Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Customizing anaerobic digestion-coupled processes for energy-positive and T

sustainable treatment of municipal wastewater
Bao-Cheng Huanga, Wen-Wei Lia,∗, Xu Wangb, Yan Luc, Han-Qing Yua,∗∗
a
CAS Key Laboratory of Urban Pollutant Conversion, Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Science & Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China
b
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
100085, China
c
School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies offer exciting opportunities for implementation of sustainable wastewater
Anaerobic digestion management, which are currently still an energy-intensive and costly process. However, selecting an appropriate
Energy recovery AD process is challenging because the treatment performances vary significantly with the technology type,
Municipal wastewater wastewater properties and environmental conditions and a trade-off between the treatment efficiency and other
Sustainability
cost and environmental impacts is usually applied. In this study, a multi-criteria evaluation method which gives
Customization
a balanced consideration between multiple sustainability dimensions and the practical implementation condi-
tions for a specific treatment process was developed for AD-coupled processes evaluation. Six indicators across
three metrics (i.e., environmental, economic, and technical performances) were covered in the method. Two
representative AD-coupled processes for municipal wastewater treatment and four countries (United States,
United Kingdom, China, and India) were selected for the evaluation. A national-specific evaluation shows that
the high-rate activated sludge + sludge anaerobic digestion always outperforms the other processes (presently
and in the near future) except for India, where up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket + activated sludge process
stands out as the currently optimal option based on the 2015 data. Moreover, it is suggested that implementing
AD-coupled nutrient recovery technologies will be economically more feasible for the developed countries than
the developing ones, because the latter will still prioritize the economically- and environmentally-beneficial
technologies in the near future. This work may help identifying key area of improvement needed for municipal
wastewater sectors in different countries and provide guidance for national and global policy-makers to promote
customized implementation of AD-coupled processes towards energy-positive and sustainable wastewater
treatment.

1. Introduction
As a key link of the global cycling of water resources, wastewater
treatment offers essential protection for the urban environmental sus-
tainability. Unfortunately, the treatment processes themselves are
usually costly and energy intensive. Especially, the currently prevailing
activated sludge (AS) process for municipal wastewater (MW) treat-
ment presents a huge energy and economic burden for the society
[1–3]. Changing this situation entails a paradigm shift from aerobic to
anaerobic treatment, due to the avoided aeration and possibilities for
energy and resource recovery in anaerobic processes [4–6]. However,
anaerobic processes for MW treatment also have drawbacks such as
unstable effluent quality, higher investment, and long start-up time
[7,8]. Especially, the anaerobic digestion (AD) processes for methane
production are sensitive to environmental upset [9]. Thus, pollutant
conversion and methanogenic activity are readily restricted by low
temperature [10] and complex MW composition [11], resulting in low
energy production. These factos restrict the application of AD processes
in practical MW treatment today. As a trade-off between aerobic and
anaerobic processes, their hybrid processes are widely accepted as a
more feasible option for practical MW treatment [12]. Such coupled
processes, where AD technologies are implemented either at side-
stream (i.e., sludge anaerobic digestion, SAD) or mainline (i.e., direct
treatment of dilute wastewater) of MW treatment line, enable good
effluent quality and energy performance and have been increasingly
implemented in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Two most

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wwli@ustc.edu.cn (W.-W. Li), hqyu@ustc.edu.cn (H.-Q. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.064
Received 6 November 2018; Received in revised form 7 April 2019; Accepted 22 April 2019
Available online 02 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.-C. Huang, et al.
List of abbreviations
AD anaerobic digestion
AOTR actual oxygen transfer rate
AS activated sludge
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
CAS conventional activated sludge
CHP combined heat and power
ENPV economic net present value
GDP gross domestic product
successful examples are the high-rate activated sludge (HRAS) + SAD
process (demonstrated in several WWTPs in United States of America
(USA) [13] and Austria [14]) and the up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) + AS process (applied in several tropic countries for mainline
AD treatment [15,16]).
Although both AD-coupled processes promise energy recovery from
MW, their actual energy performances and implementation feasibilities
are case specific. The bioenergy production of AD process could vary
drastically with the MW characteristics (e.g., organic carbon strength)
and environmental conditions (e.g., temperature). The higher tem-
perature in tropic regions favors the implementation of UASB + AS
process [17]. In addition, the sustainability of a MW treatment process
is not only about energy, but also covers the environmental, economic
and social metrics and other aspects of technology implementation
(e.g., technology resilience, scalability and ease of integration). Hence,
developing an appropriate evaluation criterion based on multiple me-
trics of sustainability is essential for implementing case-specific, sus-
tainable AD technologies.
The performances and application potential of AD-coupled pro-
cesses have been evaluated in several earlier studies [18,19]. However,
such evaluations were mostly based on individual technical, econom-
ical or environmental indicators and did not taking into account the
diversity in wastewater properties, environmental conditions and eco-
nomic development levels that might significantly affect the technology
performance. In addition, life-cycle assessment has been widely applied
to evaluate the technical performance and environmental footprint of
MW treatment processes, but mostly were case studies without con-
sidering the global diversity in WWTP conditions [20–22]. A global-
scale, case-specific evaluation on the comprehensive sustainability of
wastewater treatment processes is still lacking. This might be an im-
portant reason for the blind development and usually suboptimal im-
plementation of AD technologies for MW treatment at the present stage.
Optimization of the technical sustainability requires a balanced con-
sideration among environmental, economic, and technical impacts, and
such impacts might be further compounded by the involvement of
various stakeholders [23]. Multi-criteria decision analysis, which has
been used to aid the optimization of energy production and storage
technologies [24,25], may offer as a suitable tool to solve such multi-
objective optimization problems.
Hence, this work aims to develop a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE)
method that covers the environmental, economic, and technical metrics
for assessing the integrated sustainability of AD-coupled processes and,
based on this method, to evaluate the suitability of different treatment
processes for individual countries. Specifically, three AD-coupled pro-
cesses, including HRAS+SAD, UASB+AS and the currently prevailing
process of conventional activated sludge (CAS) +SAD, were selected
for the technology comparison. Although other alternative AD pro-
cesses are available, the HRAS+SAD and UASB+AS were selected here
mainly due to their relative technical maturity and hence higher social
acceptance. To identify the impacts of MW characteristics and en-
vironmental conditions on the treatment performance, the energy
performances of the three AD-coupled processes at various MW organic
strengths and temperatures were examined. Then, an MCE method for
133
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142
GHG greenhouse gas
HRAS high-rate activated sludge
MCE multi-criteria evaluation
MW municipal wastewater
SAD sludge anaerobic digestion
SRT solids retention time
UASB up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
US united states
VSS volatile suspended solid
WWTPs wastewater treatment plants
evaluating the integrated sustainability of different AD-coupled pro-
cesses was developed. With this method, the possible sustainability
benefits of the AD-coupled processes were evaluated and the future
opportunities for implementation in practical MW facilities were dis-
cussed.
The MCE method took into account the environmental, economic,
and technical metrics covering six key indicators. Each indicator was
scored and weighted based on the local conditions for different coun-
tries to yield an integrated score. The highest-scored process was con-
sidered as the optimal one for a specific country. Four representative
countries that together contribute to more than a half of the produced
MW globally were selected for the MCE study. Besides the large-sized
MW sector, these countries are in significantly different economic de-
velopment levels, and have different wastewater properties and en-
vironmental conditions to facilitate the comparison. USA is the world's
largest developed country with a high MW organic strength, while
China is the world's largest developing country with relatively dilute
MW. United Kingdom (UK) and India also differ significantly not only in
the economic development level but also in the temperature due to
their different geographic latitudes. It should be noted that these four
countries were studied as an example only, and the established MCE
method might be readily extended to other countries or regions. In all,
this work lays a theoretical basis for case-specific, rational selection of
AD-coupled processes for MW treatment, and might provide valuable
implications for future wastewater management at global and national
scales.
2. The AD-coupled MW treatment flow
2.1. Treatment flow and operating parameters of AD-coupled processes
In the CAS process, MW flows through the aeration tank and sec-
ondary clarifier, and the settled sludge from the secondary clarifier is
recirculated to the aeration tank to maintain a certain biomass con-
centration (Fig. 1a). Diffused air aeration is usually adopted to ensure
sufficient oxygen supply. The residual sludge is regularly discharged
from the system to keep a relatively constant sludge biomass. Here, the
average solids retention time (SRT) is set as 12 days to guarantee suf-
ficient organic matter (represented by 5-day biochemical oxygen de-
mand, BOD5) and good ammonium removal performance. By contrast,
a very short SRT (1 day) is adopted for the HRAS process, where the
organic matters are mainly absorbed instead of degraded by the sludge
[26]. The organic carbon-rich residual sludge from both the CAS and
HRAS processes is thickened and transported to the AD tank for biogas
production, followed by the dewatering treatment. A primary sedi-
mentation tank is placed before the aeration tank to remove the
settleable solids in raw MW for the CAS+SAD and HRAS+SAD pro-
cesses, but such tank is canceled for the UASB+AS process (Fig. 1b).
In the UASB reactor, the MW flows upwards and BOD is removed by
anaerobic microorganisms, which yields only a small amount of sludge.
The biomass is separated by gravity in the settling zone at the upper
part of the reactor and returned to the reaction zone, while the clarified
effluent is discharged. The residual sludge is anaerobically stabilized
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

mainly in the form of electricity and thermal energy (Ep, kWh/m3) [29].
The amount of produced bioenergy can be estimated as:
Ep = BODinf XR (1)
3
where BODinf (g/m ) is the influent BOD5 concentration; X is the BOD5
removal efficiency; R (mol-CH4 recovered/g BOD5removed) is the me-
thane production; ξ is the theoretical energy value of CH4, which is
0.222 kWh/mol CH4; η is the CHP efficiency, for which a value of 33%
electric efficiency and 38% heat efficiency is taken assuming a state-of-
the-art reciprocating engine CHP is used [29]. Dissolved methane in the
effluent was estimated according to the Henry's law.
Total energy consumption (qener, kWh/m3-MW) includes the energy
for aeration in AS (qae), pumping (qpe), residue sludge handling (qsh),
mixing (qmix), and recovery of dissolved methane by degassing mem-
brane (qdm). qae was calculated according to Metcalf & Eddy [30]:
0.283
AOTR RT1 P2 24
qae = 1
EA a Qw 3600 29.7n P1 Q (2)
Fig. 1. Schematic illustrations of (a) side-stream AD (CAS+SAD and HRAS 3
where EA is the aerator oxygen diffusion efficiency, ρa (kg/m ) is the air
+SAD), and (b) mainline AD (UASB+AS) processes. density, Qw (kg O2/kg air) is the oxygen weight in the air, R (J/mol·K) is
the engineering gas constant for air, n is 0.283 for air, Q (m3/d) is in-
before being discharged from the system. To ensure sufficient removal fluent flow rate, P1 and P2 are the suction and discharge pressure for the
of pollutants, UASB is typically followed by an AS process. No ni- aerator (pa). AOTR (kg O2/h) is the actual oxygen transfer rate under
trification takes place in the subsequent AS unit to ensure good effluent field conditions.
quality. The detailed operational parameters of the above processes are qpe (kWh/m3) was estimated with the following equation [31]:
listed in Table 1. 1 24
qpe = P
Q (3)
2.2. Methods for evaluating the impacts of MW strength and temperature on
3
the energy performances of AD-coupled processes where is the density of permeate (kg/m ), is the pumping energy
efficiency (0.85 in this work), is the conversion achieved by a single
Before evaluating the integrated sustainability of the AD-coupled passage of fluid along the length of the module (normally 100% for
processes, the energy performance, a key indicator of the technical submerged systems), P is the sum of all individual pressure losses
metric, in response to different MW organic strengths was first in- (Pa).
vestigated. The BOD concentrations of MW vary geographically. In qsh is the energy consumption for gravity thickening (EGT) (kWh/
general, higher MW BOD5 (up to 560 mg/L) is found in the developed m3) and centrifuge dewatering (ECD) (kWh/m3). It could be estimated
countries over the developing ones (mostly below 350 mg/L) [27]. as follows [18]:
Based on the reported MW BOD5 range, three BOD5 concentrations 422832 (Flowinf , MGD )0.9248 1
(230, 350 and 560 mg/L) were selected to represent the low-, medium-, EGT =
365.25 Q (4)
and high-strength MW, respectively. The detailed compositions of the
three types of MW are given in Table 2. 5024825 (Flowinf , MGD ) + 39693 1
Temperature is another crucial factor governing methane produc- ECD =
365.25 Q (5)
tion performance in AD processes (Table S1). Low temperature not only
impairs the microbial activity but also lowers the methane recovery where Flowinf (MGD) is the sludge flow, Q (m3/d) is the influent flow
ratio due to increased dissolved methane. Considering that the annual- rate.
average temperatures in most parts of the world are below 40 °C and the The energy consumption for mixing was assumed to be 0.007 kW/
methanogenic activity is severely suppressed at < 8 °C [28], four tem- m3 reactor volume [30]. To evaluate the energy potential for recovering
peratures (10, 15, 25, and 35 °C) were used here to evaluate the tem- dissolved methane in effluent, degassing membrane is selected as po-
perature impacts on AD-coupled processes. tential technology by assuming a methane recovery efficiency of
The model calculation was based on the construction and operation 70–90% [32–34]. The energy consumption of such methane degassing
of a hypothetical, small-sized WWTP. The WWTP treatment capacity is processes (qdm, kWh/m3) was estimated as [34]:
assumed to be 2 × 104 m3/d, the minimal size required for an eco- y / NS
NS qs P2 24
nomical operation of combined heat and power (CHP) system for biogas qdm = 354 1
P1 Q (6)
combustion [29]. The residual sludge is subjected to AD treatment at
35 °C with the following operating parameters: methane production of
where Ns is the number of vacuum stages (1); qs is the flow rate at the
0.3 m3/kg VSS; sludge yield of 0.6, 0.6 and 0.05 g VSS/g BOD removed
for CAS+SAD, HRAS+SAD, and UASB+AS processes, respectively
Table 1
[30]. Main operation parameters for the studied AD-coupled processes.
AD coupled process Aeration tank Primary
3. Algorithm and model construction
clarifier
DO (mg/ SRT (day) Nitrification
3.1. Algorithm for estimating energy performances and greenhouse gas L) function
(GHG) emission
CAS+SAD 2 12 ✓ ✓
HRAS+SAD 1.5 1 × ✓
In the AD-coupled processes, methane-rich biogas can be obtained, UASB+AS 2 7 × ×
and a further combustion of the biogas results in bioenergy generation

134
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

Table 2 economic, and technical metrics for integrated sustainability quantifi-

Compositions of MW with different organic strengths [27]. cation into account is illustrated in Fig. 2. MCE provides a useful tool
Item MW strength (mg/L) for evaluating and optimizing complicated wastewater treatment pro-
cesses [51,52]. Here, six indicators across environmental, economic,
Low Medium High and technical metrics were taken into account in MCE (Table S2). These
indicators (including land footprint, residue sludge production, GHG
Suspended solids, total 250 400 600
Suspended solids, volatile 200 320 480 emission, construction and operation cost, bioenergy production, and
Biochemical oxygen demand, 5 day 230 350 560 ease of operation) constitute the key factors that govern the sustain-
Chemical oxygen demand 500 750 1200 ability of MW treatment processes [52,53]. Another criterion for se-
Nitrogen (total as N) 20 45 75 lecting these indicators is that their metric weights can be derived from
Organic nitrogen 10 15 25
processing global databases, implying that the integrated scores here
Ammonia 10 30 50
Phosphorus (total as P) 6 15 25 can be updated for the following years to track the changes of national
sustainability in implementing AD-coupled processes.
The MCE score for each treatment process was obtained with the
suction end of the vacuum pump (m3/s); η is vacuum pump efficiency following formula:
(0.65); P1 and P2 are the suction and discharge pressure for the vacuum n
pump (pa), respectively; y is the isentropic expansion of gas. MCE(a) = wi Pi
The total GHG emission (qghg-total, kg CO2-equivalent/m3 MW) in- i (9)
cludes the on-site and off-site emissions. The on-site GHG emissions are
where Pi is the normalized value of indices i; wi is the weight coefficient;
mainly from methane combustion via CHP (qghg-mc, kg CO2-equivalent/
subscript n is the total number of indices (n = 6). The raw value of
m3 MW), direct methane (qghg-methane, kg CO2-equivalent/m3 MW) and
indices i is normalized to obtain Pi:
N2O emissions (qghg-N2O, kg CO2-equivalent/m3 MW). The direct me-
thane emissions are from the dissolved methane in the effluent and the Pi =
qi
m
leaked part during transportation and CHP operation. The latter ac- i
qi (10)
counted for about 3% of total methane production [35,36]. The ni-
trification process in the CAS process involves N2O emission, for which where qi is the raw value of indices i, and subscript m is the total
a N2O emission factor of 0.6% (relative to the total N-load) was adopted number of evaluated treatment systems. Due to the metric difference of
according to the literature [37]. The global warming potential of me- different indices, the reciprocals of qeco, qpro, qlan, qslu, and qghg were
thane and N2O is set as 28 and 298 times of CO2, respectively [38]. The adopted to calculate Pi to make it consistent with qbio. The importance
off-site GHG emission (qghg-off, kg CO2-equivalent/m3 MW) was calcu- of each indicator is ascertained via assigning a weight coefficient (wi).
lated based on the electricity consumption: All the weight coefficients were summed to be 1 following the “linear
weighted sum” rule [51]. wi were determined based on the national-
qghg off = qener fi (7) level data:
3
where qener (kWh/m -MW) is the total energy consumption, fi (kg CO2/ winormanized
kWh) is the estimated GHG emission intensity from electricity genera- wi = n
winormanized (11)
tion (Table 3). i

winormanized (dimensionless) is ascertained as:

3.2. MCE evaluation on sustainability of AD-coupled processes in different
countries wiobjective
winormanized =
wiaverage (12)
3.2.1. Estimation of MW strength and temperature in the studied countries
where is the raw value for a specific country in the objective
wiobjective
At a global scale, the MW discharge behaviors (i.e., BOD, nitrogen, year, which was obtained from the international databases; wiaverage is
and phosphorus discharge per capita) are in general correlated to the the average value of operator i in the past 25 years (1990–2015). To
local income level with certain uncertainty [41,42]. Therefore, the estimate the weight coefficients in 2025, the autoregressive integrated
pollutant discharge amounts in the four representative countries were moving average was adopted to fit the historic trends and then obtain
estimated according to the economic development levels as classified the predicted results. The uncertainties were analyzed by using 100000
by the World Bank [43]. The sigmoid curve which indicates the MW Monte Carlo stimulations with Crystal Ball software (Edition 11.1.2.4,
production intensity (m3/capita/day) with income (GDP per capita) Oracle Co., USA).
was modeled (Fig. S1) by using historical data [44]. Then, the total MW In this way, the different AD-coupled processes were scored on a
production was estimated by multiplying the MW production intensity national-specific basis. A higher-scored technology implies it has a
with the forecasting population [45,46]. greater potential to be implemented in a specific country towards in-
The MW temperature distribution was approximated from the am- tegrated sustainability. Thus, the optimal (highest-scored) technology
bient temperature using the following nonlinear model [47,48]: for different countries can be identified, laying a basis for customization
µ
Tw (MW ) = µ + BTa
1+e ( Ta) (8) Table 3
Estimated GHG emission intensity from electricity generation according to
where Tw (MW) is the estimated MW temperature; Ta is the measured
International Energy Agency [39] and BP [40] reports.
ambient temperature; µ and are the minimum and maximum MW
temperature, respectively; is the steepest slope of the function; re- Country Electricity GHG emissions of electricity GHG emission
production and heat production intensity
presents the ambient temperature at the inflection point. The model
was established and validated with literature data [49]. The annual (TWh) (million t CO2) (g-CO2/kWh)
average ambient temperature data were acquired from the Climatic
Research Unit [50]. China 5649 4384 769
India 1252 1046 835
USA 4363 2125 489
3.2.2. Procedures for the MCE UK 338 145 429
A framework of the MCE method that takes all the environmental,

135
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

Fig. 2. The framework of the multi-criteria evaluation on the sustainability of MW treatment process.

Fig. 3. Energy balance and net energy production performances of (a) CAS+SAD, (b) HRAS+SAD, and (c) UASB+AS processes under different MW temperature and
organic strength conditions.

136
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

of AD-coupled processes. ammonium recovery while iron-based phosphorus adsorption is applied

3.2.3. Data sources
The projected population of each country was collected from the
United Nations Population Division [54]. The GDP data were acquired
from the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service
[55]. To calculate the weight coefficients, the data of each country in
the following indicators over the past 25 years were collected: total
renewable electricity production (billion kWh/capita) [56], gross do-
mestic product ($/capita) [57], occupied area per capita (km2/capita)
[58], government effectiveness (dimensionless) [59], municipal wastes
production (million t/year) [60,61], and GHG emission (million t CO2/
capita) [40].
3.3. Cost-benefit analysis of the AD-coupled nutrients recovery scenarios in
different countries
Economic net present value (ENPV) is used to evaluate the potential
economic impact throughout the entire life-time of WWTP [62]. The
ENPV is estimated as:
n n
ENPV = Bt (1 + i 0) t Ct (1 + i 0) t remains almost unchanged; the UASB+AS achieves more net energy
t=0 t=0 (13)
where Bt is the total benefit; Ct represents the economic cost; i0 is the
social discount rate, which is set as 7% according to US Office of
Management and Budget [57]; t is the computation period, assuming 3
years construction period for a new-built project. The WWTP service-
life is assumed to be 40 years. Total benefit for installation of a re-
source-oriented treatment project can be estimated as:
Bt = Bpoll + Bele + Bnutrients (14)
where Bpoll ($/yr) is the benefit for pollution removal (BOD5, SS, TN,
and TP elimination); Bele ($/yr) is the benefit for sale of generated
electricity; and Bnutrients ($/yr) is the benefit stems from the potential
value of recovered nutrients.
The potential environmental benefits from elimination of BOD5, SS,
TN, and TP were assumed to be 0.0388, 0.0059, 17, and 31 $/kg, re-
spectively [63,64]. The electricity price was set as 0.215 $/kWh ac-
cording to the electricity price for industrial consumers in Eurostat
database [65]. The recovered N and P were used as an alternative to
conventional chemical fertilizer and their values were assumed to be
212 and 119 $/kg [66].
Total cost (Ct) of energy recovery project is calculated as:
Ct = Ccon + Co & m + Cloan + Ctax (15)
for main-line P recovery.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Energy performances of AD-coupled processes at various MW organic
strengths and temperatures
For all the studied processes, both the energy production and con-
sumption increase with the raising organic strength of MW, but the
increments vary for different processes. In the CAS+SAD process, the
energy consumption (mainly for aeration and heating sludge digester)
increases more than its production, resulting in net energy consumption
(Fig. 3a). In comparison, the HRAS+SAD and UASB+AS processes
need slightly higher energy consumption but enable significantly im-
proved bioenergy production due to the strengthened methane pro-
duction under high BOD conditions (Fig. 3b and c). Raising the MW
temperature also significantly affects the energy performances of the
three processes. Specifically, the CAS+SAD process shows more net
energy consumption due to the increased energy consumption and
decreased production; the energy balance of the HRAS+SAD process
production.
The above results suggest that the HRAS+SAD and UASB+AS
processes hold a great potential for net energy production. Especially,
the UASB+AS process shows the highest net energy production when
the MW organic strength and temperature are both high. Thus, from the
perspective of maximizing energy production, the HRAS+SAD and
UASB+AS processes have different optimal application ranges in terms
of temperature and MW organic strength (Fig. 4). A case-specific se-
lection of AD-coupled processes is thus very necessary.
In light of the global diversity in MW organic strength and tem-
perature, customizing the AD-coupled processes for different countries
is highly desirable. As a first step, tailored processes were assumed for
the four representative countries targeting on energy performance op-
timization. The studied countries differ significantly in their MW or-
ganic strengths and temperatures due to geographical and diet differ-
ence (Table S3). The evaluation results show that HRAS+SAD and
UASB+AS processes both enable net energy production in India, USA,
and UK. However, the UASB+AS is a net energy-consuming process for
China due to its relatively low MW organic strength (Fig. 5a). Based on
the net energy production result, the UASB+AS appears to be the most
energy-beneficial process for USA, whereas the HRAS+SAD should be
the best option for the rest countries.
Besides the energy performance, the economic and environmental

where Ccon is the construction costs; Co&m is the operation and main-
tenance costs; Cloan is the loan interests; and Ctax is the tax fee.
Ccon and Co&m are estimated via CpadetWorks (Version 3.0,
Hydromantes Environmental Software Solutions Inc., Canada). It is
assumed that the different costs for constructing a project in developed
and developing countries are attributed mainly to different labor costs.
The average labor costs are relatively cheaper in developing countries.
The labor costs for developing countries (10 $/hour) and developed
countries (33 $/hour) were set according to the International Labor
Organization data [67]. The capital for project construction was ob-
tained from bank loan. The loan was assumed to be paid off within 10
years and the corresponding interest for a developed and developing
country was 5.479% and 4.251%, respectively [68]. The tax cost for
electricity sale was set as 16.3% according to the World Bank Group
report [69]. All the economic value or prices were converted through
US consumer price index adjustment.
In this work, the ENPVs of the conventional biological nutrients
removal process (Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic) and nutrients recovery cou-
pled HRAS+SAD process were calculated and compared. According to Fig. 4. Suitable regions for the AD-coupled processes to maximize energy re-
the US EPA report [70], the ion-exchange process is used for covery from MW.

137
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

Fig. 5. Estimated performances of AD-coupled processes in four representative countries for different indicators: Net energy production (a), GHG emission (b),
construction and operation costs (c), residue sludge production (d).

Fig. 6. Temporal trends of weight coefficients for metric assessment between different countries (a-China, b-India, c-USA, and d-UK).

138
B.-C. Huang, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142

Table 4
Integrated scores of AD-coupled processes for different countries.
CAS+SAD HRAS+SAD UASB+AS

China 0.32 0.39 0.29

India 0.30 0.34 0.35
USA 0.30 0.36 0.32
UK 0.32 0.38 0.30

Fig. 9. Economic net present value estimation for constructing a 20000 m3/d
scale plant with conventional and nutrients recovery processes.

appropriately weights the different criteria for maximizing the process

sustainability.

4.2. Multi-criteria evaluation of AD-coupled processes

MCE was performed to evaluate the integrated sustainability of

Fig. 7. Potential merits comparing to CAS process by application of suitable AD
process. The concentric lines are at intervals of 0.2 and a higher polygonal area
indicates a better performance. 1-financial profit (0.1 $/m3), 2-bioenergy pro-
duction (kWh/m3), 3-GHG reduction (kg CO2/m3), 4-residue sludge reduction
(kg/m3), 5-total energy saving (kWh/m3).
performances are also important considerations for evaluating MW
treatment technologies. Especially, for developing countries like China
and India, these aspects are of even higher national priority because of
the severe environmental challenges and economical restriction. The
incorporation of economic and environmental metrics in the evaluation
would significantly affect the evaluation results and technology
selection.Taking the UASB+AS process as an example, this process is
favorable for energy production only under high organic strength and
temperature conditions. It stands out as the best option in terms of
residue sludge production and costs (Fig. 5c and d) but shows the
poorest performance in GHG emission. Such a conflicting result for
different evaluation indicators implies a necessity for MCE that
different AD-coupled processes in the four countries by taking into six
indicators across the environmental, economic, and technical metrics
account (Fig. 2). To set appropriate weight coefficients for the different
indicators, national-specific historical data (during 1990–2015) were
used. The results show that the coefficients of construction and opera-
tion costs kept growing for China (from 0.04 to 0.29) and India (from
0.09 to 0.26) over the years, but the growth rates slowed down in the
recent five years. In contrast, USA and UK showed a decreasing trend in
this coefficient lately (Fig. 6). The relatively higher values for China and
India imply that the WWTP construction and operation still present a
significant financial burden for the developing countries. The GHG
emission weight in UK decreased from 0.23 (1990) to 0.08 (2015),
which should be mainly ascribed to increased share of renewable en-
ergy (from 23% in 1990 to 47% in 2015) in this country [71]. Appar-
ently, the priorities and weight coefficients of the different indicators
change dynamically and differ significantly among the four countries
due to their different social-economic development levels and priorities.
Based on the national-specific weight coefficients and the perfor-
mance of each indicator in 2015, the overall MCE scores of the different
AD-coupled processes were estimated to quantify the integrated sus-
tainability (Table 4). The MCE score of the same process varied sig-
nificantly for different countries. Taking the UASB+AS process as an
example, it fell between the HRAS+SAD and CAS+SAD in MCE score

Fig. 8. Predicted weight coefficients (a) and integrated scores of different technologies to be implemented in different countries (b) in the future (2025). The center
lines are median values while the boxes represent 10th to 90th percentiles.

139
B.-C. Huang, et al.
for USA. However, it stands out as the highest-score option when ap-
plied in India (benefited from the small land footprint and low con-
struction and operation costs) and the most unfavorable one for China
and UK. Thus, a national-specific customization of the AD-coupled
processes is essential.
Apart from the overall scores, the contribution of individual in-
dicators to integrated sustainability (Fig. S2) might also provide useful
information for identifying the areas of improvement for different
countries. For instance, in the cases of the HRAS+SAD and CAS+SAD
processes, it would be more desirable for UK to prioritize the im-
provement of indicators other than bioenergy production, but in China
a higher priority on the reduction of land footprint and residue sludge
production is preferred. Such individual indicator evaluation would be
helpful to identify key areas of improvement aiming at higher in-
tegrated sustainability of the treatment process.
Next, the highest-scored process for each country was selected to
evaluate the best-achievable performances of MW treatment in the in-
dividual countries. The CAS process was used as a control for quanti-
tative comparison. The results show that, with the implementation of
the AD-coupled process with the best integrated score, India would
achieve the highest financial profit (0.06 $/m3) among the four coun-
tries (Fig. 7b). In comparison, USA would achieve the highest profits in
terms of total energy saving, bioenergy production, GHG reduction, and
residue sludge reduction. To improve the overall benefits for im-
plementing suitable AD-coupled process, different strategies should be
taken for these countries. For example, China and UK should prioritize
MW treatment processes that enable low cost, GHG emission reductions
and bioenergy production, whereas seeking for further financial profits
improvement in the MW sector might be undesirable for India.
Notably, the weight coefficients of the evaluated indicators are ex-
pected to change in the future with continued economic and social
development of each country. To provide guidance for future MW
management, the hypothetical performance of MW treatment processes
in individual indicators and the overall MCE scores were estimated
based on the predicted data in 2025. The results show that, in China
and UK, the bioenergy production will have the highest weight coeffi-
cients among other factors (Fig. 8a), implying a growing importance of
bioenergy production in both countries. The relatively high weight
coefficient of construction and operation costs in China and India in-
dicates that economic cost would still be a critical consideration for the
developing countries in selecting MW treatment technology. In terms of
integrated sustainability, the HRAS+SAD would outcompete the other
two processes in the future for all the countries including India, due to
the increased weight of construction and operation costs and GHG
emission (Fig. 8b). Relatively lower MCE scores of the UASB+AS pro-
cess were predicted for China (0.27) and UK (0.30), indicating this
process was unsuitable for the two countries. The low score of the UASB
+AS was attributed mainly to its relatively high GHG emission and low
bioenergy production, which is against the growing priority for China
and UK to develop clean energy and reduce GHG emission for sus-
tainable development [72,73]. Therefore, such a mainline AD process
should be applied with caution.
4.3. Future perspectives for practical application of AD-coupled processes
for energy and nutrient recovery
Although the HRAS+SAD process has the highest score in in-
tegrated sustainability, its widespread application in the future still
faces many challenges. One key issue is that the nutrients in effluent of
the HRAS+SAD process still need to be removed or recovered. Thus, it
has to be followed by carbon-independent nutrient removal/recovery
technologies, which are still immature today [71]. Another challenge is
the economic affordability. The achievable ENPV by shifting from CAS
+SAD process to resource-oriented treatment paradigm varies sig-
nificantly for different countries. Specifically, USA and UK will have
positive ENPV values, while China and India have negative values
140
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142
(Fig. 9). Therefore, in the near future, implementation of AD-coupled,
resource-oriented processes seems to be economically more preferable
for developed countries. For the developing world, the shift to AD-
coupled processes would depend strongly on the development of low-
cost technologies for energy and nutrients recovery. Hence, it might be
more desirable for the developing countries to prioritize energy-saving
nutrient removal technologies. Currently, many promising technologies
have emerged in this direction. For example, the decentralized treat-
ment and source separation practices are expected to significantly lower
the initial investment (20–50% of conventional plants) and operation
costs (5–25% of CAS based plants) of wastewater facilities [74–76]. The
development of enhanced methanogenesis process and anaerobic
membrane bioreactors also provide opportunities for direct mainline
treatment of MW with improved energy efficiency [4,77–79]. In addi-
tion, technologies are already available to further lower the soluble
methane loss (Fig. S3) and to improve the energy efficiency of mainline
AD treatment. These new technological advances may greatly motivate
the development and global implementation of AD-coupled processes
for sustainable MW treatment.
5. Conclusions
In this work, a multi-criteria evaluation method was developed to
evaluate the country-specific integrated sustainability of several anae-
robic digestion-coupled processes for municipal wastewater treatment.
By taking into account the evaluation criteria of environmental, eco-
nomic and technical performances, the multi-criteria evaluation scores
for each anaerobic digestion-coupled process in different countries
(China, India, USA and UK) were obtained and their future potentials
were predicted. The high-rate activated sludge plus sludge anaerobic
digestion process is identified as the most sustainable technology to be
applied in China, USA, and UK at any time, while the up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket plus activated sludge process is more preferable for India
at the present stage. In the future, economics will still be key factor
governing the selection of municipal wastewater treatment technology
in China and India. To maximize the sustainability, it will be econom-
ically more feasible for the developed countries to explore and imple-
ment the resource-oriented anaerobic technologies, while developing
countries would still lay a high priority on the development of low-cost
and environmentally-beneficial technologies in the near future.
Competing financial interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant numbers 51538011, 51522812 and
51821006).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.064.
References
[1] US EPA. Water and energy: leveraging voluntary programs to save both water and
energy. 2008. Washington DC.
[2] Yan P, Qin R, Guo J, Yu Q, Li Q, Chen Y, et al. Net-zero-energy model for sustainable
wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:1017–23.
[3] He L, Du P, Chen Y, Lu H, Cheng X, Chang B, et al. Advances in microbial fuel cells
for wastewater treatment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;71:388–403.
[4] McCarty PL, Bae J, Kim J. Municipal wastewater treatment as a net energy pro-
ducer-Can this be achieved? Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:7100–6.
[5] Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. Energy recovery from wastewaters with high-rate
anaerobic digesters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:704–41.
B.-C. Huang, et al.
[6] Li WW, Yu HQ, Rittmann BE. Reuse water pollutants. Nature 2015;528:29–31.
[7] Jewell WJ. Anaerobic sewage treatment. Environ Sci Technol 1987;21(1):14–21.
[8] Seghezzo L, Zeeman G, van Lier JB, Hamelers HVM, Lettinga G. A review: the
anaerobic treatment of sewage in UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresour Technol
1998;65:175–90.
[9] Hao X, Cai Z, Fu K, Zhao D. Distinguishing activity decay and cell death from
bacterial decay for two types of methanogens. Water Res 2012;46(4):1251–9.
[10] Lettinga G, Rebac S, Zeeman G. Challenge of psychrophilic anaerobic wastewater
treatment. Trends Biotechnol 2001;19(9):363–70.
[11] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review.
Bioresour Technol 2008;99(10):4044–64.
[12] Li WW, Yu HQ. Advances in energy-producing anaerobic biotechnologies for mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment. Engineering 2016;2:438–46.
[13] Sheboygan Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Treatment plant brochure.
2017. [Acessed Novembener, 2017]. http://www.sheboyganwwtp.com/files/2012/
pdf/Treatment%20Plant%20Brochure%202012.pdf.
[14] Jonasson M. Energy Benchmark for wastewater treatment processes. Sweden: Lund
University; 2007.
[15] Walia R, Kumar P, Mehrotra I. Performance of UASB based sewage treatment plant
in India: polishing by diffusers an alternative. Water Sci Technol 2011;63:680–8.
[16] Monroy O, Famá G, Meraz M, Montoya L, Macarie H. Anaerobic digestion for
wastewater treatment in Mexico: state of the technology. Water Res
2000;34:1803–16.
[17] Zhang L. Anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater in a UASB-digester system:
temperature effect on system performance, hydrolysis and methanogenesis [dis-
sertation]. Netherland: Wageningen University; 2016.
[18] Smith AL, Stadler LB, Cao L, Love NG, Raskin L, Skerlos SJ. Navigating wastewater
energy recovery strategies: a life cycle comparison of anaerobic membrane bior-
eactor and conventional treatment systems with anaerobic digestion. Environ Sci
Technol 2014;48:5972–81.
[19] Mo W, Zhang Q. Can municipal wastewater treatment systems be carbon neutral? J
Environ Manag 2012;112:360–7.
[20] Buonocore E, Franzese PP, Ulgiati S. Assessing the environmental performance and
sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: a life cycle assessment perspec-
tive. Energy 2012;37:69–78.
[21] Zhang C, Anadon LD. Life cycle water use of energy production and its environ-
mental impacts in China. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:14459–67.
[22] Foley JM, Rozenda RA, Hertle CK, Lant PA, Rabaey K. Life cycle assessment of high-
rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells.
Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:3629–37.
[23] Huang IB, Keisler J, Igor L. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sci-
ences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ
2011;409(19):3578–94.
[24] Murrant D, Radcliffe J. Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-
criteria decision analysis-based framework. Appl Energy 2018;231:788–802.
[25] Caldeira C, Freire F, Olivetti EA, Kirchain R, Dias LC. Analysis of cost-environmental
trade-offs in biodiesel production incorporating waste feedstocks: a multi-objective
programming approach. J Clean Prod 2019;216:64–73.
[26] Jimenez J, Miller M, Bott C, Murthy S, De Clippeleir H, Wett B. High-rate activated
sludge system for carbon management-Evaluation of crucial process mechanisms
and design parameters. Water Res 2015;87:476–82.
[27] Henze M, van Loosdrecht MC, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D. Biological wastewater
treatment. London: IWA Publishing; 2008.
[28] Bowen EJ, Dolfing J, Davenport RJ, Read FL, Curtis TP. Low-temperature limitation
of bioreactor sludge in anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater. Water Sci
Technol 2014;69:1004–13.
[29] US EPA. Opportunities for combined heat and power at wastewater treatment fa-
cilities: market analysis and lessons from the field. 2011. Washington DC.
[30] Metcalf and Eddy. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. New York:
McRAW-Hill publishing; 2003.
[31] Judd S, Judd C. The MBR book: chapter 3-design. Oxford: Elsevier Science; 2006.
[32] Bandaraa WM, Satoha H, Sasakawab M, Nakaharab Y, Takahashia M, Okabe S.
Removal of residual dissolved methane gas in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor treating low-strength wastewater at low temperature with degassing
membrane. Water Res 2011;45:3533–40.
[33] Cookney J, Cartmell E, Jefferson B, McAdam EJ. Recovery of methane from anae-
robic process effluent using poly-di-methyl-siloxane membrane contactors. Water
Sci. Tehcnol. 2012;65:604–10.
[34] Luo G, Wang W, Angelidaki IA. New degassing membrane coupled upflow anae-
robic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor to achieve in-situ biogas upgrading and re-
covery of dissolved CH4 from the anaerobic effluent. Appl Energy
2014;132:536–42.
[35] Lelieveld J, Lechtenböhmer S, Assonov SS, Brenninkmeijer CAM, Dienst C,
Fischedick M, et al. Greenhouse gases: low methane leakage from gas pipelines.
Nature 2005;434:841–2.
[36] Shahabadi MB, Yerushalmi L, Haghighat L. Impact of process design on greenhouse
gas (GHG) generation by wastewater treatment plants. Water Res
2009;43:2679–87.
[37] Kampschreur MJ, Temmink H, Kleerebezem R, Jetten MSM, Van Loosdrecht MCM.
Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment. Water Res
2009;43:4093–103.
[38] Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, et al.
Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. Climate change 2013: the physical
science basis. Contribution of working group i to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
141
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142
[39] International Energy Agency. CO2 emission from fuel combustion. IEA statistics;
2016.
[40] Statistical BP. Review of world energy. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/
energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/electricity.html, Accessed
date: November 2017.
[41] Henze M, Harremoes P, La Cour Jansen J, Arvin E. Wastewater treatment: biological
and chemical processes. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2001.
[42] UN Environment Programme. The Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative
Council, the World Health Organization. Water pollution control: a guide to the use
of water quality management principles. London: E & FN Spon; 1997.
[43] World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups.
[Accessed November 2017].
[44] UNFAO AQUASTAT database. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data.
[Accessed November 2017].
[45] Florke M, Kynast E, Barlund I, Eisner S, Wimmer F, Alcamo J. Domestic and in-
dustrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development:
a global simulation study. Glob Environ Chang 2013;23:144–56.
[46] Alcamo J, Doll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rosche T, et al. Development and
testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J
2003;48:317–37.
[47] Kamalesh JM. An analysis of wastewater temperature variations in six remote
monitored onsite systems. West Virginia University; 2008.
[48] Mohseni O, Stefa HG, Erickson TRA. Nonlinear regression model for weekly stream
temperatures. Water Resour Res 1998;34:2685–92.
[49] Cipolla SS, Maglionico M. Heat recovery from urban wastewater: analysis of the
variability of flow rate and temperature in the sewer of bologna. Italy. Energ.
Buildings 2014;69:122–30.
[50] Climatic Research Unit. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk.[Accessed November 2017].
[51] Flores-Alsina X, Rodriguez-Roda I, Sin G, Gernaey KV. Multi-criteria evaluation of
wastewater treatment plant control strategies under uncertainty. Water Res
2008;42:4485–97.
[52] Wang X, Liu J, Ren NQ, Yu HQ, Lee DJ, Guo X. Assessment of multiple sustainability
demands for wastewater treatment alternatives: a refined evaluation scheme and
case study. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:5542–9.
[53] Cornejo PK, Becker J, Pagilla K, Mo WW, Zhang Q, Mihelcic JR, et al. Sustainability
metrics for assessing water resource recovery facilities of the future. Water Environ
Res 2019;91:45–53.
[54] UN Population Division. World population prospects: the 2015 revision. 2015.
p. 40.
[55] US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. International macro-
economic data set, www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-
macroeconomic-data-set. 41[Accessed February 2017].
[56] US Energy Information Administration. International energy statistics: renewables
(electricity generation). https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/[Accessed
November 2017].
[57] World Bank. World development indicators: GDP per capita. http://databank.
worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators,
Accessed date: November 2017.
[58] World Bank. World development indicators: population density. http://databank.
worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators
[Accessed November 2017].
[59] World Bank. Worldwide governance indicators: government effectiveness. http://
databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=worldwide-governance-
indicators [Accessed November 2017].
[60] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD statistics. stats.
oecd.org [Accessed November 2017].
[61] Kumar S, Smith SR, Fowler G, Velis C, Kumar SJ, Arya S, et al. Challenges and
opportunities associated with waste management in India. Open Science
2017;4:160764.
[62] US Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-94 revised: guidelines and dis-
count rates for benefit-cost analysis of federal programs. 1994https://www.
whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094, Accessed date: June 2017.
[63] Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R. Economic valuation of
environmental benefits from wastewater treatment processes: an empirical ap-
proach for Spain. Sci Total Environ 2010;408:953–7.
[64] Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R. Economic feasibility
study for wastewater treatment: a cost–benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ
2010;408:4396–402.
[65] Eurostat database. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database [Accessed June
2017].
[66] World Bank Group. Paying taxes. http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports/thematic-
reports/paying-taxes/[Accessed June 2017].
[67] International Labor Organization. Labor costs, http://www.ilo.org/global/
statistics-and-databases/lang-en/index.htm [Accessed June 2017].
[68] World Bank Group Finances. Loan average interest by country. https://finances.
worldbank.org/Loans-and-Credits/WB-Loan-Average-Interest-Rate-by-Country/
cfc3-hhwe/data [Accessed June 2017].
[69] World Bank. Global economic monitor commodities. http://databank.worldbank.
org/data/reports.aspx?source=global-economic-monitor-commodities. [Accessed
June 2017].
[70] US EPA. Emerging technologies for wastewater treatment and in-plant wet weather
management. 2013.
[71] IEA. Atalas of energy. http://energyatlas.iea.org/[Accessed November 2017].
[72] National Development and Reform Commission. The thirteen five-year plan of re-
newable energy development. www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbtz/201612/
W020161216659579206185.pdf [in Chiense, accessed Novembe 2017].
B.-C. Huang, et al.
[73] UNFCCC. China's intended nationally determined contribution: enhanced actions
on climate change. 2015.
[74] Connor R, Renata A, Ortigara C, Koncagül E, Uhlenbrook S, Lamizana-Diallo BM,
et al. The United Nations world water development report. Wastewater: the un-
tapped resource. 2017.
[75] Larsen TA, Hoffmann S, Lüthi C, Truffer B, Maurer M. Emerging solutions to the
water challenges of an urbanizing world. Science 2016;352:928–33.
[76] Singh NK, Kazmi AA, Starkl MA. Review on full-scale decentralized wastewater
142
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 132–142
treatment systems: techno-economical approach. Water Sci Technol
2015;71:468–78.
[77] Feng Y, Zhang Y, Quan X, Chen S. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste activated
sludge digestion by the addition of zero valent iron. Water Res 2014;52:242–50.
[78] Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievements of biogas from
anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:540–55.
[79] Li WW, Yu HQ, He Z. Towards sustainable wastewater treatment by using microbial
fuel cells-centered technologies. Energy Environ Sci 2014;7:911–24.