Advanced

Benchmarking biological nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants: influence of mathematical model assumptions.

Flores, Xavier LU ; Gernaey, Krist V and Jeppsson, Ulf LU (2012) In Water Science and Technology 65(8). p.1496-1505
Abstract
This paper examines the effect of different model assumptions when describing biological nutrient removal (BNR) by the activated sludge models (ASM) 1, 2d & 3. The performance of a nitrogen removal (WWTP1) and a combined nitrogen and phosphorus removal (WWTP2) benchmark wastewater treatment plant was compared for a series of model assumptions. Three different model approaches describing BNR are considered. In the reference case, the original model implementations are used to simulate WWTP1 (ASM1 & 3) and WWTP2 (ASM2d). The second set of models includes a reactive settler, which extends the description of the non-reactive TSS sedimentation and transport in the reference case with the full set of ASM processes. Finally, the third set... (More)
This paper examines the effect of different model assumptions when describing biological nutrient removal (BNR) by the activated sludge models (ASM) 1, 2d & 3. The performance of a nitrogen removal (WWTP1) and a combined nitrogen and phosphorus removal (WWTP2) benchmark wastewater treatment plant was compared for a series of model assumptions. Three different model approaches describing BNR are considered. In the reference case, the original model implementations are used to simulate WWTP1 (ASM1 & 3) and WWTP2 (ASM2d). The second set of models includes a reactive settler, which extends the description of the non-reactive TSS sedimentation and transport in the reference case with the full set of ASM processes. Finally, the third set of models is based on including electron acceptor dependency of biomass decay rates for ASM1 (WWTP1) and ASM2d (WWTP2). The results show that incorporation of a reactive settler: (1) increases the hydrolysis of particulates; (2) increases the overall plant's denitrification efficiency by reducing the S(NOx) concentration at the bottom of the clarifier; (3) increases the oxidation of COD compounds; (4) increases X(OHO) and X(ANO) decay; and, finally, (5) increases the growth of X(PAO) and formation of X(PHA,Stor) for ASM2d, which has a major impact on the whole P removal system. Introduction of electron acceptor dependent decay leads to a substantial increase of the concentration of X(ANO), X(OHO) and X(PAO) in the bottom of the clarifier. The paper ends with a critical discussion of the influence of the different model assumptions, and emphasizes the need for a model user to understand the significant differences in simulation results that are obtained when applying different combinations of 'standard' models. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Water Science and Technology
volume
65
issue
8
pages
1496 - 1505
publisher
IWA Publishing
external identifiers
  • wos:000302957600022
  • pmid:22466599
  • scopus:84860204173
ISSN
0273-1223
DOI
10.2166/wst.2012.039
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
4c572419-dcac-4418-8f80-59d77eb79e87 (old id 2520001)
date added to LUP
2012-05-08 13:50:59
date last changed
2017-03-26 04:03:03
@article{4c572419-dcac-4418-8f80-59d77eb79e87,
  abstract     = {This paper examines the effect of different model assumptions when describing biological nutrient removal (BNR) by the activated sludge models (ASM) 1, 2d & 3. The performance of a nitrogen removal (WWTP1) and a combined nitrogen and phosphorus removal (WWTP2) benchmark wastewater treatment plant was compared for a series of model assumptions. Three different model approaches describing BNR are considered. In the reference case, the original model implementations are used to simulate WWTP1 (ASM1 & 3) and WWTP2 (ASM2d). The second set of models includes a reactive settler, which extends the description of the non-reactive TSS sedimentation and transport in the reference case with the full set of ASM processes. Finally, the third set of models is based on including electron acceptor dependency of biomass decay rates for ASM1 (WWTP1) and ASM2d (WWTP2). The results show that incorporation of a reactive settler: (1) increases the hydrolysis of particulates; (2) increases the overall plant's denitrification efficiency by reducing the S(NOx) concentration at the bottom of the clarifier; (3) increases the oxidation of COD compounds; (4) increases X(OHO) and X(ANO) decay; and, finally, (5) increases the growth of X(PAO) and formation of X(PHA,Stor) for ASM2d, which has a major impact on the whole P removal system. Introduction of electron acceptor dependent decay leads to a substantial increase of the concentration of X(ANO), X(OHO) and X(PAO) in the bottom of the clarifier. The paper ends with a critical discussion of the influence of the different model assumptions, and emphasizes the need for a model user to understand the significant differences in simulation results that are obtained when applying different combinations of 'standard' models.},
  author       = {Flores, Xavier and Gernaey, Krist V and Jeppsson, Ulf},
  issn         = {0273-1223},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {8},
  pages        = {1496--1505},
  publisher    = {IWA Publishing},
  series       = {Water Science and Technology},
  title        = {Benchmarking biological nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants: influence of mathematical model assumptions.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.039},
  volume       = {65},
  year         = {2012},
}