Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2022, Vol. 16 Issue (4) : 49    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-021-1483-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Techno-economic characteristics of wastewater treatment plants retrofitted from the conventional activated sludge process to the membrane bioreactor process
Tingwei Gao1, Kang Xiao1,2(), Jiao Zhang3, Wenchao Xue4, Chunhai Wei5, Xiaoping Zhang1, Shuai Liang6, Xiaomao Wang3, Xia Huang3,7
1. College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
2. Yanshan Earth Critical Zone and Surface Fluxes Research Station, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 101408, China
3. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
4. Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
5. School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
6. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
7. Research and Application Center for Membrane Technology, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
 Download: PDF(3946 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased effluent quality and environmental benefits.

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased energy consumption but not operating cost.

• Retrofitting from CAS to MBR increased the net profit and cost efficiency.

• The advantage of MBR is related to the adopted effluent standard.

• The techno-economy of MBR improves with stricter effluent standards.

While a growing number of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are being retrofitted from the conventional activated sludge (CAS) process to the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process, the debate on the techno-economy of MBR vs. CAS has continued and calls for a thorough assessment based on techno-economic valuation. In this study, we analyzed the operating data of 20 large-scale WWTPs (capacity≥10000 m3/d) and compared their techno-economy before and after the retrofitting from CAS to MBR. Through cost-benefit analysis, we evaluated the net profit by subtracting the operating cost from the environmental benefit (estimated by the shadow price of pollutant removal and water reclamation). After the retrofitting, the removal rate of pollutants increased (e.g., from 89.0% to 93.3% on average for NH3-N), the average energy consumption increased from 0.40 to 0.57 kWh/m3, but the operating cost did not increase significantly. The average marginal environmental benefit increased remarkably (from 0.47 to 0.66 CNY/g for NH3-N removal), leading to an increase in the average net profit from 19.4 to 24.4 CNY/m3. We further scored the technical efficiencies via data envelopment analysis based on non-radial directional distance functions. After the retrofitting, the relative cost efficiency increased from 0.70 to 0.73 (the theoretical maximum is 1), while the relative energy efficiency did not change significantly. The techno-economy is closely related to the effluent standard adopted, particularly when truncating the extra benefit of pollutant removal beyond the standard in economic modeling. The modeling results suggested that MBR is more profitable than CAS given stricter effluent standards.
Keywords Membrane bioreactor (MBR)      Conventional activated sludge (CAS)      Cost-benefit analysis      Data envelopment analysis      Net profit     
Corresponding Author(s): Kang Xiao   
Issue Date: 26 August 2021
 Cite this article:   
Tingwei Gao,Kang Xiao,Jiao Zhang, et al. Techno-economic characteristics of wastewater treatment plants retrofitted from the conventional activated sludge process to the membrane bioreactor process[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(4): 49.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-021-1483-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2022/V16/I4/49
Literature Cost Unit CAS MBR
Verrecht et al., 2010 Capital cost USD/(m3/d) N.A. 264
Operating cost USD/m3 N.A. 0.10
DeCarolis et al., 2007 Capital cost USD/(m3/d) N.A. 2111–2602
Operating cost USD/m3 N.A. 0.16–0.22
Gabarrón et al., 2014 Operating cost USD/m3 N.A. 0.55–0.68 (HF MBR)
0.42 (FS MBR)
0.25 (HF hybrid MBR-CAS)
0.15 (HF dual-stream MBR-IFAS)
0.27 (FS dual-stream MBR-CAS)
Krzeminski et al., 2017 Energy consumed kWh/m3 0.3–0.6 0.4–1.6
Young et al., 2012 Capital cost USD/(m3/d) 1955 1849
Operating cost USD/m3 0.09 0.10
Xiao et al., 2014; 2019 Capital cost USD/(m3/d) 380 380–800
Operating cost USD/m3 0.11 0.11–0.18
Energy consumed kWh/m3 0.3–0.4 0.45–0.8 (Q<50000 m3/d)
0.4–0.6 (Q≥50000 m3/d)
Iglesias et al., 2017 Capital cost USD/(m3/d) N.A. 2379–3807 (Q= 1000–2000 m3/d)
744 (Q?>?10000 m3/d)
Energy cost USD/m3 0.05–0.10 0.07–0.13
Energy consumed kWh/m3 0.4–0.8 0.8–1.2
Brepols et al., 2010 Capital cost
(life cycle cost)		 USD/(m3/d) 4653 3630
Operating cost
(life cycle cost)		 USD/m3 0.41 0.46
Tab.1  Cost comparison between MBRs and CASs
Fig.1  Schematic diagram for calculating the (a) shadow price and (b) technical efficiency.
Fig.2  Procedure for calculating the shadow price and technical efficiency.
Fig.3  Comparison of (a) pollutant removal rate, (b) energy consumption (EC) and operating cost (OC) before and after retrofitting from CAS to MBR. Diff represents the difference between MBR and CAS.
Fig.4  Distribution of (a) shadow prices specific to each pollutant; (b–e) total environmental benefits: the CAS sample points in the vector space formed by the input and output specific to (b) COD and (c) NH3-N, and the MBR sample points in the vector space formed by the input and output specific to (d) COD and (e) NH3-N. The volume of the scatter points represents the size of the environmental benefit.
Fig.5  Distribution of (a) net profit (NP), (b) energy efficiency (EE), (c) cost efficiency (CE) and (d) other-cost efficiency (OE, other-cost= operating costs minus energy consumption) before and after the retrofitting from CAS to MBR. Diff represents the difference between the MBR and CAS processes.
Effluent standard BOD5
(mg/L)		 COD
(mg/L)		 NH3-N
(mg/L)		 Purpose of effluent
Scope Code Abbreviation
National GB 18918-2002 GB_1A 10 50 5 Discharge
National GB 18918-2002 GB_1B 20 60 8 Discharge
National GB 18918-2002 GB_2 30 100 25 Discharge
National GB/T 18921-2019 – 6 – 3 Scenic environmental reuse
National GB/T 18920-2002 – 10 – 10 Urban miscellaneous reuse
National GB/T 19923-2005 – 10 60 10 Industrial reuse
National GB 20922-2007 – 40 100 – Reuse for irrigation
Local DB 11/307-2005B – 15 50 5 Discharge
Local DB 11/890-2012A (new WWTP) DB_11 4 20 1 Discharge
Local DB 11/890-2012A (existing WWTP) – 10 50 5 Discharge
Local DB 11/890-2012B (new WWTP) – 6 30 1.5 Discharge
Local DB 11/890-2012B (existing WWTP) – 20 60 8 Discharge
Local DB 12/599-2015A DB_12 6 30 1.5 Discharge
Tab.2  Effluent standards in China
Fig.6  Distribution of net profit (NP), energy efficiency (EE), cost efficiency (CE) and other-cost efficiency (OE, other-cost= operating costs minus energy consumption) before and after the retrofitting from CAS to MBR under (a) the first scenario (CAS: old effluent standards, MBR: new effluent standards), (b) the second scenario (old effluent standards) and (c) the third scenario (new effluent standards). Diff represents the difference between MBR and CAS.
Fig.7  The probability density curve of the difference before and after the retrofitting from CAS to MBR in terms of (a) net profit (NP), (b) energy efficiency (EE), (c) cost efficiency (CE) and (d) other-cost efficiency (OE, other-cost= operating costs minus energy consumption).
1 C Brepols, H Schäfer, N Engelhardt (2010). Considerations on the design and financial feasibility of full-scale membrane bioreactors for municipal applications. Water Science & Technology, 61(10): 2461–2468
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.179 pmid: 20453318
2 Y T Chang, N Zhang, D Danao, N Zhang (2013). Environmental efficiency analysis of transportation system in China: A non-radial DEA approach. Energy Policy, 58: 277–283
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.011
3 J DeCarolis, S Adham, W R Pearce, Z Hirani, S Lacy, R Stephenson (2007). Cost trends of MBR systems for municipal wastewater treatment. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2007(15): 3407–3418
https://doi.org/10.2175/193864707787973734
4 M Djukic, I Jovanoski, O M Ivanovic, M Lazic, D Bodroza (2016). Cost-benefit analysis of an infrastructure project and a cost-reflective tariff: A case study for investment in wastewater treatment plant in Serbia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59: 1419–1425
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.050
5 R Färe, S Grosskopf, C A K Lovell, C Pasurka (1989). Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: A nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1): 90–98
https://doi.org/10.2307/1928055
6 R Färe, S Grosskopf, W L Weber (2006). Shadow prices and pollution costs in U.S. agriculture. Ecological Economics, 56(1): 89–103
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.022
7 A Fenu, J Roels, T Wambecq, K De Gussem, C Thoeye, G De Gueldre, B Van De Steene (2010). Energy audit of a full scale MBR system. Desalination, 262(1–3): 121–128
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.05.057
8 S Gabarrón, G Ferrero, M Dalmau, J Comas, I Rodriguez-Roda (2014). Assessment of energy-saving strategies and operational costs in full-scale membrane bioreactors. Journal of Environmental Management, 134: 8–14
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.023 pmid: 24463730
9 T Gao, K Xiao, J Zhang, X Zhang, X Wang, S Liang, J Sun, F Meng, X Huang (2021). Cost-benefit analysis and technical efficiency evaluation of full-scale membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment using economic approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301: 126984
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126984
10 X D Hao, J Li, M C M van Loosdrecht, T Y Li (2018). A sustainability-based evaluation of membrane bioreactors over conventional activated sludge processes. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 6(2): 2597–2605
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.03.050
11 F Hernández-Sancho, M Molinos-Senante, R Sala-Garrido (2010). Economic valuation of environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: An empirical approach for Spain. Science of the Total Environment, 408(4): 953–957
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.028 pmid: 19903571
12 F Hernández-Sancho, M Molinos-Senante, R Sala-Garrido (2011). Energy efficiency in Spanish wastewater treatment plants: A non-radial DEA approach. Science of the Total Environment, 409(14): 2693–2699
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.018 pmid: 21549411
13 F Hernández-Sancho, R Sala-Garrido (2009). Technical efficiency and cost analysis in wastewater treatment processes: A DEA approach. Desalination, 249(1): 230–234
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.01.029
14 X Huang, K Xiao, Y Shen (2010). Recent advances in membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment in China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 4(3): 245–271
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-010-0240-z
15 R Iglesias, P Simón, L Moragas, A Arce, I Rodriguez-Roda (2017). Cost comparison of full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on membrane bioreactors. Water Science & Technology, 75(11): 2562–2570
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.132 pmid: 28617275
16 S J Judd (2016). The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with membrane bioreactor technology. Chemical Engineering Journal, 305: 37–45
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.141
17 P Krzeminski, L Leverette, S Malamis, E Katsou (2017). Membrane bioreactors: A review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel configurations, LCA and market prospects. Journal of Membrane Science, 527: 207–227
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.010
18 B Lin, K Du (2015). Energy and CO2 emissions performance in China’s regional economies: do market-oriented reforms matter? Energy Policy, 78(3): 113–124
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.12.025
19 H Lin, J Chen, F Wang, L Ding, H Hong (2011). Feasibility evaluation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor for municipal secondary wastewater treatment. Desalination, 280(1–3): 120–126
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.058
20 S Longo, A Hospido, J M Lema, M Mauricio-Iglesias (2018). A systematic methodology for the robust quantification of energy efficiency at wastewater treatment plants featuring Data Envelopment Analysis. Water Research, 141: 317–328
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.067 pmid: 29804018
21 M Mohsin, I Hanif, F Taghizadeh-Hesary, Q Abbas, W Iqbal (2021). Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: A DEA-Based way forward for clean power development. Energy Policy, 149: 112052
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112052
22 M Molinos-Senante, F Hernández-Sancho, R Sala-Garrido (2010). Economic feasibility study for wastewater treatment: A cost-benefit analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 408(20): 4396–4402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.014 pmid: 20667582
23 M Molinos-Senante, F Hernández-Sancho, R Sala-Garrido (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(12): 3091–3097
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.023 pmid: 21856067
24 R Pretel, B D Shoener, J Ferrer, J S Guest (2015). Navigating environmental, economic, and technological trade-offs in the design and operation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Water Research, 87: 531–541
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.07.002 pmid: 26206622
25 R Sala-Garrido, M Molinos-Senante, F Hernández-Sancho (2011). Comparing the efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies through a DEA metafrontier model. Chemical Engineering Journal, 173(3): 766–772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.08.047
26 B Verrecht, T Maere, I Nopens, C Brepols, S Judd (2010). The cost of a large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, 44(18): 5274–5283
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.054 pmid: 20633917
27 K Xiao, S Liang, X Wang, C Chen, X Huang (2019). Current state and challenges of full-scale membrane bioreactor applications: A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 271: 473–481
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.061 pmid: 30245197
28 K Xiao, Y Xu, S Liang, T Lei, J Sun, X Wen, H Zhang, C Chen, X Huang (2014). Engineering application of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment in China: Current state and future prospect. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 8(6): 805–819
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0756-8
29 T Young, M Muftugil, S Smoot, J Peeters (2012). MBR vs. CAS: Capital and operating cost evaluation. Water Practice and Technology, 7(4): 1–8
https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2012.075
30 D Yu, J Wang, L Zheng, Q Sui, H Zhong, M Cheng, Y Wei (2020). Effects of hydraulic retention time on net present value and performance in a membrane bioreactor treating antibiotic production wastewater. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 14(6): 101
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-020-1280-7
31 P Zhou, B W Ang, H Wang (2012). Energy and CO2 emission performance in electricity generation: A non-radial directional distance function approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(3): 625–635
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.04.022
[1] FSE-21071-OF-GTW_suppl_1 Download
[1] Jinlan Yu, Kang Xiao, Wenchao Xue, Yue-xiao Shen, Jihua Tan, Shuai Liang, Yanfen Wang, Xia Huang. Excitation-emission matrix (EEM) fluorescence spectroscopy for characterization of organic matter in membrane bioreactors: Principles, methods and applications[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 31-.
[2] Kang XIAO, Ying XU, Shuai LIANG, Ting LEI, Jianyu SUN, Xianghua WEN, Hongxun ZHANG, Chunsheng CHEN, Xia HUANG. Engineering application of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment in China: Current state and future prospect[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2014, 8(6): 805-819.
[3] Wei YANG, Fengjun JIN, Chengjin WANG, Chen LV. Industrial eco-efficiency and its spatial-temporal differentiation in China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(4): 559-568.
[4] Xia HUANG, Kang XIAO, Yuexiao SHEN. Recent advances in membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment in China[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2010, 4(3): 245-271.
[5] Fangyue LI, Joachim BEHRENDT, Knut WICHMANN, Ralf OTTERPOHL. Evaluation of factors influencing soluble microbial product in submerged MBR through hybrid ASM model[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2009, 3(2): 226-235.
[6] LIU Chun, HUANG Xia. Enhanced atrazine removal using membrane bioreactor bioaugmented with genetically engineered microorganism[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2008, 2(4): 452-460.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed