Emission of greenhouse gases from sewer networks: field assessment and isotopic characterization

doi:10.1007/s11783-024-1879-1

Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (10) : 119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-024-1879-1

Emission of greenhouse gases from sewer networks: field assessment and isotopic characterization

Xin Yuan¹, Xianguo Zhang^1,², Yuqi Yang³, Xuan Li¹, Xin Xing¹, Jiane Zuo^1,³(

)

¹. State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
². Capital Eco-Pro Group, Beijing 100444, China
³. Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Shenzhen 518055, China

Download: PDF(3876 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Sewer network contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

● Branch pipes contribute a higher portion to greenhouse gas emissions.

● CH₄ is the major greenhouse gas in sewer networks.

● Most CH₄ is produced via acetate fermentation.

Sewer networks play a vital role in sewage collection and transportation, and they are being rapidly expanded. However, the microbial processes occurring within these networks have emerged as significant contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Compared to that from other sectors, our understanding of the magnitude of GHG emissions from sewer networks is currently limited. In this study, we conducted a GHG emission assessment in an independent sewer network located in Beijing, China. The findings revealed annual emissions of 62.3 kg CH₄ and 0.753 kg N₂O. CH₄ emerged as the primary GHG emitted from sewers, accounting for 87.4% of the total GHG emissions. Interestingly, compared with main pipes, branch pipes were responsible for a larger share of GHG emissions, contributing to 76.7% of the total. A GHG emission factor of 0.26 kg CO₂-eq/(m·yr) was established to quantify sewer GHG emissions. By examining the isotopic signatures of CO₂/CH₄ pairs, it was determined that CH₄ production in sewers primarily occurred through acetate fermentation. Additionally, the structure of sewer pipes had a significant impact on GHG levels. This study offers valuable insights into the overall GHG emissions associated with sewer networks and sheds light on the mechanisms driving these emissions.

Keywords Sewer network Greenhouse gases Stable carbon isotopes Methane Nitrous oxide

Corresponding Author(s): Jiane Zuo

Issue Date: 08 July 2024

Cite this article:

Xin Yuan,Xianguo Zhang,Yuqi Yang, et al. Emission of greenhouse gases from sewer networks: field assessment and isotopic characterization[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(10): 119.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-024-1879-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2024/V18/I10/119

Fig.1 Sewer GHG concentrations and spatial distribution in the studied area. (a) CH₄; (b) N₂O. Note: The letters (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) in the figure represent the starting and ending points of the main pipelines, corresponding to Fig. S1. Point H is the site with peak GHG concentrations.

Fig.2 GHG concentrations in the main pipes and branch pipes. (a) CH₄; (b) N₂O. The error bar shows a concentration range within 1.5IQR; * p < 0.05; ns p > 0.05.

Fig.3 Linear regression of GHG emission rates in manhole sites. (a) w-1; (b) w-16; (c) w-82; (d) w-85-9; (e) w-87; (f) w-91; (g) w-99-2; (h) w-99-12; (i) w-99-23; (j) w-99-25b; (k) w-100.

Fig.4 Percentage of contribution to GHG emission. (a) w-1; (b) w-16; (c) w-87; (d) w-91; (e) w-100; (f) w-99-2; (g) w-99-23; (h) w-99-25b; (i) w-85-9; (j) Average contribution of CH₄ and N₂O to GHG emission. Sites without GHGs emissions were not illustrated in this figure (i.e., w-82 and w-99-12).

Tab.1 Presumptive emission factors

Fig.5 Carbon isotopic signature and CH₄ production pathway portion. (a) The δ¹³C of CH₄ and CO₂ in manhole sites. Solid lines are constant carbon isotope fractionation values of 1.055 and 1.065. α_c of > 1.065 suggests that CH₄ is mainly produced via CO₂ reduction and α_c of < 1.055 suggests that CH₄ is mainly produced via acetate fermentation. (b) CH₄ production pathway portion derived from mass balance equation.

f C H 4 − a c e

is the portion for the acetate fermentation pathway and

f C H 4 − C O 2

is the portion for the CO₂ reduction.

Fig.6 Correlation between GHG concentrations and environmental factors.

Tab.2 Correlation coefficient values

1	R Botz, H D Pokojski, M Schmitt, M Thomm. (1996). Carbon isotope fractionation during bacterial methanogenesis by CO2 reduction. Organic Geochemistry, 25(3−4): 255–262 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(96)00129-5
2	T Chaosakul, T Koottatep, C Polprasert. (2014). A model for methane production in sewers. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A. Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 49(11): 1316–1321
3	H Chen, Z Wang, H Liu, Y Nie, Y Zhu, Q Jia, G Ding, J Ye. (2021). Variable sediment methane production in response to different source-associated sewer sediment types and hydrological patterns: role of the sediment microbiome. Water Research, 190: 116670 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116670
4	H Chen, J Ye, Y Zhou, Z Wang, Q Jia, Y Nie, L Li, H Liu, G Benoit (2020). Variations in CH4 and CO2 productions and emissions driven by pollution sources in municipal sewers: an assessment of the role of dissolved organic matter components and microbiota. Environmental Pollution, 263 (Part A): 114489
5	J Clemens, B Haas. (1997). Nitrous oxide emissions in sewer systems. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica, 25(2): 96–99 https://doi.org/10.1002/aheh.19970250207
6	R Conrad. (2005). Quantification of methanogenic pathways using stable carbon isotopic signatures: a review and a proposal. Organic Geochemistry, 36(5): 739–752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2004.09.006
7	M R Daelman, E M Van Voorthuizen, U G Van Dongen, E I Volcke, M C Van Loosdrecht. (2012). Methane emission during municipal wastewater treatment. Water Research, 46(11): 3657–3670 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.024
8	E Eijo-Río, A Petit-Boix, G Villalba, M E Suarez-Ojeda, D Marin, M J Amores, X Aldea, J Rieradevall, X Gabarrell. (2015). Municipal sewer networks as sources of nitrous oxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide emissions: a review and case studies. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3): 2084–2094 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.006
9	J M Fernandez, H Maazallahi, J L France, M Menoud, M Corbu, M Ardelean, A Calcan, A Townsend-Small, Der Veen C Van, R E Fisher. et al.. (2022). Street-level methane emissions of Bucharest, Romania and the dominance of urban wastewater. Atmospheric Environment: X, 13: 100153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2022.100153
10	J Foley, Z Yuan, P Lant. (2009). Dissolved methane in rising main sewer systems: field measurements and simple model development for estimating greenhouse gas emissions. Water Science and Technology, 60(11): 2963–2971 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.718
11	A E Fries, L A Schifman, W D Shuster, A Townsend-Small. (2018). Street-level emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from the wastewater collection system in Cincinnati, Ohio. Environmental Pollution, 236: 247–256 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.076
12	A Guisasola, D De Haas, J Keller, Z Yuan. (2008). Methane formation in sewer systems. Water Research, 42(6−7): 1421–1430 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.10.014
13	A Guisasola, K R Sharma, J Keller, Z Yuan. (2009). Development of a model for assessing methane formation in rising main sewers. Water Research, 43(11): 2874–2884 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.040
14	H Hua, S Jiang, Z Yuan, X Liu, Y Zhang, Z Cai. (2022). Advancing greenhouse gas emission factors for municipal wastewater treatment plants in China. Environmental Pollution, 295: 118648 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118648
15	R Huang, J Xu, L Xie, H Wang, X Ni. (2022). Energy neutrality potential of wastewater treatment plants: a novel evaluation framework integrating energy efficiency and recovery. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 16(9): 117 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-022-1549-0
16	L T Huynh, H Harada, S Fujii, L P H Nguyen, T H T Hoang, H T Huynh. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from blackwater septic systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(2): 1209–1217 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03418
17	IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, eds. Tokyo: IGES
18	IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Calvo Buendia E, Tanabe K, Kranjc A, Baasansuren J, Fukuda M, Ngarize S, Osako A, Pyrozhenko Y, Shermanau P, Federici S, eds. Geneva: IPCC
19	IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte V, P, Zhai A, Pirani S L, Connors C, Péan S, Berger N, Caud Y, Chen L, Goldfarb M I, Gomis M, et al., eds. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press
20	P Jin, X Shi, G Sun, L Yang, Y Cai, X C Wang. (2018). Co-variation between distribution of microbial communities and biological metabolization of organics in urban sewer systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(3): 1270–1279 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05121
21	D Jung, L Hatrait, J Gouello, A Ponthieux, V Parez, C Renner. (2017). Emission of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) at a waterfall in a sewer: study of main factors affecting H2S emission and modeling approaches. Water Science and Technology, 76(10): 2753–2763 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.428
22	W Li, T Zheng, Y Ma, J Liu. (2019). Current status and future prospects of sewer biofilms: their structure, influencing factors, and substance transformations. Science of the Total Environment, 695: 133815 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133815
23	Z Liang, D Wu, G Li, J Sun, F Jiang, Y Li. (2023). Experimental and modeling investigations on the unexpected hydrogen sulfide rebound in a sewer receiving nitrate addition: mechanism and solution. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 125: 630–640 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.12.038
24	Y Liu, B Ni, R Ganigue, U Werner, K R Sharma, Z Yuan. (2015). Sulfide and methane production in sewer sediments. Water Research, 70: 350–359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.12.019
25	Y Liu, W B Whitman. (2008). Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1125(1): 171–189 https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1419.019
26	R V Matos, F Ferreira, J S Matos. (2020). Influence of ventilation in H2S exposure and emissions from a gravity sewer. Water Science and Technology, 81(10): 2043–2056 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.253
27	Ministry of Environmental Protection (2006). Monitoring and Analytical Methods of Water and Wastewater, 4 ed. Beijing: China Environmental Science Press
28	Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (2022). Urban and Rural Construction Statistical Yearbook of 2021. Beijing:　 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China
29	F Nakagawa, N Yoshida, Y Nojiri, V Makarov. (2002). Production of methane from alasses in eastern Siberia: implications from its 14C and stable isotopic compositions. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 16(3): 14–15 https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001384
30	Y G Ren, J H Wang, H F Li, J Zhang, P Y Qi, Z Hu. (2013). Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from different treatment processes in full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Technology, 34(21): 2917–2927 https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2012.696717
31	M D Short, A Daikeler, G M Peters, K Mann, N J Ashbolt, R M Stuetz, W L Peirson (2014). Municipal gravity sewers: an unrecognised Science of the Total Environment, 468468: 211–218
32	M D Short, A Daikeler, K Wallis, W L Peirson, G M Peters (2017). Dissolved methane in the influent of three Australian wastewater treatment plants fed by gravity sewers. Science of the Total Environment, 599599599: 85–93
33	M J Whiticar, E Faber, M Schoell. (1986). Biogenic methane formation in marine and freshwater environments: CO2 reduction vs. acetate fermentation: isotope evidence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50(5): 693–709 https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90346-7
34	J L Willis, Z G Yuan, S Murthy. (2016). Wastewater GHG accounting protocols as compared to the state of GHG science. Water Environment Research, 88(8): 704–714 https://doi.org/10.2175/106143016X14609975746965
35	I Xueref-Remy, G Zazzeri, F M Breon, F Vogel, P Ciais, D Lowry, E G Nisbet. (2020). Anthropogenic methane plume detection from point sources in the Paris megacity area and characterization of their delta 13C signature. Atmospheric Environment, 222: 117055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117055
36	T Yao, Z Wang, J Liu, M Zhang, X Liu, Y Li, X Wang. (2023). Responses of microbial interactions to elevated salinity in activated sludge microbial community. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 17(5): 60 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-023-1660-x

[1]

FSE-24062-OF-YX_suppl_1

Download

[1]	Haoyu Liu, Ying Xu, Xiang Chen, Xiankai Wang, Hang Wang, Xiaohu Dai. MOF-based materials facilitate efficient anaerobic digestion of organic wastes: integrating substrate bioavailability and microbial syntrophism[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(8): 105-.
[2]	Danni Xie, Xiaodong Ge, Lei Duan, Jan Mulder. Effects of acid deposition control in China: a review based on responses of subtropical forests[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(6): 77-.
[3]	Jiuhui Qu, Jiaping Chen. Pathways toward a pollution-free planet and challenges[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(6): 67-.
[4]	Zhihao Xian, Jun Yan, Jingyi Dai, Hao Wu, Xin Zhang, Wenbo Nie, Fucheng Guo, Yi Chen. Simultaneous enhanced ammonia and nitrate removal from secondary effluent in constructed wetlands using a new manganese-containing substrate[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(4): 47-.
[5]	Yan Guo, Zibin Luo, Junhao Shen, Yu-You Li. The main anammox-based processes, the involved microbes and the novel process concept from the application perspective[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(7): 84-.
[6]	Qiong Guo, Zhichao Yang, Bingliang Zhang, Ming Hua, Changhong Liu, Bingcai Pan. Enhanced methane production during long-term UASB operation at high organic loads as enabled by the immobilized Fungi[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 71-.
[7]	He Zhao, Ching-Hua Huang, Chen Zhong, Penghui Du, Peizhe Sun. Enhanced formation of trihalomethane disinfection byproducts from halobenzoquinones under combined UV/chlorine conditions[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 76-.
[8]	Xiaoyuan Zhang, Jun Gu, Shujuan Meng, Yu Liu. Dissolved methane in anaerobic effluent: Emission or recovery?[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(4): 54-.
[9]	Yanan Bai, Xiuning Wang, Fang Zhang, Raymond Jianxiong Zeng. Acid Orange 7 degradation using methane as the sole carbon source and electron donor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(3): 34-.
[10]	Yangyan Cheng, Ye Shan, Yuhuan Xue, Yujiao Zhu, Xinfeng Wang, Likun Xue, Yanguang Liu, Fangli Qiao, Min Zhang. Variation characteristics of atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide in summertime at a coastal site in the South China Sea[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(11): 139-.
[11]	Shaoyi Xu, Xiaolong Wu, Huijie Lu. Overlooked nitrogen-cycling microorganisms in biological wastewater treatment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(6): 133-.
[12]	Ying Xu, Hui Gong, Xiaohu Dai. High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: achievements and perspectives[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 71-.
[13]	Mona Akbar, Muhammad Farooq Saleem Khan, Ling Qian, Hui Wang. Degradation of polyacrylamide (PAM) and methane production by mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion: Effect of temperature and concentration[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 98-.
[14]	Chao Pang, Chunhua He, Zhenhu Hu, Shoujun Yuan, Wei Wang. Aggravation of membrane fouling and methane leakage by a three-phase separator in an external anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(4): 50-.
[15]	Yuzhou Deng, Shengpan Peng, Haidi Liu, Shuangde Li, Yunfa Chen. Mechanism of dichloromethane disproportionation over mesoporous TiO₂ under low temperature[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 21-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed