Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

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

Induced air flotation for fat, oil, and grease recovery in urban wastewater: A
proposed methodology for system optimization and case study
Maycoll Romero-Güiza a, *, Ruben Asiain-Mira b, Madalena Alves c, Jordi Palatsi a, *
a
Aqualia, Production Area, Cami Sot de Fontanet, 29, 25197 Lleida, Spain
b
Aqualia, Innovation and Technology Department, Av. Del Camino de Santiago 40, 28050 Madrid, Spain
c
Centre of Biological Engineering, University of Minho, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Induced air flotation (IAF) is a well-known technology that is widely applied in urban wastewater treatment
Fat, oil, and grease plants (WWTP) for fat, oil, and grease (FOG) removal. However, most IAF systems are not optimized and
Wastewater typically operate with fixed parameters, regardless of inflow variations. Furthermore, the optimization of IAF
Spectrophotometric detection
systems is limited by the lack of equipment in WWTP laboratories to determine FOG concentrations in waste­
Optimization approach
Sulfo-phospho-vanillin
water. In this study, an adapted sulfo-phospho-vanillin method for FOG quantification in wastewater is proposed
for optimization and automation of the IAF system. The proposed methodology requires simple equipment that is
widely available in WWTP laboratories, paving the way for in situ FOG determination. The method was suc­
cessfully employed to determine the optimal operating conditions of the IAF system in terms of hydraulic
retention time and organic loading rate. Furthermore, a full-scale IAF system was optimized using this meth­
odology and its energy demand was reduced by 40 %.

1. Introduction tertiary treatment has been implemented to improve the quality of

The water sector is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from
wastewater treatment and nutrient removal to resource recovery, thus
transforming wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) into water resource
recovery facilities (WRRFs) [1]. The latest technological developments
highlight process intensification and resource recovery to facilitate
higher effluent quality, pursuing net zero targets for energy and carbon
footprint neutrality [2].
However, most WWTPs (and WRRFs) are still based on primary,
secondary, and tertiary treatment processes. During primary treatment
(physical), the organic load is reduced, thus enhancing the extraction of
organic matter as commodities (cellulose recovery) [3,4] and/or energy
(further anaerobic digestion) [5–7]. Secondary (biological) treatment
mainly focuses on the removal or reduction of soluble/colloidal pollut­
ants and nutrients to comply with established effluent discharge regu­
lations. Evolution has occurred in conventional activated sludge systems
(i.e. membrane aerated biofilm reactors [8] and aerobic granular sludge
technologies [9]), and the development of new biological processes (i.e.
nitritation-anammox processes [10–12], micro-algae-based treatment
processes [13,14] and purple phototrophic bacteria treatment processes
[15]) has demonstrated conceptual and practical progress. Finally,
wastewater effluent for reclamation [16].
Regardless of the concept employed (WWTP/WRRF) and the tech­
nology implemented, most facilities include a preliminary treatment
that reduces undesired materials in the up-flow treatment line, primarily
wipes and the largest materials (>1 cm), sand/gravel, fat, oil, and grease
(FOG). These preliminary treatments typically comprise different con­
figurations of sieves and skimming/flotation/grease-trap units. Flota­
tion is a gravitational separation process, which works by increasing the
density difference between the continuous and dispersed phases. This
difference in density is accomplished by adding air to the wastewater to
promote the formation of air-FOG agglomerates. The air-FOG agglom­
erates float, whereas higher-density materials (sands/gravel) settle on
the base of the skimming/flotation/grease-trap unit, enabling their
extraction [17]. There were five different flotation systems. Their clas­
sification is based on the method of bubble formation: i) dissolved air
flotation (DAF), ii) induced air flotation (IAF), iii) froth flotation (where
air is directly injected into the fluid using a sparger), iv) electrolytic
flotation and, v) vacuum flotation. Among these technologies, IAF has
been widely applied in urban WWTP to remove FOG. IAF presents
several advantages in comparison with other technologies: i) high sep­
aration efficiency for removing small and light particles, ii) high loading

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: maycollstiven.romero@fcc.es (M. Romero-Güiza), jordi.palatsi.civit@fcc.es (J. Palatsi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.103201
Received 31 March 2022; Received in revised form 5 September 2022; Accepted 27 September 2022
Available online 6 October 2022
2214-7144/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Romero-Güiza et al.
rate and short retention time, and iii) small footprint [18].
FOG removal in preliminary treatment is particularly important for
WWTPs, because unremoved FOG can cause blockages in the plant
infrastructure, thus impeding treatment processes, by disrupting settle­
ment and clarification systems [19]. Moreover, the slow degradation of
FOG in secondary or biological treatments impacts the activity of mi­
croorganisms and reduces the process efficiency by preventing the
transfer of oxygen or slowing down the degradation rates of other
organic materials. Furthermore, failure in FOG removal can result the
failure of WWTP discharge limits [20]. In line with WRRF concepts,
management strategies for the collected FOG from wastewater treat­
ment systems have attracted increased attention because they reduce the
environmental impact and enhance resource recovery [21]. The main
FOG management strategies include anaerobic co-digestion with sewage
sludge [22–25] and biofuel production [26–28].
As described by Pérez et al. [29], preliminary treatments are
responsible for removing most of the FOG in inflow wastewater; how­
ever, thus far, optimization has been limited to the correct design and
initial installation dimensioning. The most important parameter in the
design and operation of air flotation systems is the air/FOG ratio. If the
amount of air employed in the air flotation system is less than optimum,
the FOG removal efficiency is reduced. If excess air is used, power is
wasted in compressing/diffusing excess air. However, it is difficult to
optimize this important variable and compare its efficiency/operability
because of: i) the variety in the equipment utilized – both in scale and
design, ii) the variation in wastewater characteristics and flowrates, iii)
differences in the design and operation parameters of each facility, and
iv) the lack of monitoring systems [30]. In practice, most air flotation
systems for FOG removal in urban WWTP are not optimized and usually
operate constantly with fixed parameters, regardless of the flowrate and
organic loading conditions.
As previously mentioned, FOG removal in WWTP is also limited by
the lack of a standard procedure for determining the optimum operating
conditions. Therefore, an additional limiting factor is the methodology
used to determine FOG content in wastewater samples. FOG represents a
wide variety of organic compounds with different molecular weights
that can be dispersed, forming an emulsion, or even dissolved [22,31].
Moreover, for urban WWTPs, there are no online FOG sensors available
and laboratory determination has several drawbacks, such as low levels
of FOG (μg⋅L− 1) to be quantified or matrix interferences. Table 1 sum­
marizes the methods reported the determination of FOG in different
types of wastewaters. Most of the current methods for FOG quantifica­
tion are time-intensive and costly, involving the extraction of FOG from
wastewater with an organic solvent (hexane, petroleum ether, benzene,
ethyl ether, chloroform, n-hexane, or carbon tetrachloride) and subse­
quent determination by IR, gravimetric, or chromatographic equipment
Table 1
Adapted methods for FOG determination in wastewater.
Method Type of sample Sample
vol. (mL)
Gerber Commercial kitchen 200
(BS ISO 2446:2008) wastewaters
Gravimetric Hydrocarbon's production 1000
(EPA 1664B) and (No. 5520 B – wastewater
APHA2005)
Gravimetric (commercial Wastewater networks – – Sample filtration, filter Soxhlet extraction and gravimetric
SOXTHERM®) milk/food products
IR measuring (commercial HORIBA® Oily water and wastewater 16
Analyzer OCMA-200) (ASTM
Method D7066-04)
Gas chromatography FOG wastes from oily 10 g
wastewater or sewerage
grease traps
Emulsion with solvents and UV Hydrocarbon's production 10
detection wastewater
SPV method Urban wastewater 4 Solvent extraction, SPV reaction (colour formation) and
Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201
[30,32]. When gravimetric analyses are performed, FOG quantification
is achieved by measuring the weight of the extracted FOG after evapo­
ration of the extracting solvents. Although this is the most widely used
method, it requires a large sample and solvent volume and exhibit high
measurement uncertainty. On the other hand, IR-based quantification is
generally accepted as the most accurate and reproducible method, but
accessibility to IR equipment is limited in the majority of WWTP
laboratories.
Recent studies have presented the sulfo-phospho-vanillin (SPV)
method for lipid quantification in biological systems [33–36] and lipid
production from microalgae biomass [32,37–40]. Table 2 summarizes
the SPV methods reported for lipid determination in biological systems.
Compared with conventional methods for FOG quantification in
wastewater (Table 1), SPV presents several advantages. The SPV method
has a low detection limit (μg⋅L), so a small amount of sample can be
used, and does not require considerable sample manipulation, is time
and labor efficient, can be automated, and is reproducible and easy to
implement [33]. The SPV method comprises two steps: an initial reac­
tion of FOG with concentrated sulfuric acid at high temperature, fol­
lowed by a second reaction of the derived products with vanillin in the
presence of phosphoric acid.
In this study, an adapted SPV method for FOG quantification was
proposed as the basis for IAF system optimization and automation. The
performance of full-scale IAF flotation system from an urban WWTP was
evaluated using with this adapted methodology to determine the opti­
mum operating conditions. Finally, a new control strategy is proposed
and validated by comparing traditional and optimized FOG removal
systems.
2. Materials & methods
2.1. Full-scale WWTP description
Study was conducted at the Lleida WWTP. The WWTP has a capacity
of 160,000 population equivalent (PE) with an inflow of 50,000–70,000
m3⋅d− 1 and FOG production of ~40 tnFOG⋅y− 1. The WWTP comprised
preliminary treatment units for screening and grit/FOG removal. The
grit/FOG removal system comprised three IAF parallel channels with a
volume capacity of 162 m3 per channel (surface area: 82 m2 per chan­
nel). Each IAF channel has eight AÉROFLO® degreasing turbines (Ref:
F315; 1.5 kWh), referred to as “turbines”. Pictures and, geometric and
volume dimensions are presented in Supplementary Material, Figs. S1,
S2, and S3. After preliminary treatment, the water line included three
primary settlers (3 × 1450 m3), six activated sludge reactors (4 × 3900
m3 and 2 × 3450 m3), and four secondary clarifiers (4 × 3150 m3). The
primary sludge was thickened in two gravity thickeners (2 × 220 m3),
Brief method description Measure Ref.
range
Acidification, and butyrometer measurement 200–2000 [20]
mg⋅L− 1
Solvent extraction, distillation, and gravimetric 5–1000 [31,41,42]
measurement mg⋅L− 1
1
>8.2 mg⋅L− [22]
measurement
1
Solvent extraction and IR measurement at 3.4–3.5 μm 0–200 mg⋅L− [43]
Solvent extraction, transesterification, catalytic reaction 0–100 % of [31,44]
with methanol to produce fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) total FAME
and gas chromatography measurement
1
Oily water transformation into colloidal dispersion with >0.3 mg⋅L− [45,46]
solvents and UV measurement at 293–297 nm
1
0–200 μg⋅L− This work
UV–visible measurement at 530 nm
2
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

Table 2
Literature review of SPV method used for lipids determination in biological systems.
Compounds analyzed Sample Solvent extraction Standard use Measure range Ref.
− 1
Lipid content Oleaginous microorganisms Not used Oleic acid 0–0.2 mg⋅mL [33]
Thraustochytrid lipids Different strains of microalgae Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Schizochytrium oil 0–80 μg⋅L− 1 [32]
Lipids Different strains of microalgae Chloroform and Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Corn oil 0–120 μg⋅L− 1 [36]
Total serum lipids Serum Not used Olive oil 0–14 mg⋅mL− 1 [47]
Total lipids Human Meibomian Gland Secretions Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Meibum mixture (MMx) 0–100 μg [35]
Lipids Different strains of microalgae Not used Canola oil 0–70 μg [40]
Lipids Marine dinoflagellates Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Canola oil 0–300 μg [34]
Gangliosides Brain tissue Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Ganglioside and sphingosine 0–80 μg [48]
Lipids Cyanobacteria Chloroform:methanol (2:1 ratio) Rapeseed oil 0–250 μg [37]

and the waste-activated sludge was thickened in a flotation unit (435

m3). The thickening units produced 70–100 m3⋅d− 1 of primary sludge
and 100–200 m3⋅d− 1 of waste activated sludge (WAS). Both sludges
were mixed in a sludge buffer tank prior to mesophilic (35–42 ◦ C)
anaerobic digestion in two anaerobic digesters (2 × 2800 m3). The
studied WWTP is highly instrumentalized. A complete description of
sensors, probes, and analyzers in both water and sludge lines has been
previously published by Palatsi et al. [49] and Romero-Güiza et al. [50].
Furthermore, the WWTP was equipped with 40 energy metres
(iEM3250, Schneider) and an Energy Monitoring Platform (Power Logic
EGX300, Schneider).
2.2. Analytical methods
The FOG determination procedure was developed by adapting the
SPV method to quantify lipids in biological systems [32–40]. For FOG
quantification, the sample (5 mL) was placed in a 10 mL glass tube.
Subsequently, chloroform (2 mL, >99 % VWR Chemicals,
Ref. 22711.29) was added to the tube, which was then closed and
agitated to extract FOG in the organic phase. Subsequently, 1 mL of the
bottom (chloroform/extract) phase was collected with a micropipette
and transferred into a 7 mL glass vial. An additional 1 mL of chloroform
was added to the sample and further agitated, taking another 1 mL of the
bottom phase, and transferring it to 7 mL vial. The two extractions were
verified to be sufficient for good FOG determination in the evaluated
samples. However, the number of extractions may be increased if
required, depending on the wastewater characteristics. Then, the vial
with the chloroform/extract was incubated in a thermostatic unit
(LT200, HACH) at 70 ◦ C for 60 min to evaporate the chloroform. Once
the solvent was removed, concentrated sulfuric acid (2 mL, 98 %, VWR
Chemicals, Ref. 102765G) was added to the vial. The vial was heated for
10 min at 100 ◦ C in a thermostatic unit and cooled for 5 min in an ice
bath. An aliquot of freshly prepared phospho-vanillin reagent (4 mL)
was then added to the vial, and the absorbance was measured after 15
min at 530 nm using a VIS-RFID spectrophotometer (DR3900, HACH).
Phospho-vanillin reagent was prepared by dissolving vanillin (0.6 g,
>99 %, AlfaAesar, Ref. A11169) in absolute ethanol (10 mL, 96 % v/v,
Panreac AppliChem, Ref. 131085.1612) and the resulting solution was
mixed with deionized water (90 mL) under continuous stirring. Subse­
quently, concentrated orthophosphoric acid (400 mL, 85 %, Panreac
AppliChem, Ref. 131032.1211) was then added to the mixture. The
prepared reagents were stored in the dark until further use.
A calibration curve was prepared using commercial olive oil dis­
solved in chloroform (final concentration, 100 mg⋅L− 1). Aliquots of the
standard (0–2 mL, equivalent to 0–250 μg olive oil) were placed in clean
glass (7 mL) vials. The vials were incubated at 70 ◦ C for 60 min to
evaporate chloroform. Sulfuric acid and phospho-vanillin reagent were
then employed as described previously. Vials without FOG addition
were analyzed as blank controls.
To estimate the FOG concentration, curve calibration [Y = absor­
bance (a.u.) vs X = FOG mass (μg)] produced a trend line equation (Eq.
(1)):
(1)
Y = mX + a
where “m” is the slope and “a” the intercept of the line. The FOG con­
centration (FOGconc) (mg⋅L− 1) was determined as follows:
( )
Y− a
× 32
FOGconc = m (2)
V
where “V” is the sample volume (mL). A Standard operating procedure
of the developed method is presented in the Supplementary Material,
Section S2, so it can be easily adopted at any WWTP laboratory.
For SPV method validation, the samples were analyzed by an
external laboratory (IPROMA-EUROFINS) through oil and grease
determination by infrared (IR) spectrometry (Lab. Reference IR/001-a
method), where oil-grease is determined by extraction into
hydrocarbon-free solvent followed by measurement of the IR absorption
spectrum of the extract. The absorption between 3000 and 2900 cm− 1,
associated with C-H groups in the oil-grease, was correlated to the
concentration of oil-grease patrons. Linear regression of the SPV and IR
methods with residual analysis was performed using Origin® software
(OriginLab Corporation) for statistical validation.
Total suspended solids (TSS) were determined according to standard
methods for the examination of water and wastewater (2540G) [51].
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was measured after acid digestion
(LT200, HACH) with a VIS-RFID spectrophotometer (DR3900, HACH)
using commercial COD vial kits (LCK-914, HACH).
2.3. Evaluation of IAF at full-scale WWTP
The IAF performance was monitored by collecting data at 9 opera­
tional conditions, obtained in seven assays. Each assay was conducted by
sampling the in-flow and out-flow of the IAF system for a period of 24 h.
Sampling was conducted using two automatic sampling units (SIGMA
SD 900R, 52, 11522 – HACH) which collected 300 mL at intervals of 15
min. Samples were integrated in 2 h periods, resulting in 12 integrated
samples per assay. Once integrated, samples were collected and
analyzed to determine TSS, COD, and FOG. To determine the FOG
extraction yield (%), the relationship between FOGconc inflow (FOGIN)
and FOGconc outflow (FOGOUT) was determined:
FOG extraction yield =
(FOGIN − FOGOUT )
× 100 (3)
FOGIN
To determine the specific FOG extraction (FOGext) (kg⋅h− 1), the
following expression was used:
FOGext =
(FOGIN − FOGOUT ) × Q
(4)
1000
where “Q” is the flowrate (m3⋅h− 1).
The IAF performance was assessed by determining the FOG extrac­
tion yield (%) and specific FOG extraction yield (kgFOG⋅kWh− 1) under
different operating conditions: hydraulic retention time (HRT), organic
loading rate (OLR) (kgFOGin⋅m− 3 h− 1), number of IAF channels (#), and
supply air capacity (kWh) related to the number of turbines powered per

3
M. Romero-Güiza et al.
working area (kWh⋅m− 2).
2.4. Validation of optimized IAF at full-scale WWTP
An improved IAF system was tested for comparison with the tradi­
tional design configuration. During traditional operation, the IAF system
operates constantly with three channels and six turbines per channel. In
the improved configuration, the number of channels was varied between
two and three depending on the plant inflow, and the number of turbines
per channel was varied between three and four depending on the inlet
OLR. Each configuration was tested for five days, and samples were
collected hourly at the inlet and outlet of the IAF system using the same
automatic sampling units described previously. Samples were integrated
in 24 h periods, proportional to the plant inflow. The IAF performance of
each configuration was assessed by determining the electric consump­
tion as well as the FOG extraction yield and specific FOG extraction yield
of both IAF configurations.
Fig. 1 schematically describes IAF sampling points, measured vari­
ables and analytical methods described in Materials & methods section.
Further information is available in Supplementary Material.
3. Results & discussion
3.1. FOG quantification in wastewater by SPV method
According to an extensive literature review, the SPV method presents
two important factors that influence its accuracy and reliability: solvent
and standard selection (Table 2). Solvent extraction plays an important
because of the diverse chemical natures of FOG. Appropriate solvent
selection could interference and increase method selectivity.
Chloroform-based extraction solvents are most commonly used for oil/
grease characterisation [40]. However, when this method is carried out
using microplates, chloroform can interact and solubilize the surface of
the plastic material, changing the surface properties and thus influ­
encing absorbance at different wavelengths [37]. Therefore, a solvent
mixture (chloroform:methanol 2:1) can be used to reduce solvent
interference [32,36,48]. In this study, chloroform was selected as the
extraction solvent because no plastic material was used in the experi­
mental procedure.
Regarding standard selection, it is generally accepted that the SPV
reaction requires either a C–– C double bond or hydroxyl group to be
3x (channels) IAF system (8 turbines x channel)
Air input (kWh m-2)
Raw waste water
INFLOW SAMPLING POINT
(15min/2h 24h)
- Q (m3 h-1)
- COD (mg L-1)
- TSS (mg L-1)
- OLR (kgCOD m-3 h-1)
- HRT (d)
- FOGIN (mg L-1)
Solvent addion (Chloroform)
Solvent extracon (x2)
Solvent evaporaon
Reacon (H2SO4 100ºC 10 min)
Reagent addion (vanillin-phosphoric acid)
Absorbance measurement 530-540 nm)
Global & specific FOG extracon yields (%, kgFOGext kWh-1)
Fig. 1. Scheme of IFA system, sampling points, measured variables and procedures for determination of FOG extraction yields.
4
Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201
present in the lipid molecule for it to be SPV-positive [48]. The presence
of more unsaturated fatty acid molecules leads to higher absorbance
[32,47]. Therefore, the selection of the standard is one of the factors that
limit the accuracy of the SPV method, transforming it into a specific and
selective method depending on the standard used [32]. In this regard,
the complex FOG composition found in wastewater [21,22,28,31] and
the reasonable limitation of determining the best standard limit the
accuracy of the method. However, McMahon et al. [35] showed that the
SPV method is effective in saturated and unsaturated lipid molecules
through the production of an intermediate (alkyl carbocation) in the
presence of concentrated sulfuric acid. Moreover, some studies have
reported that olive oil shows maximum colour formation in comparison
with other oils, such as canola and sunflower oil, which is attributed to
the larger presence of unsaturated fatty acid molecules [32,36,47].
Although the presence of more unsaturated fatty acid molecules will
causes higher absorbance, it has also been reported that the presence of
multiple double bonds in simple fatty acids does not result in the for­
mation of a more intense colour, whereby the reaction is specific to the
concentration (formation of a single carbon ion per molecule) and the
chemical structure of the sample [32]. Similarly, the use of commercial
oil in the quantification of bacterial and microalgal lipids using the SPV
method has demonstrated good accuracy [32,34,40].
Consequently, the colorimetric method was first validated to
generate calibration using known quantities of olive oil dissolved in
chloroform the standards. Known quantities of the standard in the range
of 0–250 μg were taken and incubated at 70 ◦ C for 60 min to evaporate
the chloroform, followed by the SPV reaction protocol described in the
experimental section. The FOG content was measured by plotting the
absorbance at 530 nm against the oil concentration. All calibration
curves showed R2 higher than 0.99 (Supplementary Material, Fig. S4).
Moreover, to validate the accuracy of the SPV method in determining
the FOG content in wastewater, five samples at different concentrations
were selected, and oil and grease were determined by IR spectrometry
(external laboratory). A comparison between the SPV and traditional IR
methods is presented in Fig. 2. There is an evident correlation between
both, producing comparable results for FOG determination under assay
conditions, with R2 higher than 0.98, and a similar range of uncertainty
(Fig. 2A). Furthermore, the Bland & Altman plot (Fig. 2B) indicates that
the mean of the differences between the values reported by both
methods is small (− 1.48 mg⋅L− 1), indicating that there is no bias be­
tween both methods. Additionally, all the values fall between the limits
FOG – Grease trap waste
- Mass (kg FOG)
Pre-treated waste water
OUTFLOW SAMPLING POINT
(15min/12h 24h)
- COD (mg L-1)
- TSS (mg L-1)
- FOGOUT (mg L-1)
M. Romero-Güiza et al.
80 A 6
95% Confidence limit
Linear Regression
SPV method FOG (mg·L-1)
60
y = 0.8914x + 4.8107
R² = 0.9876
40
20
0 -10
0 20 40 60
IR method FOG (mg·L-1)
Fig. 2. Comparison between SPV and IR method for FOG determination in studied wastewater samples. A: Correlation curves showing linear regression and 95 %
confidence limits. B: Bland & Altman plot showing the difference versus the average of the two methods.
of agreement (mean ± 1.96 s.d) and are randomly dispersed, which also
indicates that both methods are comparable [52].
3.2. Evaluation of IAF at full-scale WWTP
The full-scale WWTP assays were conducted under different IAF
operational conditions. A large screening, consisting in seven assays
were performed to test different HRT (h) and OLR (kgCOD⋅m− 3⋅h− 1) at
different air input configurations (kWh⋅m− 2). The HRT and OLR were
modified varying the number of active IAF channels (2 or 3 channels)
and the air input was modified by varying the number of turbines per
channel powered (kWh⋅m− 2). Fig. 3 shows the operating conditions of
each assay and, Fig. 4 shows the obtained yields. Table 3 summarizes the
operating conditions and the obtained results. Data were collected every
2 h over 24 h for each assay. Only representative sample of stable
operation conditions (in terms of HRT and OLR) of each essay were
selected (between red lines in Figs. 3 and 4) to evaluate process
performance.
The results showed that during the assays, the IAF system inflow
ranged from 1000 to 2500 m3⋅h− 1 under normal operating conditions
(Fig. 3). The IAF configuration was switched between two and three
operating channels, which generated variations in OLR between 2.4 and
4.1 kgCOD⋅m− 3⋅h− 1 (0.15–0.40 kgFOG⋅m− 3⋅h− 1) in normal operation
(Fig. 3 and Table 1). Under these conditions, the HRT has a range of
0.14–0.25 h. The number of operating turbines was switched between 2
and 8 per IAF channel (Table 3). The turbine energy consumption and
air input were estimated according to the equipment's technical notes
(1.1 kWh per turbine) and IAF area (82 m2 per channel). Therefore, the
tested IAF air input varied between 0.03 and 0.11 kWh⋅m− 2.
The FOG inflow, outflow, and extraction yield profiles are shown in
and summarized in Table 3. The results showed that the FOG inflow had
a range between 10 and 70 mg⋅L− 1 during normal operation. The FOG
extraction capacity ranged from 10 to 40 kgFOGext⋅h− 1, which represents
10–30 % of the FOG inflow. Although the maximum FOG removal is 30
% under assay conditions it is not clear whether this is a high or low
yield since there is not sufficient literature/reference information for
comparison. The FOG composition plays an important role in the IAF
removal yields because the air bubbles have a flotation effect only to the
extent to which they adhere to the particles and droplets. This implies
that, for effective flotation removal, the diameter of the air bubble must
be lower than the diameter of the flocculated material in suspension
[30]. It is estimated that the IAF system generates a bubble size range of
100–500 μm, while FOG is composed of free oil (diameter: >150 μm),
dispersed oil (diameter: 20–150 μm), emulsified oil (diameter: <20 μm)
and soluble or “dissolved” oil (diameter: <5 μm) [19]. Unfortunately, in
this study it was not possible to analyze the specific FOG composition;
however, considering the relatively low removal yield, it is possible that
the FOG was composed mainly of <100 μm particles.
Moreover, it is well established that the flotation process comprises
Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201
8
B Upper limit of agreement (95%)
Methods difference (mg·L-1)
4
2
0 Mean
-2
-4
-6
-8 Lower limit of agreement (95%)
80 0 20 40 60 80
Methods Average (mg·L-1)
the following: i) the introduction of air bubbles into the wastewater, ii)
collision between the air bubbles and suspended matter, iii) attachment
of fine bubbles to the surface of the suspended matter, iv) collision be­
tween air-attached suspended particles with the formation of agglom­
erates, v) entrapment of more air bubbles in the agglomerates and, vi)
upward rise of floc structures in a sweeping action (sweep flocculation)
[30]. Therefore, several key variables determine the removal efficiency
of the system, such as air input and volume of air per unit volume of
liquid, bubble-size distribution and degree of dispersion, concentration
and type of suspended matter and oils, hydraulic design of the flotation
chamber, residence time, temperature, and pH [30]. In this study, we
focused on the HRT, OLR and air input operational conditions because
they are common parameters that are regulable in IAF systems for
optimization purpose. Other parameters, such as pH and temperature,
are often not regulable in urban WWTPs inflows.
Table 3 summarizes the operational conditions and FOG extraction
yield, and Fig. 5 shows the correlations between FOG extraction yields
(% and kgFOGext⋅kWh− 1) and operational conditions (HRT and OLR). It
can be observed that high yields (>20 %) are obtained at low OLR
(<0.30 kgFOGin m− 3⋅h− 1) and high HRT (>0.20 h). However, consid­
ering the specific FOG extraction yield (kgFOGext⋅kWh− 1), high values are
found for OLR and HRT ranges of 0.25–0.30 kgFOGin⋅m− 3⋅h− 1 and
0.18–0.22 h, respectively. Furthermore, it is observed that high yields
are obtained with an input air of 0.04–0.05 kWh⋅m− 2 and that increasing
the air input (>0.08 kWh⋅m− 2) does not lead to increasing the FOG
extraction yield, resulting in poor performance. The poor performance
at a high air input could be associated with the attachment of fine
bubbles to the surface of the FOG particles. Turbulence plays an
important role in this phenomenon because it affects the distribution of
bubbles in the flow field. Macro-turbulence has been proposed to affect
the transport of particles, and micro-turbulence controls the dispersion
of bubbles and bubble-particle aggregates, attachment, and detachment
[53]. Therefore, high air input (i.e. >0.08 kWh⋅m− 2) could increase the
turbulence and hence the detachment of FOG-air particles and reduce
the FOG extraction yield.
3.3. Validation of optimized IAF at full-scale WWTP
Full-scale WWTP validation assays were conducted under real IAF
operational conditions for two weeks to evaluate whether the energy
efficiency of the system could be improved based on the results previ­
ously obtained. In week 1, the plant was operated in the traditional
configuration (3 IAF channels, 6 turbines per channel) while in week 2,
the IAF was operated with an improved configuration. For the improved
configuration, the number of operating IAF channels was changed based
on the inflow flow rate of the WWTP. During the night (23:30–07:30),
when the inflow was low (Supplementary Material, Fig. S6), one channel
was closed and the plant was only operated with two channels; for the
remaining day, 3 channels were in operation. With this improved
5
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

HRT Air input

Inflow OLR 0.5 0.12
4000 10 1.1
1.1 0.4 0.10

Air input (kWh·m-2)

8

OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)
3000 0.08

Q (m3·h-1)

HRT (h)
0.3
Assay 1 2000
6 0.06
0.2
4 0.04
0.1 0.02
1000
2
0.0 0.00
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time (h)
Time (h)

Inflow OLR HRT Air input

4000 10 0.5 0.12

8 0.4 0.10

OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)
3000

Air input (kWh·m-2)

Q (m3·h-1)

0.08
Assay 2

HRT (h)
6 0.3
2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02
2.1 2.1
0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Inflow OLR HRT Air input

4000 10 0.5 0.12
3.1
8 0.4 0.10

OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)
3000

Air input (kWh·m-2)

0.08
Assay 3

HRT (h)
6 0.3
Q (m3·h-1)

2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02
3.1
0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) time (h)
Inflow OLR HRT Air input
4000 10 0.5 0.12
4.1 4.1
8 0.4 0.10
OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)

3000

Air input (kWh·m-2)

0.08
Assay 4

6
HRT (h)

0.3
Q (m3·h-1)

2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02
0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Inflow OLR HRT Air input

4000 10 0.5 0.12
5.1 5.2
5.1 5.2 0.10

Air input (kWh·m-2)

8 0.4
OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)

3000
0.08
Assay 5

HRT (h)

6 0.3
Q (m3·h-1)

2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02

0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Inflow OLR HRT Air input

4000 10 0.5 0.12
6.1 6.1
0.10
Air input (kWh·m-2)

8 0.4
OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)

3000
Q (m3·h-1)

0.08
Assay 6

HRT (h)

6 0.3
2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02

0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Inflow OLR HRT Air input

4000 10 0.5 0.12
7.1 7.2 7.1 7.2
0.10
Air input (kWh·m-2)

8 0.4
OLR (kgCOD·m-3h-1)

3000
Q (m3·h-1)

0.08
Assay 7

HRT (h)

6 0.3
2000 0.06
4 0.2
0.04
1000
2 0.1 0.02

0 0 0.0 0.00
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 3. Evaluation assays at different inflow, OLR, HRT and air input conditions. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

6
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
1.1 1.1

Yield COD extrac. (%)

Yield FOG extrac. (%)
100 80% 800 80%

FOG (mg·L-1)

COD (mg·L-1)
Assay 1 80
60% 600 60%
60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
2.1 2.1

Yield COD extrac. (%)

Yield FOG extrac. (%)
100 80% 800 80%

COD (mg·L-1)
Assay 2

80
FOG (mg·L-1)

60% 600 60%

60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
3.1 3.1

Yield COD extrac. (%)

Yield FOG extrac. (%)
100 80% 800 80%
FOG (mg·L-1)

COD (mg·L-1)
Assay 3

80
60% 600 60%
60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
4.1 4.1

Yield COD extrac. (%)

Yield FOG extrac. (%)

100 80% 800 80%

FOG (mg·L-1)

COD (mg·L-1)
Assay 4

80
60% 600 60%
60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2

Yield COD extrac. (%)

Yield FOG extrac. (%)

100 80% 800 80%

Assay 5

FOG (mg·L-1)

80
COD (mg·L-1)

60% 600 60%

60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1000 100%
6.1 6.1
Yield FOG extrac. (%)

Yield COD extrac. (%)

100 80% 800 80%

COD (mg·L-1)
Assay 6

80
FOG (mg·L-1)

60% 600 60%

60
40% 400 40%
40

20 20% 200 20%

0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) time (h)

FOG Extraction Yield FOG IN FOG OUT COD Extraction Yield COD IN COD OUT
120 100% 1600 100%
7.1 7.2 7.1 7.2
Yield COD extrac. (%)

1400
Yield FOG extrac. (%)

100 80% 80%

1200
COD (mg·L-1)
FOG (mg·L-1)
Assay 7

80
60% 1000 60%
60 800
40% 600 40%
40
400
20 20% 20%
200
0 0% 0 0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 4. FOG and COD extraction yields during evaluation assays. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

7
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

Table 3
Operational conditions and FOG extraction yield during evaluation assays.
ASSAY IAF Turbines HRT OLR Air input FOGIN FOGOUT FOGExt FOG extraction yield
channels per
channel

(#) (#) (h) (kgTSS (kgCOD (kgFOG (kWh⋅m− 2) (kgFOGin⋅h− 1) (kgFOGout⋅h− 1) (kgFOGext⋅h− 1) % (kgFOGext⋅kWh− 1)
m− 3⋅h− 1) m− 3⋅h− 1) m− 3⋅h− 1)

1.1 2 4 0.15 1.6 ± 0.4 3.5 ± 0.5 0.30 ± 0.05 98 ± 17 73 ± 10 25 ± 8 26 2.9 ± 0.9
± 0.05 ±
0.01 4
2.1 2 8 0.15 1.3 ± 0.1 3.5 ± 0.3 0.40 ± 0.11 128 ± 19 111 ± 15 17 ± 8 13 1.0 ± 0.4
± 0.06 ±
0.01 5
3.1 2 8 0.17 0.9 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.6 0.22 ± 0.11 71 ± 11 55 ± 12 16 ± 3 24 0.9 ± 0.1
± 0.04 ±
0.02 6
4.1 2 2 0.17 1.1 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.5 0.30 ± 0.03 96 ± 9 79 ± 10 17 ± 3 18 3.9 ± 1.7
± 0.03 ±
0.08 6
5.1 2 6 0.15 1.8 ± 0.4 4.0 ± 0.2 0.33 ± 0.08 98 ± 2 95 ± 12 12 ± 3 11 1.5 ± 0.4
± 0.04 ±
0.01 2
5.2 2 4 0.14 1.9 ± 0.5 4.1 ± 0.1 0.35 ± 0.05 112 ± 16 100 ± 13 12 ± 4 10 1.3 ± 0.4
± 0.05 ±
0.01 2
6.1 3 4 0.25 0.9 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.2 0.24 ± 0.05 115 ± 17 87 ± 11 28 ± 12 24 2.1 ± 0.9
± 0.04 ±
0.01 1
7.1 3 3 0.23 1.0 ± 0.2 2.5 ± 0.7 0.15 ± 0.04 73 ± 14 56 ± 16 17 ± 2 24 1.8 ± 0.2
± 0.03 ±
0.01 7
7.2 3 4 0.23 1.1 ± 0.1 2.9 ± 0.1 0.23 ± 0.05 110 ± 26 73 ± 5 37 ± 28 30 2.8 ± 2.1
± 0.05 ±
0.01 16

FOGExt = FOG extracted.

2 IAF channels 3 IAF channels 2 IAF channels 3 IAF channels

35% 5
Yield (kgFOGext·kWh-1)

4.5
30%
4
25% 3.5
Yield (%)

20% 3
2.5
15% 2
10% 1.5
1
5%
0.5
0% 0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
HRT (h) HRT (h)

2 IAF channels 3 IAF channels 2 IAF channels 3 IAF channels

35% 5
Yield (kgFOGext·kWh-1)

30% 4
25%
3
Yield (%)

20%
15% 2
10%
1
5%
0% 0
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
OLR (kgFOGIN·m-3h-1) OLR (kgFOGIN·m-3h-1)

Fig. 5. Correlations between FOG extraction yields (% and kgFOGext⋅kWh− 1) and operational conditions (HRT and OLR) during evaluation assays.

configuration, the HRT was kept more stable between 0.2 and 0.3 h,
avoiding large increases observed during nights using the traditional
configuration (Fig. 6). Furthermore, during the improved configuration,
the number of turbines per channel was modified depending on the
organic loading rate; measured by an inline COD probe at the inflow,
which was correlated with the FOG content (Supplementary Material,
Fig. S7). During the periods of higher OLR (09:30–01:30) the IAF system
was operated with four turbines per channel, while during lower OLR
periods (01:30–09:30) only three turbines per channel were used
(Fig. 6A).
The energy consumption of the IAF system was measured (Fig. 6B)
using energy meters. It can be observed that the energy consumed in the
traditional configuration is stable at approximately 35 kWh⋅h− 1, as the
number of channels and turbines per channel remains constant. In

8
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

Trad. Conf. HRT Impr. Conf. HRT

FOGEXT yield
(%⋅MWh− 1)
Trad. Conf. OLR Impr. Conf. OLR

Specific

20 ± 2

32 ± 7
0.40 7
0.35 6

OLR (kg-COD·m-3h-1)
0.30
5

0.31 ± 0.03

0.46 ± 0.10
(kg⋅kWh− 1)
Specific
0.25

FOGEXT
HRT (h)

4
0.20
3
0.15

Average values
2
0.10

consumption
(kWh⋅d− 1)
1

858 ± 3

508 ± 1
Electric
0.05
A
0.00 0
40
Electric consumption (kWh·h-1)

35

yield (%)
FOGEXT

17 ± 2

16 ± 3
30
25
20

270 ± 30

230 ± 60
(kg⋅d− 1)
FOGEXT
15
10

FOGEXT Yield
5 Traditional configuration

(%⋅MWh− 1)
B

Specific
Improved configuration

19.4
18.0
23.6
19.8
32.3
41.3
25.4
30.0
0
0 1 2 3 4
Time (d)

Fig. 6. A: Operation conditions during validation assays. B: Electric con­

(kg⋅kWh− 1)
Specific
FOGEXT
sumption of the IAF system during validation assays.

0.34
0.31
0.27
0.32
0.47
0.62
0.38
0.39
contrast, with the improved configuration, the energy consumed is
reduced to ~25 kWh⋅h− 1 during the day, because the number of turbines
is reduced from six to four, and up to 15 kWh⋅h− 1 during night, owing to consumption
(kWh⋅d− 1)
the further reduction to three turbines and the closure of one channel.
Electric

859
857
855
862
508
507
508
508
On average, the traditional configuration consumes 858 kWh⋅d− 1,
whereas the improved configuration consumes only 508 kWh⋅d− 1. This
implies a reduction of 40 % in the energy consumption of the IAF system.
FOG extraction of the IAF system using both configurations was
Daily values

yield (%)

performed to evaluate whether the reduction in energy consumption

FOGEXT

16.7
15.5
20.2
17.1
16.4
21.0
12.9
15.2
had a negative impact on the system performance. The daily and average
results for the traditional and improved configurations are summarized
in Table 4. It can be observed that the FOG extraction is similar in the
(kg⋅d− 1)

traditional (270 kg⋅d− 1) and improved configurations (230 kg⋅d− 1). As

FOGEXT

296
270
233
278
238
315
190
198

the inflow and FOG inlet exhibited similar values in both assays, the FOG
extraction yield was also in the same range for both configurations (17 %
and 16 %). These results, together with the decrease in the energy
(mg⋅L− 1)
FOGOUT

consumption achieved using the improved IAF configuration, translate

35.4
33.7
20.3
29.8
29.8
29.4
32.2
27.9

into an increase in the specific FOG extraction from 0.31 to 0.46

kg⋅kWh− 1. This represents an increase of 48 % and a rise in the specific
FOG extraction yield from 20 to 32 % of the FOG reduction per kilowatt
(mg⋅L− 1)
FOGIN

hour (60 % increase).

42.5
39.9
25.4
35.9
35.7
37.1
36.9
32.9
FOG extraction results in validation assays.

The results obtained with these full-scale assays validate the IAF
improved configuration employed against the traditional configuration,
as it resulted in a considerable reduction in the energy consumption
(m3⋅d− 1)

41,764
43,736
45,357
45,386
40,567
40,446
39,948
39,432
Inflow

while maintaining a similar performance in FOG extraction and FOG

extraction yield. However, this configuration could be further optimized
if the system was automated, and changing the number of operating
channels and turbines was easier. To achieve this automation, an opti­
Day

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

mized operational configuration was designed, the scheme is shown in

Fig. 7. This control module was based on changing the number of IAF
configuration

configuration
Traditional

Improved

channels in operation based on the inflow to achieve an average HRT

within the optimum range (0.20 ± 0.04 h, based on inflow flowmeter
Table 4

values) and the number of turbines per channel based on the FOG inlet
(OLR), which was correlated with the measurements obtained at the of

9
M. Romero-Güiza et al.
Inflow and COD sensors
IAF - CONTROL
Estimation of 30 min average
Estimation of HRT and OLR
inflow and COD value
If inflow <2000 m3·h-1
2 IAF
Channels
If OLR <0.1 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1 If OLR 0.1-0.2 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1 If OLR >0.2 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1
2 TURBINES 3 TURBINES 4 TURBINES
Fig. 7. Schematic representation of optimized IAF-CONTROL module for WWTP.
COD inlet, measured using an online probe (UVASsc, HACH, Supple­
mentary Material, Fig. S7).
3.4. Opportunities and challenges
The recovery of FOG from urban wastewater is a growing challenge
that increases energy and maintenance costs and can negatively affect
the performance of downstream treatment processes in WWTPs.
Currently, the management of IAF systems is left to the expertise of
operators to adjust the process when changes occur in the wastewater
inlet characteristics. Therefore, the methodology proposed herein to
determine the FOG content could be an alternative solution for moni­
toring and controlling IAF performance and can be used to optimize and
automate the IAF system. Furthermore, as stated previously, the adop­
tion of the SPV method should be straight-forward in most WWTP lab­
oratories because no advanced equipment is required, thus highlighting
the advantages of the proposed method.
A remaining challenge for the optimization of the IAF is the devel­
opment of sensors that can be installed in the WWTP for online moni­
toring of the FOG content in wastewater. In the meantime, the
identification of other parameters, such as COD, that can be reasonably
correlated with the FOG content is proposed. Additionally, there are
limited reports on IAF system performance or FOG removal in WWTP,
hence, it is difficult to compare if the yields obtained in this work are
within a reasonable range. Notably, each WWTP should conduct a spe­
cific evaluation of the IAF performance to determine the optimal oper­
ating conditions, as they may change depending on the characteristics of
the wastewater. Finally, the optimization of the IAF system is the first
step. The improvement in the recovery of FOG from wastewater should
be followed by a smart management strategy, such as co-digestion,
which transforms this waste into a resource.
4. Conclusions
FOG analyses play an important role in controlling and estimating
the IAF yield performance. The methodology based on the SPV proposed
herein is comparable to that of traditional IR-based quantification. The
SPV method supposes a significant improvement in terms of cost and
simplicity, and it can be performed in WWTP laboratories.
10
Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201
If inflow >2000 m3·h-1
3 IAF
Channels
If OLR <0.1 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1 If OLR 0.1-0.2 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1 If OLR >0.2 kgFOGIN·m-3·h-1
2 TURBINES 3 TURBINES 4 TURBINES
The proposed method for FOG determination was used in a full-scale
WWTP to evaluate the IAF system performance and determine the op­
timum operating conditions in terms of the residence time, organic
loading rate and air input. Based on the evaluation results, an improved
configuration was tested against the traditional operation of the IAF,
offering a reduction of 40 % in the energy consumption of the IAF system
and resulting comparable FOG removal. Furthermore, a control module
scheme is developed for improved efficiency of operation of an auto­
mated IAF systems.
The proposed methodology and case study offer an innovative
strategy for IAF optimization in urban WWTP. Systematic methodology,
process optimization and automation could enable WWTP operators to
increase IAF performance and FOG recovery yields.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Gloria Prunera for the analytical support
and Lleida WWTP staff the process operation support. The authors also
acknowledge Ajuntament de Lleida and Agencia Catalana de l'Aigua (ACA,
Generalitat de Catalunya) their support with research activities at Lleida
WWTP. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.103201.
M. Romero-Güiza et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201

References [22] T. Collin, R. Cunningham, B. Jefferson, R. Villa, Characterisation and energy

assessment of fats, oils and greases (FOG) waste at catchment level, Waste Manag.
103 (2020) 399–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.040.
[1] O. Larriba, E. Rovira-Cal, Z. Juznic-Zonta, A. Guisasola, J.A. Baeza, Evaluation of
[23] E.S. Salama, S. Saha, M.B. Kurade, S. Dev, S.W. Chang, B.H. Jeon, Recent trends in
the integration of P recovery, polyhydroxyalkanoate production and short cut
anaerobic co-digestion: fat, oil, and grease (FOG) for enhanced biomethanation,
nitrogen removal in a mainstream wastewater treatment process, Water Res. 172
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 70 (2019) 22–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2020), 115474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115474.
pecs.2018.08.002.
[2] A. Soares, Wastewater treatment in 2050: challenges ahead and future vision in a
[24] J. Hao, F.L. de los Reyes, X. He, Fat, oil, and grease (FOG) deposits yield higher
European context, Environ. Sci. Ecotechnology 2 (2020), 100030, https://doi.org/
methane than FOG in anaerobic co-digestion with waste activated sludge,
10.1016/j.ese.2020.100030.
J. Environ. Manag. 268 (2020), 110708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[3] K. Glińska, F. Stüber, A. Fabregat, J. Giralt, J. Font, J.M. Mateo-Sanz, E. Torrens,
jenvman.2020.110708.
C. Bengoa, Moving municipal WWTP towards circular economy: cellulose recovery
[25] M.S. Romero-güiza, J. Palatsi, X. Tomas, P. Icaran, F. Rogalla, V.M. Monsalvo, in:
from primary sludge with ionic liquid, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 154 (2020),
Anaerobic Co-digestion of Alkaline Pre-treated Grease Trap Waste : Laboratory-
104626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104626.
scale Research to Full-scale Implementation 149, 2021, pp. 958–966, https://doi.
[4] Y. Zhou, P. Stanchev, E. Katsou, S. Awad, M. Fan, A circular economy use of
org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.043.
recovered sludge cellulose in wood plastic composite production: recycling and
[26] H. Da Silva Almeida, O.A. Corrêa, J.G. Eid, H.J. Ribeiro, D.A.R. De Castro, M.
eco-efficiency assessment, Waste Manag. 99 (2019) 42–48, https://doi.org/
S. Pereira, L.M. Pereira, A. De Andrade Mâncio, M.C. Santos, J.A. Da Silva Souza, L.
10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.037.
E.P. Borges, N.M. Mendonça, N.T. Machado, Production of biofuels by thermal
[5] M. Esteban-Gutiérrez, J. Garcia-Aguirre, I. Irizar, E. Aymerich, From sewage sludge
catalytic cracking of scum from grease traps in pilot scale, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
and Agri-food waste to VFA: individual acid production potential and up-scaling,
118 (2016) 20–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.12.019.
Waste Manag. 77 (2018) 203–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[27] A.M.E. Ragauskas, A.J. Ragauskas, Re-defining the future of FOG and biodiesel,
wasman.2018.05.027.
J. Pet. Environ. Biotechnol. 04 (2013) 1–2, https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-
[6] H. Liu, P. Han, H. Liu, G. Zhou, B. Fu, Z. Zheng, Full-scale production of VFAs from
7463.1000e118.
sewage sludge by anaerobic alkaline fermentation to improve biological nutrients
[28] A.M.E. Ragauskas, Y. Pu, A.J. Ragauskas, Biodiesel from grease interceptor to gas
removal in domestic wastewater, Bioresour. Technol. 260 (2018) 105–114,
tank, Energy Sci. Eng. 1 (2013) 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.105.
[29] V.M. Pérez, J.M.M. Fernández, J.V. Balsera, C.A. Álvarez, A random forest model
[7] M.S. Romero-Güiza, L. Pereira, X. Tomas, J. Palatsi, P. Icaran, V.M. Monsalvo,
for the prediction of fog content in inlet wastewater from urban wwtps, Water
Assessment of hyper-thermophilic/mesophilic temperature-phased anaerobic co-
(Switzerland) 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091237.
digestion of crude glycerine and sewage sludge, Fuel 289 (2021), 119956, https://
[30] N. Shammas, Flotation Technology, Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2010, https://doi.
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119956.
org/10.1007/978-1-60327-133-2.
[8] M. Castrillo, R. Díez-Montero, A.L. Esteban-García, I. Tejero, Mass transfer
[31] N. Nitayapat, P. Chitprasert, Characterisation of FOGs in grease trap waste from the
enhancement and improved nitrification in MABR through specific membrane
processing of chickens in Thailand, Waste Manag. 34 (2014) 1012–1017, https://
configuration, Water Res. 152 (2019) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.010.
watres.2019.01.001.
[32] A.R. Byreddy, A. Gupta, C.J. Barrow, M. Puri, A quick colorimetric method for total
[9] B.J. Thwaites, M.D. Short, R.M. Stuetz, P.J. Reeve, J.P.Alvarez Gaitan, N. Dinesh,
lipid quantification in microalgae, J. Microbiol. Methods 125 (2016) 28–32,
B. van den Akker, Comparing the performance of aerobic granular sludge versus
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.04.002.
conventional activated sludge for microbial log removal and effluent quality:
[33] A. Anschau, C.S. Caruso, R.C. Kuhn, T.T. Franco, Validation of the sulfo-
implications for water reuse, Water Res. 145 (2018) 442–452, https://doi.org/
phosphovanillin (SPV) method for the determination of lipid content in oleaginous
10.1016/j.watres.2018.08.038.
microorganisms, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 34 (2017) 19–27, https://doi.org/10.1590/
[10] A. Pedrouso, I. Aiartza, N. Morales, J.R. Vázquez-Padín, F. Rogalla, J.L. Campos,
0104-6632.20170341s20140222.
A. Mosquera-Corral, A. Val del Rio, Pilot-scale ELAN® process applied to treat
[34] J. Park, H.J. Jeong, E.Y. Yoon, S.J. Moon, Easy and rapid quantification of lipid
primary settled urban wastewater at low temperature via partial nitritation-
contents of marine dinoflagellates using the sulpho-phospho-vanillin method,
anammox processes, Sep. Purif. Technol. 200 (2018) 94–101, https://doi.org/
Algae 31 (2016) 391–401, https://doi.org/10.4490/algae.2016.31.12.7.
10.1016/j.seppur.2018.02.017.
[35] A. McMahon, H. Lu, I.A. Butovich, The spectrophotometric sulfo-phospho-vanillin
[11] N. Morales, Á. Val del Río, J.R. Vázquez-Padín, R. Méndez, J.L. Campos,
assessment of total lipids in human meibomian gland secretions, Lipids 48 (2013)
A. Mosquera-Corral, The granular biomass properties and the acclimation period
513–525, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11745-013-3755-9.
affect the partial nitritation/anammox process stability at a low temperature and
[36] Y.S. Cheng, Y. Zheng, J.S. VanderGheynst, Rapid quantitative analysis of lipids
ammonium concentration, Process Biochem. 51 (2016) 2134–2142, https://doi.
using a colorimetric method in a microplate format, Lipids 46 (2011) 95–103,
org/10.1016/j.procbio.2016.08.029.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11745-010-3494-0.
[12] J.E. Baeten, D.J. Batstone, O.J. Schraa, M.C.M. van Loosdrecht, E.I.P. Volcke,
[37] A. Schwarz, D. Hornung, M. Witthohn, D. Strieth, R. Ulber, K. Muffler, A modified
Modelling anaerobic, aerobic and partial nitritation-anammox granular sludge
method for colorimetric quantification of lipids from cyanobacteria, Algal Res. 50
reactors - a review, Water Res. 149 (2019) 322–341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.102015.
watres.2018.11.026.
[38] Z. Chen, L. Wang, S. Qiu, S. Ge, Determination of microalgal lipid content and fatty
[13] S.F. Mohsenpour, S. Hennige, N. Willoughby, A. Adeloye, T. Gutierrez, Integrating
acid for biofuel production, Biomed. Res. Int. 2018 (2018), https://doi.org/
micro-algae into wastewater treatment: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 752 (2021),
10.1155/2018/1503126.
142168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142168.
[39] Q. Tao, F. Gao, C.Y. Qian, X.Z. Guo, Z. Zheng, Z.H. Yang, Enhanced biomass/
[14] M. Solé-Bundó, F. Passos, M.S. Romero-Güiza, I. Ferrer, S. Astals, Co-digestion
biofuel production and nutrient removal in an algal biofilm airlift photobioreactor,
strategies to enhance microalgae anaerobic digestion: a review, Renew. Sust.
Algal Res. 21 (2017) 9–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2016.11.004.
Energ. Rev. 112 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.036.
[40] S.K. Mishra, W.I. Suh, W. Farooq, M. Moon, A. Shrivastav, M.S. Park, J.W. Yang,
[15] D. Puyol, V.M. Monsalvo, E. Marin, F. Rogalla, J.A. Melero, F. Martínez, T. Hülsen,
Rapid quantification of microalgal lipids in aqueous medium by a simple
D.J. Batstone, Purple phototrophic bacteria as a platform to create the next
colorimetric method, Bioresour. Technol. 155 (2014) 330–333, https://doi.org/
generation of wastewater treatment plants: energy and resource recovery, in:
10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.077.
Wastewater Treat. Residues as Resour. Biorefinery Prod. Biofuels, Elsevier, 2020,
[41] S. Jiménez, M. Micó, Dissolved air flotation and settling processes for emulsified oil
pp. 255–280, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816204-0.00012-6.
and grease removal in produced water trains, in: Euromed 15 - Palermo, 2015.
[16] P. Otter, S. Hertel, J. Ansari, E. Lara, R. Cano, C. Arias, P. Gregersen, T. Grischek,
[42] G.M. Nisola, E.S. Cho, H.K. Shon, D. Tian, D.J. Chun, E.M. Gwon, W.J. Chung, Cell
F. Benz, A. Goldmaier, J.A. Alvarez, Disinfection for decentralized wastewater
immobilized FOG-trap system for fat, oil, and grease removal from restaurant
reuse in rural areas through wetlands and solar driven onsite chlorination, Sci.
wastewater, J. Environ. Eng. 135 (2009) 876–884, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
Total Environ. 721 (2020), 137595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
0733-9372(2009)135:9(876).
scitotenv.2020.137595.
[43] M.V. Melo, G.L. Sant’Anna, G. Massarani, Flotation techniques for oily water
[17] P. Painmanakul, P. Sastaravet, S. Lersjintanakarn, S. Khaodhiar, Effect of bubble
treatment, Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom) 24 (2003) 867–876, https://doi.
hydrodynamic and chemical dosage on treatment of oily wastewater by induced air
org/10.1080/09593330309385623.
flotation (IAF) process, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 88 (2010) 693–702, https://doi.org/
[44] G. Silvestre, A. Rodríguez-Abalde, B. Fernández, X. Flotats, A. Bonmatí, Biomass
10.1016/j.cherd.2009.10.009.
adaptation over anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and trapped grease waste,
[18] W.H. Zhang, I. Kaur, W. Zhang, J. Shen, Y. Ni, Recovery of manool from evaporator
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 6830–6836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
condensate by induced air flotation in a Kraft pulp mill based integrated
biortech.2011.04.019.
biorefinery, Sep. Purif. Technol. 188 (2017) 508–511, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[45] J.A. Costa, N.C. Farias, Y.G.C. Queirós, C.R.E. Mansur, Determination of oil-in-
seppur.2017.07.063.
water using nanoemulsions as solvents and UV visible and total organic carbon
[19] A.M.A. Pintor, V.J.P. Vilar, C.M.S. Botelho, R.A.R. Boaventura, Oil and grease
detection methods, Talanta 107 (2013) 304–311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
removal from wastewaters: sorption treatment as an alternative to state-of-the-art
talanta.2013.01.040.
technologies. A critical review, Chem. Eng. J. 297 (2016) 229–255, https://doi.
[46] Z.Banan Khorshid, M.Mahdi Doroodmand, S. Abdollahi, UV–Vis.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.03.121.
Spectrophotometric Method for Oil and Grease Determination in Water, Soil and
[20] C. Gurd, R. Villa, B. Jefferson, Understanding why fat, oil and grease (FOG)
Different Mediates Based on Emulsion, Elsevier, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bioremediation can be unsuccessful, J. Environ. Manag. 267 (2020), 110647,
microc.2020.105620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110647.
[47] C.S. Frings, R.T. Dunn, A colorimetric method for determination of total serum
[21] T. Wallace, D. Gibbons, M. O’Dwyer, T.P. Curran, International evolution of fat, oil
lipids based on the sulfo-phospho-vanillin reaction, Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 53 (1970)
and grease (FOG) waste management – a review, J. Environ. Manag. 187 (2017)
89–91, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/53.1.89.
424–435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.003.

11
M. Romero-Güiza et al.
[48] A. Saifer, N. Feldman, The photometric determination of gangliosides eith sulfo-
phospho-vanillin reaction, J. Lipid Res. 12 (1971) 112–115.
[49] J. Palatsi, F. Ripoll, A. Benzal, M. Pijuan, M.S. Romero-güiza, Enhancement of
biological nutrient removal process with advanced process control tools in full-
scale wastewater treatment plant, Water Res. 200 (2021), 117212, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2021.117212.
[50] M.S. Romero-Güiza, X. Flotats, R. Asiain-Mira, J. Palatsi, Enhancement of sewage
sludge thickening and energy self-sufficiency with advanced process control tools
12
Journal of Water Process Engineering 50 (2022) 103201
in a full-scale wastewater treatment plant, Water Res. 222 (2022), 118924, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118924.
[51] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty
fir, American Public Health Association, Washingthon-USA, 2005.
[52] D. Giavarina, Understanding Bland Altman analysis, Biochem. Med. 25 (2015)
141–151, https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015.
[53] S. Yan, X. Yang, Z. Bai, X. Xu, H. Wang, Drop attachment behavior of oil droplet-
gas bubble interactions during flotation, Chem. Eng. Sci. 223 (2020), 115740,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2020.115740.