Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ESU2
ESU2
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Technologies to remove nitrogen from wastewater are employed to preserve drinking water and prevent
Received 20 November 2019 environmental damage. Nitrification/denitrification and partial nitrification-anammox are two accepted
Received in revised form nitrogen removal techniques for wastewater treatment plants. These processes require energy for
12 February 2020
aeration and can release fugitive greenhouse gases in the form of nitrous oxide. Electrodialysis could
Accepted 15 March 2020
Available online 18 March 2020
potentially be used as an alternative to remove ammonium from waste streams, but previous experi-
mentation has concluded that concentrate streams experience rapid scaling and fouling of membranes.
Handling Editor: Panos Seferlis This analysis compiles literature values to compare the state-of-the-art of municipal nitrogen removal to
the new electrodialysis technique on an economic basis. Results show that nitrogen removal and re-
Keywords: covery by electrodialysis is estimated to lower both initial capital costs and subsequent operation costs
Nutrient recovery than traditional N removal technologies.
Nutrient recycling © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Tertiary treatment (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Ammonium
Reject water
Optimization
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121145
0959-6526/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
2 D. Vineyard et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121145
1973; Clark et al., 2010). Nitrification/denitrification is a mature Electrodialysis has been previously explored as a method of
technology with a variety of reactor designs that utilize specialized removing NHþ 4 from municipal treatment streams (Eisenmann,
bacteria strains (Clark et al., 2010). As wastewater enters the reactor, 1967) but the process was hampered by accumulation of calcium
it is aerated to increase the dissolved oxygen content. NHþ 4 oxidizing (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) scale (presumably carbonates and
bacteria use this oxygen to nitrify NHþ
4 to nitrite (NO2 ) and then phosphates) on membranes that halted ion flow. Given that both Ca
nitrate (NO 3 ). Once sufficient oxidation is achieved and microbe and Mg are divalent ions, the intention of this new strategy is
populations are high, aeration ceases and the oxygen-starved twofold: prevent their accumulation beyond solubility and subse-
microbiota begins denitrification, converting soluble NO 3 to N2 quent precipitation on membrane surfaces in the concentrate
gas through a series of intermediates using the various N oxides as stream as various carbonate and phosphate minerals (Cifuentes-
electron acceptors coincident with anaerobic metabolism of dis- Araya et al., 2012) and to avoid wasted energy on moving low
solved organic carbon (C). The nitrification/denitrification process value ions such as Ca and Mg in lieu of NHþ 4 . The tendency toward
requires energy in the form of electricity for aeration and mixing and fouling caused by interaction of complex organic molecules with
requires a C source for energy and biomass; this C is typically derived the anion exchange surface is also expected to be inhibited by
from organic molecules extant in the process water and thus serves monovalent-selective anion exchange membranes. To further
to decrease biological oxygen demand (USEPA, 1973). Reactors can alleviate this, we envisage a regime of frequent electrodialysis
add an external organic substrate, such as methanol, to improve N reversal (EDR) and flushes of cleaning solution as necessary. The
removal by providing an easily reacted C source to be oxidized by scope and scale of these cleaning procedures that will be necessary
NO 3 (USEPA, 1973; Purtschert et al., 1996; Theis and Hicks, 2012). are specific to the stack and the solution. Chao and Liang (2008)
Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) is a recent dis- successfully used electrodialysis to desalinate raw municipal
covery and a relative newcomer to the wastewater N management wastewater using a sand filter pretreatment, an hourly polarity
industry (Lackner et al., 2014). Similar to nitrification/denitrifica- reversal, and a once-per-week 30-min 5% hydrochloric acid treat-
tion, anammox relies on microbial communities to convert NHþ 4 to ment. The American Water Works Association (1995) recommends
N gas (USEPA, 2007). In this process, NHþ
4 reacts with NO2 to pro- a faster 15- to 30-min reversal cycle. An electrodialysis system
duce N2 and water (USEPA, 2007; Lu et al., 2011). Stoichiometrically, processing wastewater may wish to keep diluate and concentrate
anammox requires only 50% of NHþ
4 to be oxidized to NO2 but channels completely isolated, with wastewater as the diluate and a
around 57% is considered ideal (Magri et al., 2012). Anammox re- receptor solution as the concentrate influent; this would necessi-
quires just over one-third of the oxygen of nitrification/denitrifi- tate short, aggressive EDR cycles during which stack effluent would
cation and no C amendment for the same NHþ 4 removal but is be untreated and need to be disposed or diverted back to headflow.
incapable of processing NO 3 (Eini, 2012). The process is compli- In contrast to other N removal technologies, electrodialysis may
cated by the dual need to assure that NHþ
4 oxidizes to NO2 without enable recover of an aqueous NHþ 4 product that has potential use as
continuing to NO 3 and to maintain a reactor favorable to the a fertilizer. Electrodialysis will also recover other monovalent ions
growth of anaerobic ammonium oxidizers (Nifong et al., 2013). such as potassium, sodium, and chloride e each of which may have
Therefore, a partial nitrification-anammox reactor generally re- its own implication for fertilizer use depending on the destination
quires specific ranges of pH, C, retention time, and temperature for e in amounts that will vary depending on the composition of the
the slow-growing anammox bacteria to overcome their microbial feed and selectivity of the ion exchange membranes.
competitors (Eini, 2012). Reactors can take years to set up while This study seeks to economically compare an electrodialysis
simultaneously being vulnerable to population collapse if condi- strategy utilizing monovalent-selective membranes to recover NHþ 4
tions are disturbed and competing bacteria populations bloom (Hu from digester reject water to established nitrogen removal tech-
et al., 2013). Anammox reactors are well-suited for side stream niques, i.e., nitrification and anammox. We propose an optimiza-
processing (USEPA, 2007) of anaerobic digester reject water and tion strategy for determining ideal amperage for lowest cost N
can achieve high N removal rates (Lu et al., 2011; Nifong et al., removal from an electrodialysis stack using a multivariate model
2013). Reactors can vary by batch vs. plug-flow design, hydraulic accepting highly customizable influent and stack qualities. We
retention time, oxygenation regime, and partial nitrification pre- compare this theoretical optimized electrodialysis regime to liter-
cursor (Nifong et al., 2013; USEPA, 2015a). More detailed explana- ature surveys and estimates of costs for existing nitrification/
tions of the anammox process and its implementation can be found denitrification and anammox reactors to estimate potential cost
in van Dongen et al. (2001), Fux et al. (2002), and Eini (2012). savings. As the analysis does not capture the full complex in-
Electrodialysis is a mature technology typically used in industry teractions of an electrodialyzed municipal waste stream, this serves
for desalination through the use of an electric current and ion- as a first step for characterizing a potential emerging technology.
permeable membranes (Pruyn et al., 1969). The electrodialysis
stack typically consists of alternating cation- and anion-exchange 2. Methods
membranes (CEM, AEM) separated with spacers, with inert elec-
trodes on each end to which an electrical field is applied to the Our analysis assumes that the new technology will be imple-
stack. As aqueous solutions flows between these specialized mented with the intention of meeting a nutrient removal goal
membranes, cations are drawn from a diluate stream toward the rather than a volumetric influent goal and as such have chosen a
cathode through a cation exchange membrane into the concentrate mass basis for N removed; this allows decision-makers to directly
stream while anions are drawn from the diluate stream on the compare the estimated impacts incurred by meeting their goals and
other side toward the anode through anion exchange membranes. then size their system accordingly. Our functional unit for com-
The ions of the influent stream are thereby separated into an parison is a single kilogram of NHþ
4 -N removed. We assess only the
enriched concentrate stream and a partially desalinated diluate marginal impacts of nutrient removal; scalability and total removal
stream. A set of one CEM, one AEM, and their accompanying potential of technologies are outside our scope.
concentrate and diluate streams comprise a cell pair. Electrodialysis When wastewater specifics are necessary, data are taken from
can be an energy-efficient method of concentrating ions but solu- the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant in Madison, Wis-
tions with high electrical resistance or large desalting goals can consin, a mid-size treatment plant that serves a population of
affect stack performance; longer process times equate to higher 360,000 over a 180 sq. mile (466 km2) service area, with a design
equipment costs to meet required capacity. capacity of 50 million gallons per day (50 MGD; 189270 m3/day).
D. Vineyard et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121145 3
Table 1 Assuming a linear scale rate, a single stack would cost ~$77,000 and
Chesapeake Bay Program estimates of upgraded N removal capital costs. the surrounding infra-structure would cost ~$220,000 for a total of
MGD CAPITAL YEARLY OPERATION ~$297,000 (~$85.6M divided among 288 stacks). Though a linear
0.1 $241,000 $7046
scale rate will likely underestimate the cost of smaller installations
1 $1,112,000 $29,218 in isolation, it also does not account for the possibility of savings
10 $4,927,000 $157,469 through infrastructure overlap such as fitting a smaller installation
30 $12,383,000 $293,938 in a preexisting building. The net should be somewhere in the
middle and our sensitivity analysis covers the possibility of
dramatically higher capital costs. Amortizing to 20 years at 3% in-
be required for aeration (as assumed in an example within the EPA terest compounded monthly, we find a monthly cost of capital of
nitrogen control manual (USEPA, 1993); and adding a 33% pumping ~$1650 per stack. General Electric suggests 320 h per week to
and lighting cost for a total of 3.54 kWh/kg N, or 2.65 kWh/kg for maintain a 288-stack system, or 1.11 h per week per stack (~$243/
aeration alone. This energy consumption is in agreement with month at the suggested ~$50.20/hr in 2018 USD). They also sug-
other literature estimates (Supplementary Information, Table 2A). gested 5% equipment/year maintenance costs, or ~$322 monthly
The CBP model assumed no oxygen recovery. Nitrification/Deni- cost. Membrane replacement (~$38,100) every 10 years has a
trification is estimated to cost $15.56/kg N removed (Table 2). monthly cost equivalent of ~$287 when discounted at a net 2%.
Given the small fraction of costs represented by chemical use in the
2.2. Anammox original analysis and tendency of monovalent-selective membranes
to inhibit scaling and fouling, we assume no chemical costs. We
Anammox cost data are taken from Fux and Siegrist (2004), and assume no disposal cost due to the creation of a marketable product
environmental and economic assessment using simulated reactors from the concentrate. All inflexible costs sum to a total ~$2500
and industry standard price estimations. Amortized capital was monthly. If we assume 10% downtime for cleaning, the inflexible
estimated to be more than half of the total cost for removal. Energy cost of the stack per hour of operation becomes ~$3.80 in 2018 USD,
costs were estimated to be about 12.5% of the remaining costs, or 6% with ~$2.51 stemming from upfront capital and ~$1.29 stemming
of the total costs, with the rest stemming from operation and repair from maintenance.
plus a very small budget for chemical amendments. The study
estimated 1.5 kWh/kg N electricity consumption, a survey of liter-
ature data (Supplementary Information, Table 3A) on anammox 2.3.2. Electricity consumption
reactor performance estimated 1.44 kWh/kg N. These results were In an electrodialysis stack, the total energy consumption is the
similar in proportion to the CPB study. Anammox is estimated to product of the voltage and the electric current or, by Ohm’s law, the
cost $4.09/kgN removed (Table 3). square of the current times the resistance. Resistance is an additive
property of both the cell membranes and the ionic solutions; dilute
solutions have a higher electrical resistance. The number of cell
2.3. Electrodialysis pairs both increases the stack resistance and increases the number
of ions transported across membranes, with a net neutral effect.
2.3.1. Capital and maintenance The most important characteristics for predicting the energy con-
The most comprehensive analysis we found for the installation sumption for an ED stack are the conductivities and flow rates of
of a utility-scale ED system for municipal wastewater was a bid the concentrate and diluate streams, the resistance of the mem-
made by General Electric (GE) to the Madison Municipal Sewerage branes, and the desired operating current. The voltage per cell pair
District included in a public report on alternative strategies for is an emergent property from these characteristics and, together
chloride removal from its 15 MGD throughput (AECOM, 2015). with the current efficiency, can be used to directly calculate the
These capital estimates are similar to the predictions of McGovern energy efficiency of the system. The relationship between these
et al. (2014) and offer a comprehensive estimate of the capital cost stack conditions and resultant voltage is complicated. The most
of a wastewater electrodialysis installation generalizable to other profitable setting for an electrodialysis stack will be dependent
purposes. The total cost estimate included the cost of 288 stacks, both on the relationship between voltage and current for the spe-
pumps, reservoirs, chemical feeds, a dedicated building, and an cific system and on the values of energy and NHþ 4 removal itself.
engineering and contingency budget proportional to the con- The Tanaka (2015) electrodialysis stack model is a calculator in
struction cost. At ~$85.6 million in total cost (~$81M in 2015), the the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet designed to account for a
system was expected to remove 19 mol of charge per kWh and number of electrochemical and fluid dynamic effects. To facilitate
consume 4.05 kWh per thousand gallons for a total of nearly 1.2 our use of the spreadsheet, two modifications were made: the
million moles of charge per day. addition of a macro to implement Solver root finding and automatic
We repurpose parts of this proposal for treating a portion of the copy-and-paste where necessary and the modification of a number
0.25 MGD GBT reject water stream for NHþ 4 removal with a single of cell formulas to avoid zero or negative values upon recalculation.
stack. Scaled down, a single stack and its supporting pumps and These alterations improved stability, speed, and ease of use of the
piping should occupy less than six square meters of floor space. model without affecting the final results.
The GE stack with GBT filtrate and higher resistance
monovalent-selective exchange membranes to reduce scaling and
Table 2
Operation costs, capital costs amortized at 3%, and energy consumption per kilogram fouling was modeled using the Tanaka (2015) model with 600 cells,
of N for Nitrification/Denitrification. 44.1 cm by 92.8 cm membranes, a 0.0772 cm spacer, ~29500 L/h
flow rate, 23 U cm2 membranes, and a ~0.119 eq/L influent con-
Cost Energy
ductivity to predict stack voltage as a function of stack current. The
Capital Operation Total
current/voltage relationship predicted by the Tanaka model is
UNIT 2018$ USD 2018$ USD 2018$ USD kWh mildly nonlinear and the predicted stack resistance, embodied by
NITRO/DENITRO 8 TO 5 10.40 5.16 15.56 3.54 the slope of the voltage to current relationship, can be estimated
SOURCE CBP, 2002 CBP, 2002 CBP, 2002
(r2 ¼ 0.9995) by the polynomial:
D. Vineyard et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121145 5
Table 3
Operation costs, capital costs amortized at 3%, and energy consumption per kilogram of N for Anammox.
Cost Energy
,
3:8 þ 0:00007731* 0:0264*I 3 þ 6:3197*I 2 þ 11:641*I þ 947
Cost kgN ¼ 0:53 (12)
ð0:256*IÞ
Cost$
¼ C þ M* I 2 *R þ P A*Q *I (5)
hr
where:
kgN B*T*G*N*E
Q¼ ¼ (6)
amp*hr F
or numerically:
Cost$
¼ 3:8 þ 0:00007731* I 2 *R þ 947 0:53*0:256*I (7)
hr
kgN 600*3600*0:861*0:014*0:95
Q¼ ¼ ¼ 0:256 (8)
amp*hr 96485:3329
where I ¼ current applied (amp); R ¼ stack resistance (U); Fig. 1. Cost of nitrogen removal as a product of stack amperage for the modeled
C ¼ hourly capital ($/hr, $3.80); M ¼ electricity price ($/Wh, electrodialysis stack.
6 D. Vineyard et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121145
Table 4
Operation costs, capital costs amortized at 3%, and energy consumption per kilogram of N for Electrodialysis.
Cost Energy
The modeled electrodialysis stack was predicted to have signifi- cleaning cycles, quadruple stack resistance, quintuple pumping
cantly lower costs than the nearest competitor technology, the costs, and an artificial current ceiling of 19.5 stack amps brings the
anammox system. Price differences stem mostly from the reduced estimated cost of removal to only $2.24 per kilogram; this estimate
upfront capital cost of an electrodialysis system versus the is still nearly half of the expected cost of an anammox reactor.
construction-intensive aeration basin systems; even assuming a The product of an electrodialysis stack used for side stream NHþ 4
best case sale price, NHþ 4 sale revenues were a small portion of recovery will require yet unknown post processing to form a
overall cost savings. The shallow cost curve around the economic marketable fertilizer product, but there is considerable margin in
optimum suggests that electrodialysis stacks may be economically the budget to include this processing and remain favorable. An
forgiving of non-optimized amperages. electrodialysis stack could theoretically concentrate NHþ 4 with
Our results are supported, in part, by multiple models. equimolar chloride and bicarbonate up to about 4 mol/L, or 6%
McGovern et al. (2014), in a similar analysis, predicted cost of $0.60/ nitrogen by mass and roughly the limit of solubility, before pre-
kg of salt removed for hydrofracking reject water of similar salin- cipitation and scaling begin at 20 C (Barak, 2019, unpublished
ities to our side stream; most costs were predicted to come from data). Compared to anhydrous ammonia (82%), urea (46%), or even
amortized capital in an unfavorable installation environment. aqua ammonia (20%), a 6% solution would incur greater trans-
Substituting the McGovern et al. (2014) stack resistance estimate portation, storage, and application costs as a fertilizer. These costs
for the Tanaka estimate yields lower resistances and greater energy might be offset by shorter transportation distance between pro-
efficiency for lower costs. Cost estimates per kilogram of NH4eN duction and application. It remains possible that post-processing
removed were much lower than suggested by the GE proposal for might include further concentration by volatilizing and
equivalent ion removal because the increased stack current lead to condensing ammonia or ammonium bicarbonate or cooling to
greater removal which reduced average cost of capital and pump- induce crystallization. Though these products will avoid typical
ing per unit removed. Even if increased electric currents prove waste-derived fertilizer concerns about the over-application of
infeasible in practice and NHþ 4 has a less seller-favorable market, phosphorus (P), they will introduce concerns about application of
the stack remains the estimated lowest cost option even at high of chlorides.
20 stack amps used by the GE-model. Electrodialysis operated at Because of interactions with organics and precipitates, it is likely
optimal cost efficiency was projected to consume more electricity that a stack used to treat municipal waste will not have a voltage/
per kilogram of N than an anammox system but less than a nitri- amperage relationship summarized by a simple quadratic equation.
fication/denitrification system. Future work on pilot scale reactors should attempt to better char-
Electrodialysis with monovalent selective membranes appears acterize the relationships mathematically so that operators can
economically favorable in comparison to traditional aeration based utilize more robust optimization methods for current selection and
technologies. Comparisons are robust against changes in underly- EDR scheduling.
ing assumptions behind the electrodialysis model such as capital Given the limited scope of this project and the complex in-
cost, electric resistance, and operation conditions (Table 5); addi- terrelations of wastewater treatment processes, there may be un-
tional details of alternative assumptions are supplied in the sup- foreseen externalities to implementation of these technologies not
plemental information. Creating an artificial amperage ceiling of captured in our methodology. Some wastewater treatment systems
19.5 stack amps, a condition applied in the AECOM (2015) project, may not have suitable influent for processing, may have side stream
more than doubles the price of removal. Tripling electricity cost, as processes incompatible with new nutrient removal methods or
in the isolated Hawaiian island grids, adds roughly two thirds to the may have existing products degraded by nutrient removal. One
cost while Washington electric prices reduce it by about 20%. such possibility is biosolids production, a product that is frequently
Quadrupling the stack resistance, a situation that could occur in limited in agricultural use by an excess of P in relation to N; up-
more dilute waste streams or with fouled membranes, less than stream removal of N may exacerbate P/N ratio concerns. Current
doubles the cost. Quintupling pumping costs causes only a minor allocation methods disregard any costs or benefits of pathogen
increase. Operation-independent cost perturbations, such as a 5% reduction or C removal in the reaction. A greenhouse gas emissions
amortization rate, 25% downtime, daily hour long technician trading regime may economically favor electrodialysis over aera-
cleanings, or doubling capital or repair costs, all have smaller effects tion technologies.
than increased energy prices. Even an aggregation of doubled The costs of the nitrification/denitrification and partial
capital costs, 25% operational downtime, daily hourly technician nitrification-anammox processes have previously been quantified
Table 5
Sensitivity of electrodialysis optimization and predicted costs to altered assumptions.
and shown to be facility-dependent, but the costs of municipal- and monovalent salts from anaerobic digestate. U.S. Patent 10,125,428, 13 Nov
2018. (US Patent Application 20150308001. Filed: 24 Apr 2015, Publication date:
scale electrodialysis have not. McGovern et al. (2014), the GE pro-
29 Oct 2015)..
posal (AECOM, 2015), and this research have attempted to estimate Barak, P., 2019. Testing the Performance of an Electrodialysis Stack Extracting Ni-
costs with a useful methodological framework, but data are not trogen from the Gravity Belt Thickener Reject Water of the Nine Springs
robust. Necessary cost data include equipment purchase, installa- Wastewater Treatment Plant in Madison. WI. Unpublished raw data.
Chao, Y.-M., Liang, T.M., 2008. A feasibility study of industrial wastewater recovery
tion, operation and maintenance, disposal, and lifespan and remain using electrodialysis reversal. Desalination 221, 433e439. https://doi.org/
uncertain until deployment at scale. Installation and energy costs 10.1016/j.desal.2007.04.065.
are expected to be low, but uncertainties currently exist for esti- Chesapeake Bay Program, 2002. Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations
for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Prepared by: The Nutrient
mating maintenance costs and costs of product post-processing Reduction Technology Cost Task Force e A Stakeholder Group of the Ches-
and transportation. Future work should assess pilot scale electro- apeake Bay Program.
dialysis installations and the post-processing required to make Cifuentes-Araya, N., Pourcelly, G., Bazinet, L., 2012. Multistep mineral fouling
growth on a cation-exchange membrane ruled by gradual sieving effects of
fertilizer from concentrate streams. magnesium and carbonate ions and its delay by pulsed modes of electrodialysis.
J. Colloid Interface Sci. 372, 217e230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2011.12.067.
5. Conclusions Clark, D.L., Hunt, G., Kasch, M.S., Lemonds, P.J., Moen, G.M., Neethling, J.B., HDR
Engineering Inc, 2010. Water Environment Research Foundation Nutrient
Management Report, 978-1-84339-617-8/1-84339-617-3.
Based on our study results, a theoretical electrodialysis stack Desloover, J., Woldeyohannis, A.A., Verstraete, W., Boon, N., Rabaey, K., 2012. Elec-
appears to be the preferable choice for nutrient removal technol- trochemical resource recovery from digestate to prevent ammonia toxicity
during anaerobic digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 12209e12216. https://
ogies from an economic standpoint. Electrodialysis is predicted to doi.org/10.1021/es3028154.
consume more electricity than an equivalent capacity anammox Desloover, J., De Vrieze, J., Van de Vijver, M., Mortelmans, J., Rozendal, R., Rabaey, K.,
system but less than an nitrification/denitrification system. 2015. Electrochemical nutrient recovery enables ammonia toxicity control and
biogas desulfurization in anaerobic digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49,
Reduced costs for an electrodialysis system stem largely from
948e955. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504811a.
greatly reduced upfront capital costs and low system footprint. Eini, E.J., 2012. Reducing Operating Cost with Anammox in Wastewater Treatment e
Side-stream electrodialysis as modeled does not have the N A Simulation Study. Chemical Engineering. Ryerson Univ., Engineering Com-
removal rate to meet typical N regulations, but does represent a mons, Toronto, Canada, p. 113.
Eisenmann, J.D.S.J.L., 1967. Electrodialysis in Advanced Waste Treatment. Environ-
low-cost method to remove NHþ 4 from N-rich streams that would mental Protection Agency Old Reports, p. 218.
reduce the need for expansion of other reactors to meet new Fux, C., Siegrist, H., 2004. Nitrogen removal from sludge digester liquids by nitri-
regulation. fication/denitrification or partial nitritation/anammox: environmental and
economical considerations. Water Sci. Technol. 50, 19e26. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wst.2004.0599.
Author contribution statement Fux, C., Boehler, M., Huber, P., Brunner, I., Siegrist, H., 2002. Biological treatment of
ammonium-rich wastewater by partial nitritation and subsequent anaerobic
ammonium oxidation (anammox) in a pilot plant. J. Biotechnol. 99, 295e306.
Donald Vineyard: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(02)00220-1.
Formal Analysis, Investigation, Data Curation, Writing e Original Gungor, K., Karthikeyan, K.G., 2008. Phosphorus forms and extractability in dairy
Draft, Writing e Review and Editing, Visualization. manure: a case study for Wisconsin on-farm anaerobic digesters. Bioresour.
Technol. 99, 425e436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.049.
Andrea Hicks: Writing e Review and Editing. Holly, M.A., Larson, R.A., Powell, J.M., Ruark, M.D., Aguirre-Villegas, H., 2017.
KG Karthikeyan: Writing e Review and Editing. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from digested and separated dairy
Phillip Barak: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing e Review manure during storage and after land application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 239,
410e419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.007.
and Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Funding Acquisition.
Hu, Z., Lotti, T., de Kreuk, M., Kleerebezem, R., van Loosdrecht, M., Kruit, J.,
Jetten, M.S.M., Kartal, B., 2013. Nitrogen removal by a nitritation-anammox
Acknowledgements bioreactor at low temperature. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 2807e2812.
https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.03987-12.
Karim, K., Hoffmann, R., Thomas Klasson, K., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2005. Anaerobic
One of the authors, Phillip Barak, is a co-owner of Nutrient Re- digestion of animal waste: effect of mode of mixing. Water Res. 39, 3597e3606.
covery and Upcycling, LLC, which is rights holder to US Patent https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.06.019.
Lackner, S., Gilbert, E.M., Vlaeminck, S.E., Joss, A., Horn, H., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.,
10,125,428 (issued 13 Nov. 2018) for the removal of nitrogen from
2014. Full-scale partial nitritation/anammox experiences e an application sur-
wastewater using monovalent-selective electrodialysis, with in- vey. Water Res. 55, 292e303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.02.032.
ternational patent applications pending. This work was funded by Lu, H., Ding, S., Zheng, P., 2011. Central metabolism of anammox bacteriaea review.
United States Department of Agriculture/National Institute of Food Acta Microbiol. Sin. 51, 1014e1022.
Magri, A., Vanotti, M.B., Szogi, A.A., Cantrell, K.B., 2012. Partial nitritation of swine
and Agriculture Hatch Project No. WIS01920. We thank the Nine wastewater in view of its coupling with the anammox process. J. Environ. Qual.
Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Madison Metropol- 41, 1989e2000. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0092.
itan Sewerage District for providing plant and reject water McGovern, R.K., Weiner, A.M., Sun, L., Chambers, C.G., Zubair, S.M., Lienhard, V.J.H.,
2014. On the cost of electrodialysis for the desalination of high salinity feeds.
specifications. Appl. Energy 136, 649e661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.09.050.
Nifong, A., Nelson, A., Johnson, C., Bott, C.B., 2013. Performance of a full-scale
Appendix A. Supplementary data sidestream DEMON® deammonification installation. Proc. Water Environ. Fed.
3686e3709. https://doi.org/10.2175/193864713813685700, 2013.
Ostace, G.S., Cristea, V.M., Agachi, P.Ş., 2011. Cost reduction of the wastewater
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at treatment plant operation by MPC based on modified ASM1 with two-step
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121145. nitrification/denitrification model. Comput. Chem. Eng. 35, 2469e2479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.03.031.
Pruyn, K.T., Harrington, J.J., Smith, J.D., 1969. Mathematical Model of the Electro-
References dialysis Process. Department of the Interior. Federal Water Quality Admin.,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
AECOM, 2015. Chloride Compliance Study Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Purtschert, I., Siegrist, H., Gujer, W., 1996. Enhanced denitrification with methanol
Plant Final Report. Prepared for: Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Nine at WWTP Zürich-Werdho € lzli. Water Sci. Technol. 33, 117e126. https://doi.org/
Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, Madison, WI. https://www.madsewer. 10.1016/0273-1223(96)00465-9.
org/Portals/0/ProgramInitiatives/ChlorideReduction/MMSD%20Chloride% Smith, R., 1968. Cost of conventional and advanced treatment of wastewater.
20Compliance%20Study%20Report%20-%20Final%206-19-15bookmarks.pdf. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 40, 1546e1574.
American Water Works Association, 1995. M38 Electrodialysis and Electrodialysis Tanaka, Y., 2003. Mass transport and energy consumption in ion-exchange mem-
Reversal. Am. Water Works Assoc., Washington DC, ISBN 9781613001677 brane electrodialysis of seawater. J. Membr. Sci. 215, 265e279. https://doi.org/
(Chapter 2). 10.1016/s0376-7388(03)00020-6.
Barak, P. 2018. Electrodialysis stacks, systems, and methods for recovering ammonia Tanaka, Y., 2015. Ion Exchange Membranes: Fundamentals and Applications.
D. Vineyard et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020) 121145 9
Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63319-4.00001-8. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Wastewater Tech-
Theis, T., Hicks, A., 2012. White Paper: Methanol Use in Wastewater Denitrification. nology Fact Sheet: Side Stream Nutrient Removal. Office of Water. NEPIS pub-
Exponent, Inc. for the Methanol Institute, Alexandria, Virginia. Doc. no. lication number 832F07017. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?
1105602.000 0101 0712 PT01. Dockey¼P100IL7Z.txt.
United States Geological Survey, 2019. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2019. Min- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. An urgent call to
eral Resources Program P 116. United States Department of the Interior. https:// action e report of the state-EPA nutrient innovations task group. State-EPA
doi.org/10.3133/70202434. Nutrient Innovations Task Group. https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Biological Nutrient Removal Processes nutrient-innovations-task-group-documents.
and Costs. Office of Water. NEPIS publication number 823R07002. https://nepis. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2015a. Case studies on
epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey¼ 60000G2U.txt. implementing low-cost modifications to improve nutrient reduction at waste-
United States Bureau of Labor (USBL), 2019. The Consumer Price Index: Concepts water treatment plants. Jointly supported by the office of wetlands oceans and
and Content over the Years. The Bureau, Washington, 1977. watersheds office of science and technology and office of wastewater man-
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2018. Fertilizer use and price. In: agement 1200 Pennsylvania ave., NW Washington, DC 20460. EPA-841-R-15-
Workbook, All Fertilizer Use and Price Tables in a Single Workbook. https:// 004. http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/reports-andresearch#reports.
www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2015b. A Compilation of
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1973. Nitrification and Cost Data Associated with the Impacts and Control of Nutrient Pollution. Office
Denitrification Facilities Wastewater Treatment. Technology Transfer. August. of Water. EPA-820-F-15-096.
Revised February 1974. NEPIS publication number 625473004A. https://nepis. van Dongen, U., Jetten, M.S., van Loosdrecht, M.C., 2001. The SHARON-Anammox
epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey¼20008RFG.txt. process for treatment of ammonium rich wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 44,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993. Nitrogen Control 153e160. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2001.0037.
Manual. Office of Water, Washington DC. NEPIS publication number 625R93010. Xe Corporation, 2019. XE Currency Converter. Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. https://
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey¼30004MI0.txt. www.xe.com/currencyconverter/.