Bioextractive aquaculture as an alternative nutrient management strategy for water resource recovery facilities

被引:8
|
作者
Wu, Jingjing [1 ]
Rogers, Shane W. [1 ]
Schaummann, Rebekah [1 ]
Higgins, Chris [2 ]
Price, Nichole [3 ]
机构
[1] Clarkson Univ, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, 8 Clarkson Ave, Potsdam, NY 13699 USA
[2] Boothbay Harbor Sewer Dist, Boothbay Harbor, ME USA
[3] Bigelow Labs Ocean Sci, Boothbay Harbor, ME USA
关键词
Wastewater treatment; Macroalgae; Nutrient management; Bioextraction; Life cycle assessment; Techno-economic analysis; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; LONG-ISLAND SOUND;
D O I
10.1016/j.watres.2022.118092
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Advanced nutrient removal in water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) can reduce coastal eutrophication, but can increase economic costs and indirect environmental impacts associated with energy and materials usage for WRRF construction and operation. A strategy of interest to reduce coastal eutrophication is the cultivation of seaweeds in proximity to WRRF discharge plumes to bioextract nutrients from coastal waters. We report economic and environmental trade-offs of this proposed strategy for a 1,170 m(3).d (-1) (0.31 mgd) WRRF in Boothbay Harbor, Maine, targeting a Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) level 2 effluent nitrogen goal of 3 mg-N.L-1. The scenarios investigated include WRRF upgrade and year-round nutrient bioextractive aquaculture (Saccharina latissima and Gracilaria tikvahiae cultivation) with end uses of bioenergy feedstock, fertilizer, or food. Based on biomass production characteristics and tissue nitrogen contents in Boothbay Harbor, an aquaculture site of 5.4 hectares would bioextract equivalent nitrogen mass as WRRF upgrade to meet level 2 nitrogen effluent goals. Using a techno-economic analysis, the cost of a WRRF upgrade was estimated to be $0.31 m 3 wastewater treated. The cost of bioextractive seaweed aquaculture depended on beneficial use of seaweed. If dried and sold as sea vegetables (for human consumption), a net revenue of $0.72 m(-3) wastewater treated could be generated. If dried and sold as commercial fertilizer, the net cost of nutrient removal would be $0.26 m(-3) wastewater treated, less than the WRRF upgrade. However, if anaerobically digested to produce biogas, the net cost of treatment was estimated to be $0.499 m(-3) wastewater treated. WRRF upgrade and bioextractive aquaculture significantly reduced marine eutrophication. Bioextractive aquaculture with use as biofuel feedstock had the best performance on human carcinogenic toxicity, global warming, and fossil resource scarcity, marine ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Use of seaweed product as sea vegetables was favorable considering human noncarcinogenic toxicity, marine eutrophication, freshwater eutrophication, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. The study results imply that nutrient bioextraction by seaweed aquaculture may be attractive as an alternative to advanced nutrient removal technologies in small coastal WRRFs, providing potential economic and environmental benefits for nutrient management.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Soil resource acquisition strategy modulates global plant nutrient and water economics
    Cheaib, Alissar
    Chieppa, Jeff
    Perkowski, Evan A.
    Smith, Nicholas G.
    NEW PHYTOLOGIST, 2025,
  • [42] Evaluating the fate of bacterial indicators, viral indicators, and viruses in water resource recovery facilities
    Worley-Morse, Thomas
    Mann, Melanie
    Khunjar, Wendell
    Olabode, Lola
    Gonzalez, Raul
    WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, 2019, 91 (09) : 830 - 842
  • [43] Comprehensive Numerical Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Resource Recovery Facilities
    Kim, Dongwook
    Bowen, James D.
    Kinnear, David
    WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, 2015, 87 (11) : 1955 - 1969
  • [44] Water resource recovery facilities as potential energy generation units and their dynamic economic dispatch
    Liu, Qipeng
    Li, Ran
    Dereli, Recep Kaan
    Flynn, Damian
    Casey, Eoin
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2022, 318
  • [45] Improving Energy Efficiency of Small Water-Resource Recovery Facilities: Opportunities and Barriers
    Thompson, Matthew
    Dahab, Mohamed F.
    Williams, Robert E.
    Dvorak, Bruce
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 146 (07)
  • [46] A taxonomy of chemicals of emerging concern based on observed fate at water resource recovery facilities
    Jones, Steven M.
    Chowdhury, Zaid K.
    Watts, Michael J.
    CHEMOSPHERE, 2017, 170 : 153 - 160
  • [47] Distributed energy resources for water resource recovery facilities: A metropolitan city case study
    Mohamed, Ahmed
    Kanwhen, Ondrea
    Bobker, Michael
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2022, 327
  • [48] UV disinfection audit of water resource recovery facilities identifies system and matrix limitations
    Rauch, Kyle D.
    MacIsaac, Sean A.
    Stoddart, Amina K.
    Gagnon, Graham A.
    JOURNAL OF WATER PROCESS ENGINEERING, 2022, 50
  • [49] A strategy for coupling municipal wastewater treatment using the sequencing batch reactor with effluent nutrient recovery through aquaculture
    Umble, AK
    Ketchum, LH
    WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 35 (01) : 177 - 184
  • [50] Community-based water resource management with emphasis on water quality improvement and resource recovery.
    Mishra, PC
    Behera, N
    ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2003, 111 (01) : 89 - 89