Technical and environmental evaluation of an integrated scheme for the co-treatment of wastewater and domestic organic waste in small communities

This research was supported by the EU projects: LIFE+ LIVE-WASTE (LIFE 12 ENV/CY/000544) and PIONEER (PCIN-2015-227) and by the BBVA programme “2015 edition of the BBVA Foundation Grants for Researchers and Cultural Creators” (2015-PO027). L. Lijó would like to thank the COST Action ES1202 for a Short Term Scientific Mission grant. Dr. S. González-Garcia would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity for financial support (Grants references JCI-2012-11898 and RYC-2014-14984). The authors (L. Lijó, S. González-García and M.T. Moreira) belong to CRETUS (AGRUP2015/02) and the Galician Competitive Research Group GRC 2013-032.This research was supported by the EU projects: LIFE+ LIVE-WASTE (LIFE 12 ENV/CY/000544) and PIONEER (PCIN-2015-227) and by the BBVA programme “2015 edition of the BBVA Foundation Grants for Researchers and Cultural Creators” (2015-PO027). L. Lijó would like to thank the COST Action ES1202 for a Short Term Scientific Mission grant. Dr. S. González-Garcia would like to express her gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity for financial support (Grants references JCI-2012-11898 and RYC-2014-14984). The authors (L. Lijó, S. González-García and M.T. Moreira) belong to CRETUS (AGRUP2015/02) and the Galician Competitive Research Group GRC 2013-032

Decentralised schemes for integrated management of wastewater and domestic organic waste: the case of a small community.

This study assesses from an environmental perspective two different configurations for the combined treatment of wastewater and domestic organic waste (DOW) in a small and decentralised community having a population of 2000. The applied schemes consist of an upflow anaerobic blanket (UASB) as core treatment process. Scheme A integrates membranes with the anaerobic treatment; while in Scheme B biological removal of nutrients in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is applied as a post treatment to UASB effluent. In energy-related categories, the main contributor is electricity consumption (producing 18-50% of the impacts); whereas in terms of eutrophication-related categories, the discharge of the treated effluent arises as a major hotspot (with 57-99% of the impacts). Scheme B consumes 25% more electricity and produces 40% extra sludge than Scheme A, resulting in worse environmental results for those energy categories. However, the environmental impact due to the discharge of the treated effluent is 75% lower in eutrophication categories due to the removal of nutrients. In addition, the quality of the final effluent in Scheme B would allow its use for irrigation (9.6 mg N/L and 2 mg P/L) if proper tertiary treatment and disinfection are provided, expanding its potential adoption at a wider scale. Direct emissions due to the dissolved methane in the UASB effluent have a significant environmental impact in climate change (23-26%). Additionally, the study shows the environmental feasibility of the use of food waste disposers for DOW collection in different integration rate