Managing diffuse sources urban water infrastructure

584 views
536 views

Published on

http://www.foodlog.nl/artikel/zolang_we_poep_en_pies_wegspoelen_hoeven_we_ook_niet_biologisch_te_eten/#
En
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ9pVvZh88M

2 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
584
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
2
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Managing diffuse sources urban water infrastructure

  1. 1. Managing Diffuse Sources: Alternative Concepts for Urban Water Infrastructure Tove A. Larsen, Judit Lienert Eawag, Switzerland© 2008 Tove A. Larsen and Judit Lienert
  2. 2. Wastewater Management is Multi-Tasking Urban Hygiene Water Pollution ControlStorm Water Management Resource Recovery
  3. 3. Where do we find Wastewater Treatment Plants?Green et al. (2004) Biogeochemistry 68: 71-105- 58 % of the world population is connected to a sewer system- 24 % receive some level of sewage treatment - 4 % primary - 15 % secondary - 5 % tertiary
  4. 4. Wastewater Treatment Plants: The Eternal Story of the Next ProblemPrimary treatment Secondary treatment Tertiary treatmentAnd the new generation:Ozonation Activated carbon Reverse osmosis
  5. 5. Ozonation of Treatment Plant Effluents:Simple and Cheap, but Energy-IntensiveTernes et al. (2003) Water Research 37: 1976-1982Huber et al. (2004) Environmental Science & Technology 38: 5177-5186Joss et al. (2008) Water Science and Technology 57(2): 251-254 • Proven removal of about 20 different compounds • Not removed: iodinated X-ray contrast media • Little information on transformation products • Energy demand: 0.1–0.3 kWh/m3 (comparable to the present demand) • Costs: 0.05–0.15 Є/m3 (present: 0.5-2.5 Є/m3)
  6. 6. Activated Carbon in Treatment Plant Effluents:Simple and Cheap, but Energy-IntensiveNowotny et al. (2007) Environmental Science & Technology 41: 2050-2055Snyder et al. (2007) Desalination 202: 156-181Joss et al. (2008) Water Science and Technology 57(2): 251-254 • Broad removal of micropollutants • Total elimination of micropollutants during carbon regeneration • CO2 emissions: comparable to the present system • Costs: 0.08–0.20 Є/m3 (present: 0.5-2.5 Є/m3)
  7. 7. Nutrients: A Global Threat 2004: Worldwide 149 Dead ZonesUNEP is warning:Dead zones may soon damage fish stocks more than unsustainable catches
  8. 8. 2006: Worldwide 200 Dead Zones 11 of 50 new zones are publishedUNEP demands:Nitrogen emissions must be reduced +5 +2
  9. 9. The Nutrients are in Urine100 %80 %60 %40 % Urine (1.5 liters/person/day)20 % Rest of wastewater (350 liters/person/day) Nitrogen Potassium Phosphorus
  10. 10. Comparison of Different Technologies Larsen et al. (2007) Water Science and Technology 56(5): 229–237 Typical removal efficiencies NH4+ (%) effluent COD N P concentrati onWWTP, primary treatment 30 5 5–15 highWWTP, chemical precipitation 60–75 15–30 80–90 highWWTP, sludge age 2 days 75 25 15–85 highWWTP, sludge age 8–10 days 90 25 15–85 lowWWTP, sludge age >12 days 90 50–75 15–85 lowWWTP, sludge age >12 days + 90 85 15–85 loworganic C-sourceWWTP + P-filter see see >85 see above above aboveNoMix technology (90 % separation 15 70–80 15–50 lowefficiency)
  11. 11. Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater: Hoping for a Simple Solution Larsen et al. (2001) Environmental Science & Technology 35: 192A-197A.100 %80 %60 %40 % Urine (1.5 liters/person/day)20 % Rest of wastewater (350 liters/person/day) n us ? ls oge or i ca itr ph ut N os ce Ph m a ar Ph
  12. 12. Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater: Not quite as Simple! Lienert et al. (2007) Water Science and Technology 56(5): 87-96.100 %80 %60 %40 % Urine (1.5 liters/person/day)20 % Rest of wastewater (350 liters/person/day) n us s e r al tr og p ho tic Ni os eu P h ac rm P ha
  13. 13. Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater: Not quite as Simple! Escher et al. (2006) Environmental Science & Technology 40: 7402-7408 Lienert et al. (2007) Environmental Science & Technology 41: 4471-4478100 %80 %60 %40 % Urine (1.5 liters/person/day)20 % Rest of wastewater (350 liters/person/day) e n rus ct s r og ho ffe N it o sp le P h n tia te Po
  14. 14. Procedure for data collection Lienert et al. (2007) Water Science and Technology 56(5): 87-96 (Figure 1) Literature survey (54 publications) Criteria (Only pharmaceuticals, excretion via 53 Pharmaceu-454 Pharmaceuticals urine or feces, no ointments, eye, nose, or ear drops, …) ticals excluded 401 Pharmaceu- ticals included Search for 139 Pharmaceu- excretion data ticals without (in Swiss Drug Compendium www.kompendium.ch) excretion data 212 Pharmaceu- 50 Pharmaceu- ticals with ticals with quantitative data qualitative data (=1‘409 products)
  15. 15. Average excretion of 212 pharmaceuticalsLienert et al. (2007) Water Science and Technology 56(5): 87-96.On average …… the larger fraction of each active ingredient is excreted via urine… ca. 42% of each active ingredient is metabolized… metabolites are mainly excreted via urineBut data inconsistency and extreme variability from 0 – 100% 64% total via 35% total via urine (± 27%) feces (± 26%) 35% unchanged 42% metabolized 32% unchanged urine (± 33%) urine (± 28%) feces (± 34%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
  16. 16. Excretion via urine of 22 therapeutic groups Lienert et al.(2007) Environmental Science & Technology 41: 4471-4478 Lienert and Larsen (2007) Gaia 16(4): 280-288 (Figure 3) min / max value X-ray contrast media Analgesics> 80% excretion via urine Antiepileptic drugs Hypnotic drugs Gastric acid inhibitors Estrogens> 70% excretion via urine Antiviral drugs Antiphlogistics Arterial vasodilators Antidiabetic agents Vasodilatants Antidepressants Antiemetics Betablockers Diuretic drugs Glucocorticoids / Corticosteroids> 60% excretion via urine Antibiotics Antilipidemics Neuroleptics Antihypertensives Cytostatics> 49% excretion via urine Gestagens 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
  17. 17. Background-COD and Concentration:Important Parameters for Removal of MicropollutantsLarsen et al. (2004) Journal of Biotechnology 113(1-3): 295-304 Background COD Wastewater influent (100%) Wastewater effluent (10%) Urine (5%) Biologically treated urine (1%) Typical European wastewater production Combined wastewater (100 m3/p/year) Toilet (25 m3/p/year) Urine (0.6 m3/p/year)
  18. 18. Alternatives to Wastewater Treatment Plants How can Feces be Treated? Larsen et al., in preparation for Journal of Environmental ManagementBurial (pit latrines)DryingAerobic digestion (e.g. compost)Anaerobic digestionMicrobial fuel cellsTotal oxidation / burning 100 % 0 100 % Available for recycling Available for energy
  19. 19. Optimizing the whole system is difficult AgricultureUrban area ? ? Sludge Receiving water Un-connected ? areas WWTP ? ? Ground water Combined Sewers Overflow ?
  20. 20. What can we Learn from the Past? Three Case-Studies Non-degradable detergents: product designHeavy metals:waste design Phosphate in detergents: replacement
  21. 21. ,Hard‘, non-degradable detergents had to be replaced through degradable ones
  22. 22. Flow rate Total phosphorus Orthophosphate BUWAL 1994 Ban of phosphate in washing powderRiver Rhine at Basel
  23. 23. Heavy Metals in Sewage Sludge from the City of Zürichg Zinc / t Dry Matter g Cadmium / t Dry Matter 2000 20 Zinc 1500 15 1000 10 500 Cadmium 5 0 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
  24. 24. Conclusions- Better access to pharma- ceuticals than to treatment- If only our part of the world counts: Wastewater treatment can do a lot- With source separation, removal of pharmaceutic is more energy-efficient- Solving the problems by product design is always better
  25. 25. For further information www.novaquatis.eawag.ch Final report of the transdisciplinary Eawag project Novaquatis

×