher
in assays conducted with raw effluents or with the addition of N and P.
The addition of micronutrients reduced SMP in assays with both ef-
fluents, probably because these have high concentration of salts and the
addition of more microelements led to inhibition of the methanogenic
activity. Considering that the conditions without any supplementation
are the best conditions in terms of cost-benefit for the anaerobic bio-
logical treatment, SMP of 150.6 and 51.0 mL CH4 (STP)/g CODremoved
dustrial scale, the same turbidity and COD removal reached on a bench
scale. The physicochemical treatment of effluent from site C, with
150 mg FeCl3/L (120 rpm, 5 min), 12 mg PAC/L (40 rpm, 60 min), pH 7,
and settling time of 1 h, resulted in average values of turbidity (NTU
22), BOD5,20 (10 mg/L), and COD (293 mg/L) as shown in Table 2,
reaching the discharge standards required by local environmental laws.
In this physicochemical treatment condition, with enough efficiency to
discharge of 20 m3/d of effluent within environmental standards, the
operating cost would be US$ 43.38/d, totaling a monthly cost of around
US$ 1300.
The physicochemical treatment of effluent from site A conducted
with 80 mg/L FeCl3 (120 rpm, 1 min), 12 mg/L PAC (40 rpm, 20 min),
pH 8, and settling time of 1 h, as shown in Table 3, resulted in almost
complete turbidity removal (final turbidity of 12 NTU), but with final
COD values still too high (about 2000 mg/L), which led to the need for
anaerobic biological treatment after physicochemical treatment. The
operating cost of this physicochemical pretreatment for the same vo-
lume of 20 m3/d effluent would be US$ 14.86/d or US$ 446 per month.
Bench tests showed that there was no need for the addition of macro
and micronutrients; thus, these were not considered in the calculations.
As the pH of the effluent coming from the physicochemical pretreat-
ment was very close to the optimum pH for anaerobic treatment, the
amount of alkalinizing agent (NaHCO3) needed for pH correction to
feed the anaerobic reactor was disregarded for the cost calculation,
emphasizing that this amount in the bench study was negligible. The

Table 4
Results of anaerobic biological treatment of effluents from sites A and B under different supplementation conditions.
Run Effluenta Condition Final pH Initial COD Final COD COD removal Biogas % CH4 SMPb
(site) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mL)

1 A with macro 7.38 ± 0.04 2065 181 ± 6 91.2 ± 0.3 42.5 ± 0.7 37.1 ± 2.3 83.9
with macro and micro 7.40 ± 0.00 2065 190 ± 3 90.8 ± 0.1 36.8 ± 5.9 36.5 ± 1.9 71.6
B with macro 7.20 ± 0.00 2165 151 ± 4 93.0 ± 0.2 14.6 ± 0.9 50.0 ± 2.4 36.8
with macro and micro 7.22 ± 0.13 2165 154 ± 10 92.9 ± 0.5 14.0 ± 3.3 49.1 ± 3.1 34.2

2 A without nutrients 7.44 ± 0.05 2073 169 ± 3 91.8 ± 0.1 43.8 ± 3.3 65.4 ± 3.4 150.6
with macro 7.42 ± 0.04 2073 166 ± 2 92.0 ± 0.1 44.0 ± 6.6 67.2 ± 4.7 155.8
B raw 7.24 ± 0.05 2557 134 ± 7 94.8 ± 0.3 23.4 ± 5.9 52.7 ± 4.0 51.0
with macro 7.20 ± 0.00 2557 136 ± 5 94.7 ± 0.2 21.0 ± 1.0 52.3 ± 2.8 45.5

a
Effluent from site A after physicochemical treatment; raw effluent from site B.
b
SMP = specific methane production (mL CH4 STP/g CODremoved).

110
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

Table 5
Cost of chemicals and energy in the coagulation/flocculation of 20 m3/d of effluent from the washing of MSW collection trucks on sites A and C.
Products/Energy Unit Cost Consumption Total Cost Consumption Total Cost

Effluent – site A Effluent – site C

NaOH 50% (m/v) 0.96 $/L 8.00 L 7.68 33.3 L 31.97

FeCl3 38% (m/m) 1.56 $/L 3.00 L 4.68 5.63 L 8.78
PAC 12% (m/m) 1.48 $/L 1.53 L 2.26 1.53 L 2.26
Rapid mixing 0.23 $/kWh 0.05 kWh 0.01 0.12 kWh 0.03
Slow mixing 0.23 $/kWh 1.00 kWh 0.23 1.49 kWh 0.34

Total (US$) 14.86 43.38

consumption of electricity was also not considered, which would be shows high soluble organic content (COD/TSS = 3.1) and biodegrad-
only the effluent feeding pump in the reactor. Therefore, considering ability (COD/BOD5,20 = 1.7), which makes it suitable for anaerobic
only the costs of physicochemical treatments, the treatment of effluent biological treatment. However, due to the 1117 mg/L of O&G con-
from site A (physicochemical treatment combined with anaerobic bio- centration, such a procedure becomes prohibitive. The effluent should
logical treatment) shows much lower cost compared to effluent from first be treated by physicochemical treatment to reduce the O&G to
site C (physicochemical treatment applied in isolation). compatible levels (removal of 96.1%) and then submitted to biological
treatment. In the anaerobic biological treatment, the formation of
150.6 NmL CH4/g CODremoved occurs, releasing a final effluent with
Energy potential estimation of methane generated in the anaerobic biological
COD 169 mg/L (total removal of 93%). The effluent from site B also has
treatment
high soluble organic content (COD/TSS = 3.6), but less biodegrad-
ability (COD/BOD5,20 = 2.5) and with low concentration of O&G;
Table 6 shows the results for the two scenarios evaluated with
therefore, it can be sent directly to anaerobic biological treatment,
biogas produced from the treatment of effluents generated in sites A
which reduces COD to 134 mg/L (total removal of 94%) while gen-
and B. Data from a small-size generator were adopted to calculate the
erating 51 NmL CH4/g CODremoved. The effluent from site C has a very
energy potential, which consumes 2 m3 biogas per hour of work and has
different composition, with high insoluble organic content (COD/
rated power of 3.6 kVA or 2.88 kW. The study found that the energy
TSS = 1.2) and little biodegradability (COD/BOD5,20 = 14.9) and high
obtained from biogas could cover the daily energy consumption of
concentration of O&G (2101 mg/L), such characteristics indicate the
physicochemical treatment of effluent from site A (1.05 kWh) both in
physicochemical treatment as the best treatment option. The physico-
scenario 1 (13.5 kWh) and in scenario 2 (10.3 kWh), with surplus from
chemical treatment promotes COD reduction of almost 99%, releasing
9.25 kWh (scenario 2) to 12.45 kWh (scenario 1) for each batch of
an effluent with 293 mg/L of COD.
20 m3 of effluent generated by one day of washing garbage trucks.
A comparison of expenditures and gains of the three types of
Surplus energy can be applied to power other electrical equipment and
treatment applied to the effluents of sites A, B, and C is also presented in
lighting of the effluent generating company. In the case of effluent from
Fig. 3. The costs of the physicochemical treatment are presented in
site B, there is no need for physicochemical treatment prior to anae-
Table 5. The gains were based on the electricity obtained from methane
robic treatment, and all energy obtained can be applied as an additional
production (scenario 1, Table 6) and on the cost of electricity for the
energy in the company’s energy demand matrix. Thus, in scenarios 1
small and medium national industry in the period (US$ 162/MWh).
and 2, there would be an increase of 5.8 and 4.6 kWh to the company’s
Tariffs correspond to the Brazilian scenario, converted to US$ (ex-
energy demand matrix for each biogas batch from the anaerobic
change rate of US$1 = R$3.11). The physicochemical treatment, ap-
treatment of effluent generated in one day of washing of the company’s
plied alone in the MSW collection establishments, costs the collecting
trucks.
company US$ 15,834 per year. However, if the physicochemical
Fig. 3 summarizes some characteristics of the effluents after each
treatment is combined with the anaerobic biological (site A effluent) or
treatment sequence evaluated in this study. The effluent from site A
replaced by the anaerobic biological (site B effluent), according to the
composition of the effluent, a considerable cost reduction occurs. The
Table 6
Energy generation in the treatment of 20 m3/d of effluent from the washing of combination with the anaerobic biological greatly reduces treatment
MSW collection trucks by coagulation/flocculation process followed by anae- costs, decreasing to US$ 5424 or 4624 per year (without or utilizing
robic and direct anaerobic process. methane energy, respectively), allowing savings of US$ 10,410 or
11,210 per year. The replacement of the physicochemical with the
Conditions Effluent – site A, after Effluent – site B, raw
physicochemical effluent
anaerobic biological reduces treatment costs and may even generate a
Scenario Scenario gain of US$ 343 per year if methane energy is harnessed. Therefore,
both in terms of final effluent quality and expenditure, the application
1 2 1 2 of anaerobic biological treatment (alone or in combination with phy-
Biogas (m3/d) 9.39 7.16 4.06 3.16
sicochemical) is advantageous for MSW collection companies.
% CH4 in biogas 65.4 50.0 52.7 50.0
SMP (mL CH4/g 167.2 167.2 56.6 56.6 Conclusions
CODremoved)a
COD removal (%) 91.8 70.0 94.8 70.0
VCH4 (m3) 6.14 4.68 2.14 1.58 The effluents generated in the washing of MSW collection trucks
EP (kWh) 20.15 15.36 7.06 5.19 have characteristics that vary according to the practices adopted by
Generator operation (h/ 4.7 3.6 2.0 1.6 each company, which determine the best form of treatment. When ef-
d)b
fluents present high TSS and O&G concentrations (as site C effluent),
Produced energy (kWh) 13.5 10.3 5.8 4.6
physicochemical treatment seems to be suitable for adjusting them to
a
Specific methane production at 30 °C. discharge standards, reducing COD from 21,734 to 293 mg/L. However,
b
For generator with consumption of 2 m3/h biogas and rated power of 3.6 to treat 20 m3/d of this effluent, the MSW collection company will
kVA or 2.88 kW. spend US$ 15,000 per year. Conversely, if most of the organic matter is

111
V.M.d. Mello et al.
Fig. 3. Sequences of unit processes for treatment of garbage truck washing effluents from different MSW collection companies evaluated in this study, including
characteristics of the final effluent, expenditures, and gains of the treatments.
in soluble form and is biodegradable, biological treatment is indicated,
associated (as site A effluent) or not (as site B effluent) with physico-
chemical pretreatment. In both cases, anaerobic biological treatment
reduces COD from 2400 mg/L to 150 mg/L, on average, with the ad-
vantage of producing methane (51–151 NmL CH4/g CODremoved). An
estimate of the methane energy potential demonstrated that the energy
use of this gas can help to optimize the treatment of effluents from
washing MSW collection trucks, as it can reduce the consumption of
electricity from the energy distribution company (savings of up to US$
11,210 per year treating 20 m3/d of effluent).
Acknowledgements
To MSW collection companies for allowing access to their premises
and providing samples.
References
[1] Pai RR, Rodrigues LLR, Mathew AO, Hebbar S. Impact of urbanization on municipal
solid waste management: a system dynamics approach. Int J Renewable Energy
Environ Eng 2014;2(1):31–7.
[2] Parfitt J, Barthel M, Macnaughton S. Food waste within food supply chains: quan-
tification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc London, Ser B
2010;365(1554):3065–81.
[3] Consonni S, Giugliano M, Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery from
municipal solid waste: Part B: emission and cost estimates. Waste Manage
2005;25(2):137–48.
[4] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China – review. Bioresour Technol
2010;101(11):3816–24.
112
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113
[5] Smith RL, Sengupta D, Takkellapati S, Lee CC. An industrial ecology approach to
municipal solid waste management: II. Case studies for recovering energy from the
organic fraction of MSW. Resour Conserv Recycl 2015;104(A):317–26.
[6] Pöschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas
production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 2010;87(11):3305–21.
[7] Muñoz R, Meier L, Diaz I, Jeison D. A review on the state-of-the-art of physical/
chemical and biological technologies for biogas upgrading. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 2015;14(4):727–59.
[8] Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievements of biogas from
anaerobic digestion. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2015;45:540–55.
[9] Lee AH, Nikraz H, Hung YT. Influence of waste age on landfill leachate quality. Int J
Environ Sci Dev 2010;1(4):347–50.
[10] Gao J, Oloibiri V, Chys M, Audenaert W, Decostere B, He Y, et al. The present status
of landfill leachate treatment and its development trend from a technological point
of view. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2015;14(1):93–122.
[11] SSWM. Sustainable sanitation and water management. Coagulation and flocculation
process fundamentals, http://www.sswm.info/content/coagulation-flocculation;
2012 [accessed 10.09.17].
[12] Chernicharo CAL. Biological wastewater treatment series, anaerobic reactors.
London: IWA Publishing; 2007.
[13] American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association
(AWWA), Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF), Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, New York; 2005.
[14] Dilallo R, Albertson OR. Volatile acids by direct titration. J Water Pollut Control Fed
1961;33(4):356–65.
[15] Ripley LE, Boyle WC, Converse JC. Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic
digestion of high-strength wastes. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1986;58(5):406–11.
[16] Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD. Wastewater engineering: treatment and
reuse. New York: McGraw – Hill Book; 2003.
[17] Alzate ME, Muñoz R, Rogalla F, Fdz-Polanco BF, Pérez-Elvira SI. Biochemical me-
thane potential of microalgae biomass after lipid extraction. Chem Eng J
2014;243:405–10.
[18] Miranda LAS, Henriques JAP, Monteggia LO. A full-scale UASB reactor for treat-
ment of pig and cattle slaughterhouse wastewater with a high oil and grease con-
tent. Braz J Chem Eng 2005;22(4):601–10.
[19] Fernandes A, Pacheco MJ, Ciríaco L, Lopes A. Review on the electrochemical
V.M.d. Mello et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 30 (2018) 105–113

process for the treatment of sanitary landfill leachates: present and future. Appl
Catal B 2015;176–177:183–200.
[20] Méndez-Novelo RI, Castillo-Borges ER, Sauri-Riancho MR, Quintal-Franco CA,
Giacomán-Vallejos G, Jiménez-Cisneros B. Physico-chemical treatment of Merida
landfill leachate for chemical oxygen demand reduction by coagulation. Waste
Manage Res 2005;23(6):560–4.
[21] Alves MM, Pereira MA, Sousa DZ, Cavaleiro AJ, Picavet M, Smidt H, et al. Waste
lipids to energy: how to optimize methane production from long-chain fatty acids
(LCFA). Microb Biotechnol 2009;2(5)(2):538–50.
[22] Demirel B, Yenigun O, Onay TT. Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewater: a review.
Process Biochem 2005;40(8):2583–95.
[23] Kheradmand S, Karimi-Jashni A, Sartaj M. Treatment of municipal landfill leachate
using a combined anaerobic digester and activated sludge system. Waste Manage
2010;30(6):1025–31.
[24] Kennedy KJ, Lentz EM. Treatment of landfill leachate using sequencing batch and
continuous flow upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Water Res
2000;34(14):3640–56.
[25] Luo J, Qian G, Liu J, Xu ZP. Anaerobic methanogenesis of fresh leachate from
municipal solid waste: a brief review on current progress. Renewable Sustainable
Energy Rev 2015;49:21–8.
[26] Campos JC, Moura D, Costa AP, Yokoyama L, Araujo FV, Cammarota MC, et al.
Evaluation of pH, alkalinity and temperature during air stripping process for am-
monia removal from landfill leachate. J Environ Sci Health Part A Toxic/Hazard
Subst Environ Eng 2013;48(9):1105–13.

113