Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Technological and Economic Sustainability of Coupling Wastewater Algal Treatment and Biogas Production
EPA Grant Number: SU835711Title: Technological and Economic Sustainability of Coupling Wastewater Algal Treatment and Biogas Production
Investigators: Keller, Troy A , Jauregui, Andres , Matoi, David , Richardson, Lakesha , Parris, Markeshia , Li, Mengyuan , Serafini, Michael , Creel, Ross
Institution: Columbus State University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Phase: I
Project Period: August 15, 2014 through August 14, 2015
Project Amount: $14,559
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Challenge Area - Air Quality , P3 Challenge Area - Safe and Sustainable Water Resources , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
The phase I project’s goals were to: 1) measure the growth of algae and the nutrients removed from a prototype algal treatment system, 2) estimate the financial feasibility of 4 different wastewater treatment plant configurations, 3) identify important factors (e.g., discount rate) that most influence algal treatment system financial feasibility, and 4) educate the public about sustainability using a model algal treatment systems.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
Our results confirmed that wastewater treatment plants are generally not financially feasible. They are expensive to build and require costly maintenance, but these facilities play a key role in protecting the health of our rivers and lakes. Adding a biodigester that makes biogas out of the waste solids the plant filters out of the wastewater is a cost effective approach to treating solids. When we analyzed whether it was cost effective to build an advanced nutrient removal system the answer from the financial perspective was clearly “no”. Interestingly, advanced treatment options (algal treatment systems versus chemical treatment/filtration) showed very similar financial performance, despite the fact that chemical treatment/filtration was nearly twice as costly to build.
The algae in our treatment systems (Fig. 1) grew rapidly (2.3 g/m2/day) in the first week but grew 26%
Conclusions:
• Wastewater treatment plants become more economical when they include a biodigester to make biogas out of waste solids
• At this time, algal treatment systems and other alternative nutrient technologies are not financially feasible however both have roughly equivalent cost effectiveness
• Algal treatment systems can be designed to be highly effective at growing algae, removing phosphorus, and decreasing nitrogen
• Algal treatment system performance can be improved by injecting carbon dioxide exhaust into the system. This approach could improve the removal of nutrient pollution while also helping to curb carbon emissions that contribute to climate change
References:
Keller, T.A. and E. M. Husted (2015) Dewatering as a non-toxic control of nuisance midge larvae in periphyton wastewater treatment floways. Water Science and Technology 71(1): 9-
14. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.442
Keller, T.A. and J.F.Klein (May 2014) Post-harvest recovery of periphyton wastewater flowways. Presentation at the Society for Freshwater Science. Lecture delivered in Portland, Oregon
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 2 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
economic feasibility, algal turf scrubber, periphyton, algae-biofuel, methane gas, sustainability, ecological engineering, tertiary wastewater treatment systems, nutrient recovery, biomass to energyRelevant Websites:
http://ess.columbusstate.edu/algaebiofuels/ Exit
https://www.facebook.com/pages/CSU Exit - Exit Team Exit -Algae/733817876736666?ref=br_tf Exit
The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.