Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere

Sewage-water treatment with bio-energy production and carbon capture

and storage
Israel Bernardo S. Poblete, Ofélia de Queiroz F. Araújo, José Luiz de Medeiros *
Escola de Química, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, CT, E, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-909, Brazil

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Sewage-water treatment allows bio­

energy production with negative carbon
emissions.
• Anaerobic and aerobic digesters abate
99.7% of sewage-water chemical oxygen
demand.
• Biogas-combined-cycle with post-
combustion capture is coupled to
sewage treatment.
• Sewage-water treatment can have
negative emissions of -0.60 kgCO2/kgCOD-
Removed
.
• Sewage-water treatment with bioenergy
production has a positive net present
value.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Eldon R Rene Typical large-scale sewage-water treatments consume energy, occupy space and are unprofitable. This work
evaluates a conceivable two-staged sewage-water treatment at 40,000 m3/d of sewage-water with sewage-sludge
Keywords: (totaling 10kgCOD/m3) that becomes a profitable bioenergy producer exporting reusable water and electricity,
Sewage-water while promoting carbon capture. The first stage comprises microbial anaerobic digesters reducing the chemical
Anaerobic digestion
oxygen demand (COD) by 95% and producing 60%mol methane biogas. The effluent waters enter the subsequent
Biogas
aerobic stage comprising microbial air-fed digesters that extend COD reduction to 99.7%. To simulate the pro­
Biogas combined-cycle
Bioenergy cess, up-to-date anaerobic/aerobic digester models were implemented. A biogas-combined-cycle power plant
BECCS with/without post-combustion carbon capture is designed to match the biogas production, supplying electricity
to the process and to the grid. Results comprehend electricity exportation of 13.21 MW (7.92 kWh/tReusable-Water)
with -9.957tCO2/h of negative carbon emission (-0.6 kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-Removed). The biogas-combined-cycle
without carbon capture achieves 21.08 MW of power exportation, while a 37.3% energy penalty arises if car­
bon capture is implemented. Configurations with/without carbon capture reach feasibility at 125 USD/MWh of
electricity price, with respective net present values of 6.86 and 85.07 MMUSD and respective payback-times of 39
and 12 years. These results demonstrate that large-scale sewage-water treatment coupled to biogas-fired

Abbreviations: AD, Anaerobic Digestion; ADM-1, Anaerobic Digestion Model #1; BECCS, Bioenergy and CCS; BGCC, Biogas-Combined-Cycle; CCS, Carbon Capture
and Storage; CW, Cooling-Water; EOR, Enhanced Oil Recovery; GT, Gas-Turbine; HPS, High-Pressure Steam; HRSG, Heat-Recovery Steam-Generator; LHV, Lower
Heating Value; LPS, Low-Pressure Steam; MAD, Microbial Aerobic Digestion; MMUSD, Million US Dollar; PCC-MEA, Post-Combustion Aqueous-Monoethanolamine
Capture Plant; ST, Steam-Turbine; SW, Sewage-Water; SWTP, Sewage-Water Treatment Plant.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jlm@eq.ufrj.br (J.L. de Medeiros).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131763
Received 30 November 2020; Received in revised form 25 July 2021; Accepted 30 July 2021
Available online 31 July 2021
0045-6535/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
combined-cycles and carbon capture can achieve economically feasible bioenergy production with negative
carbon emissions.
Nomenclature
AP, COL, COM Annual profit, cost of labor and cost of
manufacturing (MMUSD/y)
COD Chemical oxygen demand (kgCOD/m3)
CR Capture-Ratio (kgSolvent/kgCO2)
CUT, DEP, GAP Cost of utilities, depreciation and gross annual
profit (MMUSD/y)
HR Heat-Ratio (kJ/kgCO2)
HRT Hydraulic retention time (d)
FCI, NPV Fixed capital investment and net present value
(MMUSD)
OLR Organic load rate (kgCOD/m3d)
q Volumetric flowrate (m3/d)
REV Revenues (MMUSD/y)
S COD-equivalent concentration (kgCOD/m3)
T Temperature (K)
V Volume (m3)
Greek Symbols
η Adiabatic efficiency
ρliq Liquid density (kg/m3)
1. Introduction
The growing global energy demand poses challenges to achieve clean
energy production matching global goals of minimization of greenhouse
gas emissions simultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels. In
other words, the development of a sustainable energy supply is neces­
sary (Ahmad and Zhang, 2020). This scenario raises the interest in the
management of industrial and domestic wastes to develop processes
akin to renewable energy, bioenergy, carbon capture and storage (CCS),
and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS). The use of anaerobic digestion (AD) in
sewage treatment plants is a promising waste management strategy to
abate high chemical oxygen demand (COD) while producing biogas
which is a potential source of bioenergy (Ghangrekar et al., 2014).
Brazil is recognized worldwide for the high share of renewable en­
ergy in its national energy matrix. According to IEA Bioenergy, in 2016,
165 biogas plants were operating in Brazil, totaling biogas production
around 2.2 MMNm3/d, or 5219 GWh/y of bioenergy. However, only 4%
of the energy share corresponds to sewage-water treatment plants
(SWTP) (IEA Bioenergy Task 37, 2020). The energy production in
SWTPs derives from anaerobic digestion (AD), which is a biological
process that degrades organic matter from sewage-water/sludge while
producing biogas.
Biogas is a renewable fuel-gas composed of CH4 (50–70%v/v), CO2
(30–50%v/v), other minor gases (e.g., H2, H2S, NH3 and N2) and water
vapor (Appels et al., 2011). A wide variety of substrates can be sub­
mitted to AD (Astals et al., 2015; Tyagi et al., 2018; Kamali et al., 2019),
comprehending carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. Typically, substrates
with long carbon chains – e.g., fats – tend to increase CH4 content in the
biogas, increasing biogas lower heating value (LHV) (Deublein and
Steinhauser, 2011).
AD is a complex process in which organic matter is converted into
simpler molecules. Several operational parameters such as organic load
rate (OLR), hydraulic retention time (HRT), temperature and substrate
composition impact biogas yield and composition. Therefore, robust
2
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
phenomenological models are required for AD modeling, such as the
Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM-1) (Batstone et al., 2002).
ADM-1 was proposed by the International Water Association (IWA) task
group and has been widely applied in AD simulation (Huang et al., 2019;
Zhou et al., 2020). Other models have been recently developed (Rubio
et al., 2020; Sendjaja et al., 2015), but they approach particular cases
while ADM-1 is still the most consolidated and generic model capable of
representing AD phenomenology. The main disadvantage of ADM-1 is
the computational effort to perform simultaneous resolution of several
stiff differentials (and algebraic) equations with dozens of parameters.
In addition, ADM-1 is limited to biogas composition in terms of CH4,
CO2, H2 and H2O, disregarding minor species like N2 and H2S.
BECCS processes consist of bioenergy production systems coupled to
permanent CO2 drainage from the carbon cycle, mitigating (or revert)
climate changes through systematic long-term negative emissions
(Creutzig et al., 2015). Carminati et al. (2019) evaluated an economi­
cally feasible BECCS sugarcane-biorefinery with impressive atmospheric
drainage of 5.22 MtCO2/y. Bello et al. (2020) investigated a BECCS
transportation case wherein biofuels utilization entails negative emis­
sions of − 2.7kgCO2/100 km. Pour et al. (2018) demonstrated net nega­
tive emissions of − 0.7kgCO2/kgSolid-Waste in municipal management of
solid-wastes and landfill-gas processing.
1.1. Sewage-water treatment plant
A SWTP usually comprises preliminary, primary, secondary and
tertiary levels of treatment. The preliminary level comprehends physical
barriers for removing coarse material, followed by the primary level
wherein suspended solids are removed in sedimentation units. In the
secondary level soluble solids and organic matter are chemically/bio­
chemically/biologically destroyed. Finally, remaining inorganics are
chemically/biochemically/biologically removed in the tertiary level
(Gerba et al., 2019). Several methods for sewage-water treatment are
reported in the literature (Kamali et al., 2019; Laqbaqbi et al., 2019; Li
and Yang, 2018; Ozgun et al., 2013). Biological treatments are consid­
ered the most effective due to their excellent capabilities for organic
matter removal at high loading rates simultaneously producing biogas as
in the AD case (Aziz et al., 2019). However, sewage-sludge is generated
during sewage-water treatment and its disposal represents up to 50% of
SWTP operating costs (Appels et al., 2011). On the other hand, the
processing of sludge at certain ratios in the sewage-water feed of AD
reactors is a known process that enhances biogas yield due to the in­
crease of organic matter load (Singh et al., 2020; Schwarzenbeck et al.,
2008). Therefore, it is possible to conceive a new SWTP design com­
prehending not only sewage-water treatment and production of reusable
water, but also steady production of biogas to feed a coupled biogas
combined-cycle power plant for exportation of electricity.
Recently, Guilera et al. (2020) reported a SWTP with AD reactors
processing sewage-water from a community of 200,000 inhabitants and
upgrading biogas to biomethane with 80% energy efficiency. Lafratta
et al. (2020) studied the addition of sewage-sludge from primary
treatment to AD, achieving 5% higher power production in a
biogas-fired power plant. Farahbakhsh and Chahartaghi (Tamjidi Far­
ahbakhsh and Chahartaghi, 2020) combined heating and power pro­
duction in a SWTP that exports hot water and power. Nguyen et al.
(2020) evaluated different biogas upgrading to biomethane in a SWTP
achieving economic feasibility. González-Arias et al. (2020) evaluated a
SWTP with integrated AD-pyrolysis process of sludge from AD, wherein
sewage-sludge was blended with fats and was submitted to mesophilic
AD (T = 35◦ C, HRT = 40d). Results demonstrated that adding 3%w/v of
fat to the sludge feed increases by 25% the electricity generated from
biogas in the CHP unit. Also, increasing the fat ratio to 15%w/v allows
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
increasing 2.4 times electricity generation while fulfilling all heat needs
for sludge drying. Chang et al. (2019) present an electricity generation
case-study using micro gas-turbine (GT), Micro-GT, fed with biogas from
a SWTP. The daily biogas production of 4424 m3/d (CH4 = 56.1%v/v,
CO2 = 25.5%v/v, H2 = 0.5%v/v, H2S = 0.99%v/v) results in a thermo­
dynamic efficiency of 0.234kWhe/kWh and electricity generation effi­
ciency of 1.09kWhe/(m3)Biogas for each 30 kW Micro-GT. The authors
reported that 25.82% of biogas was utilized in the SWTP and the
remaining was used for electricity generation of 172,003kWhe/y
accompanied by a GHG reduction of 94451kgCO2eq/y. Lee et al. (2017)
presented a SWTP-CHP-AD system with 173 m3/d of sludge capacity and
mesophilic AD reactor (VReactor = 3400 m3, SRT = 19d) which was
optimized modifying heat exchangers temperature differences and the
GT compression-ratio. The power generated in the optimized system
covers 47% of SWTP power demand and 100% of its heat demand.
1.2. Anaerobic digestion modeling
AD phenomenology comprises four main steps (Mao et al., 2015). In
the first, hydrolysis, organic matter is degraded by extracellular enzymes
to soluble compounds that can be used as energy source by anaerobic
microorganisms; i.e., no matter the feedstock complexity, its organic
matter is converted into carbohydrates, lipids and proteins (Zhang et al.,
2014). In the second step, acidogenesis, carbohydrates and proteins
degrade to volatile organic acids releasing NH3, H2S and CO2
by-products. In the third step, acetogenesis, volatile and long-chain fatty
acids ferment to acetate and hydrogen with CO2 by-product (Angelidaki
et al., 1999). In the last step, methanogenesis, acetate, hydrogen and part
of CO2 are converted by methanogenic organisms into more CO2 and
CH4. In this step, two types of methanogenic microorganisms coexist:
the acetotrophic, which splits acetate into CH4 and CO2, and the hydro­
genotrophic, which uses CO2 and H2 producing CH4 (Manchala et al.,
2017).
Mathematical AD models have been developed in the literature
(Batstone et al., 2002; Rubio et al., 2020; Andrews and Graef, 1971; Hill
and Barth, 1977; Husain, 1998; Giovannini et al., 2018). The
best-known AD model is the ADM-1, which includes multiple steps to
describe biochemical kinetics and physicochemical transformations.
ADM-1 biochemical kinetics comprehends disintegration, hydrolysis,
acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis, while physicochemical
changes are associated to liquid-gas transfers. ADM-1 encompasses 35
state variables and 100 parameters related to inputs, reaction kinetics
and outputs embodied as a dynamic non-distributed AD tank reactor and
has been calibrated with AD experimental data (Jeppsson and Rosen,
2006). Eq. (1) presents the liquid mass-balance of species i in terms of
equivalent chemical oxygen demand (COD), where the sum, expressed
in kgCOD/m3d, runs over kinetic rates ρj of processes j (among hydrolysis,
acidogenesis, acetogenesis and CH4/CO2 production processes) times
the rate coefficient νij of component i in process j. Sin,i and Sliq,i respec­
tively represent inlet and liquid concentration of component i
(kgCOD/m3); qin and qout represent inlet and outlet flowrates (m3/d); and
Vliq is the reactor liquid volume (m3). Supplement A, Supplementary
Materials, presents all differential and algebraic equations of ADM-1 as
implemented in this work for simulation of AD dynamics in MATLAB.
dSliq,i qin Sin,i Sliq,i qout ∑ 19
= − + ρj νi,j (1)
dt Vliq Vliq
j=1
Huang et al. (2019) evaluated ADM-1 for biogas production in
continuous stirred-tank reactors using as feedstock sewage-water with
sewage-sludge. The authors highlighted the concordance of ADM-1 re­
sults with the experimental data concluding that ADM-1 is useful for
designing and operating AD reactors. Zhou et al. (2020) used ADM-1 to
simulate AD of waste-activated sludge with corn silage employing a
control strategy to maximize biogas methane content. Donoso-Bravo
et al. (2020) used ADM-1 in a pilot-scale SWTP to predict AD of
3
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
sewage-sludge at high organic content in the feed of 80kgCOD/m3 and
OLR = 4kgCOD/m3d, showing that ADM-1 successfully reproduced the
behavior of full-scale reactors. Parra-Orrobio et al. (Parra-Orobio et al.,
2020) proposed a two-stage AD configuration (separated acidogenic and
methanogenic reactors). The authors used ADM-1 calibrated with
laboratory-scale data and concluded that two-staged AD is more effi­
cient than the single-staged counterpart.
Organic matter in ADM-1 is expressed as COD of carbohydrates,
proteins and lipids, but determining the composition of sewage-water is
a difficult task. Girault et al. (2012) proposed a method for the char­
acterization of a sewage-sludge substrate via laboratory analysis. The
authors report the COD of sewage activated sludge composed of 18%
lipids, 51% proteins and 31% carbohydrates. Raunkjær et al. (1994) is a
recognized work addressing a real SWTP with actual sewage-water COD
composition of 40% lipids, 37% proteins and 23% carbohydrates at a
flowrate of 40,000 m3/d. The present work adopts the sewage-water
COD composition of (Raunkjær et al., 1994).
1.3. Microbial aerobic digestion
Microbial aerobic digestion (MAD) is a well know process used in
SWTPs to reduce COD from sewage-water associated with odor and
bacteriological hazards. Contrarily to AD, MAD does not produce biogas,
and is conducted in continuous open tanks or aerated lagoons wherein
the microbial oxidation of COD demands continuous air injection via
diffusers or aeration devices (Water Environment, 2008). In the case of
feeds carrying solid material, the remaining MAD solids are separated
for dewatering and disposed as fertilizer or incinerated (Hao et al.,
2020). Compared to AD, MAD is easy to operate; it is faster and conse­
quently requires lower investment (i.e., smaller reactors are required).
MAD generates a high reduction of volatile solids and produces liquid
effluents with low COD (Shammas and Wang, 2009). The disadvantages
of MAD comprehend the power cost and investment to supply air/­
oxygen (Arvanitoyannis et al., 2008) to reactors and the unavoidable
CO2 from COD oxidation which is emitted in the air effluent. Since
biogas production is a main objective in the sewage-water treatment in
order to generate electricity revenues, MAD is prescribed in the present
study as a post-treatment after the AD step aiming at further reduction of
COD to harmless levels in the final reusable water product.
Keller et al. (Keller and Hartley, 2003) evaluated CO2 emissions from
SWTP with AD and MAD steps, finding a significant emission reduction
compared to fully aerobic treatment. Novak et al. (2011) evaluated
combined AD and MAD treatments of sludge with a recycle loop in
mesophilic conditions. The authors report volatile solids reduction 20%
higher than the conventional AD. Lastly, NREL (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2011) demonstrated a SWTP design for 96% COD
reduction of ethanol biorefinery waste-water wherein AD and MAD
steps operate in this order after sludge removal.
1.4. Bioenergy market
Renewable energy has significantly contributed to the global energy
supply. It had a share of 13.8% in the primary energy supply of 2018 and
has kept an annual growth of 2.4% since 2000. Besides, the renewable
market creates millions of jobs along the entire value chain. In 2019, an
estimated 11.5 million people were employed in the renewable energy
sector, wherein bioenergy, specifically, corresponds to 30% of this
contingent (A - World Bioenergy Ass, 2020). Alsaleh et al. (2021) show
that the expansion of the bioenergy market goes far beyond reducing
CO2 emissions. Positive social impacts such as the growth of the food
supply, female employment, and reduction of vulnerable employment
were associated with the development of the bioenergy industry in Eu­
ropean Union (EU28) countries. However, it is still necessary to establish
a long-term global policy with a supportive green taxation system to
encourage bioenergy consumption and discourage energy consumption
from non-renewable sources (Alsaleh and Abdul-Rahim, 2021).
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
1.5. The present work
The objective is to prove the concept of a profitable and environ­
mentally sustainable SWTP for treating sewage-water combining AD and
MAD steps to produce reusable water and a steady biogas flowrate. The
biogas feeds a biogas-combined-cycle (BGCC) power plant generating
revenues from electricity exportation. The BGCC CO2-rich flue-gas feeds
a Post-Combustion Capture plant performing CO2 absorption in
aqueous-monoethanolamine (PCC-MEA). The final treated flue-gas
loses ≈ 92% of its CO2 content and the final CO2 stream from PCC-
MEA is compressed and sent through a pipeline to a geological storage
alternative such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in a suitable oil field.
The combination of SWTP, BGCC, PCC-MEA, CO2 compression and EOR
defines the sewage-water treatment concept SWTP-BGCC-CCS. The
BGCC power plant supplies heat and electricity to all energy-consuming
steps of SWTP-BGCC-CCS – PCC-MEA and CO2 compressors – and ex­
ports the electricity surplus. SWTP-BGCC-CCS produces bioenergy
accompanied by negative CO2 emissions, besides exporting reusable
water from the large-scale sewage-water treatment. Hence, SWTP-
BGCC-CCS configures an energy self-sufficient BECCS process.
In the SWTP, the AD and MAD steps were simulated via ADM-1 and a
literature MAD model, both implemented in MATLAB®. The SWTP re­
ceives a realistic urban sewage-water stream carrying 1 kgCOD/m3
(Raunkjær et al., 1994), which is enriched with sewage-sludge from the
sedimentation unit in the SWTP primary treatment. Thus, the AD pro­
cesses 40,000 m3/d of feedstock at 10 kgCOD/m3. The resulting OLR in
the AD reactors is 1.0kgCOD/m3.d with HRT of 10 days, values that are
similar to the counterparts used in Zhou et al. (2020) experiments of
sewage-sludge AD. The AD liquid effluent is sent to the MAD step, while
AD solids are exported as fertilizer after drying. The MAD step removes
the remaining COD from the AD effluent in open tanks injecting ≈ 1100
m3/h of 1.4 bar compressed air. Since the ADM-1 and the MAD model are
transient models, 100 operation days were considered to achieve
steady-state biogas flowrate to the BGCC. The BGCC power plant was
implemented in the process simulator Aspen-HYSYS v10. The PCC-MEA
plant and CO2 compressors were added to the BGCC creating the BECCS
case SWTP-BGCC-CCS wherein the CO2 captured from BGCC flue-gas is
exported to EOR. Finally, in the last part of this work, a techno-economic
assessment is conducted based on the exported electricity and EOR
revenues. It is shown that SWTP-BGCC-CCS, besides being environ­
mentally positive, is economically feasible, and its competitiveness in­
creases in the eventuality of carbon taxation and under increased fossil
fuel price. Such a comprehensive SWTP-BGCC-CCS concept was never
approached before in the literature as an economically feasible BECCS
solution for large-scale sewage-water treatment or SWTP-BECCS.
This work demonstrates that SWTP-BECCS processing large-scale
sewage-water, coupled to BGCC and CCS is a plausible BECCS system
that is also economically feasible if the exported CO2 is traded for EOR.
The SWTP-BECCS converts the SWTP into a profitable process that
generates reusable water and electricity while literally carrying out
carbon drainage from the atmosphere through systematic negative CO2
emissions. This contribution of the present work counterpoints the
common notion that SWTP projects entail only expenses and profitless
performances that are normally supported by charging the public. The
SWTP-BECCS viability is even more promising considering more
restrictive GHG emission policies and the consolidation of the carbon
market. The limitations of the study derive from assuming isothermal
and uniform conditions in AD reactors; i.e., the absence of heterogene­
ities and spatial gradients of concentration/temperature, which implies
efficient mixing. To exploit the consequences of removing these as­
sumptions and including the energy cost of efficient stirring and
pumping are recommendations for future works in this subject.
4
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
2. Sewage-water treatment with biogas-combined-cycle and
carbon capture
The development of SWTP-BGCC-CCS considers the following steps:
(i) modeling of sewage-water treatment via AD and MAD steady-state
steps with steady production of biogas and reusable water (MATLAB
environment); (ii) steady-state BGCC implementation in HYSYS; (iii)
PCC-MEA and CO2 compressors added to BGCC to create the new
concept SWTP-BGCC-CCS that exports captured CO2 to EOR. Both SWTP
and BGCC have positive CO2 emissions, the first in the MAD step and the
second due to GT flue-gas. Adding PCC-MEA and CO2 compressors to
BGCC, the BGCC emissions are abated and SWTP-BGCC-CCS becomes a
genuine BECCS process. A SWTP-BGCC-CCS block diagram is shown in
Fig. 1. Table 1 presents power/emission/capture tributaries of SWTP-
BGCC-CCS.
2.1. Anaerobic and aerobic digesters
In the present application 40,000 m3/d of sewage-water feeds the
SWTP. The AD battery operates at T = 30◦ C and P = 1 atm and has 20
equal AD reactors designed for a sewage-water feed with some sewage-
sludge added totaling 10kgCOD/m3 to rise biogas production (Mirma­
soumi et al., 2018). The hydraulic retention time (HRT) is 10 days
resulting in an organic load rate OLR = 1.0kgCOD/m3d. The produced
biogas has ≈ 60.5%mol CH4, 35%mol CO2 and sufficient water for
saturation at 30oC. AD solids are used as fertilizers (Masebinu et al.,
2019; Peng et al., 2020), and the liquid effluent feeds the MAD reactors.
COD removal in AD attains ≈ 95% (Process Design and, 2011).
The battery of MAD reactors comprehends 10 aerated reactors (T =
30◦ C, P = 1 atm) consuming a total of 1100 m3/h of air at 1.4 bar
entailing the consumption of Power#1 (Table 1). Each MAD reactor
conducts biochemical oxidation with HRT of 2 days. The COD removal
in MAD step attains ≈ 94% totaling 99.7% of SWTP COD removal. MAD
emits 2.4kgCO2/kgCOD-Removed according to (Keller and Hartley, 2003)
generating the EmissionMAD in Table 1.
2.2. Biogas-combined-cycle
The BGCC operates at a constant biogas flowrate due to steady-state
conditions in the AD step. Biogas pressure increases from 1 atm to 14 bar
in a 3-staged intercooled compression train consuming Power#2
(Table 1) in order to supply biogas to the GT at design conditions. Two
Siemens-SGT300 GTs (Siemens, 2020) are used to generate net Power#3
(Table 1). GT operational conditions (including air conditions) are
shown in Table 2. The hot GT flue-gas heats the heat-recovery steam-­
generator (HRSG) and cools down to 140◦ C producing superheated
high-pressure steam (HPS, 30 bar, 492◦ C) from high-pressure conden­
sate sent by the Rankine-Cycle condenser pump. HPS expands to 0.2 bar
in the steam-turbine (ST) generating Power#4 (Table 1). The
combined-cycle efficiency reaches 48.5%(LHV) (Table 2). The final
BGCC flue-gas (40◦ C, 1 atm) has 4.59%mol CO2. Table 1 represents the
net power output of BGCC as PowerBGCC and the respective potential
emission as EmissionBGCC.
2.3. Biogas-combined-cycle with carbon capture and storage
The BGCC-CCS comprehends the BGCC followed by a post-
combustion capture plant with aqueous-MEA (PCC-MEA) and the CO2
compressor train. PCC-MEA is heated with LPS from the HRSG and
captures CO2 in an atmospheric 35-staged absorber fed at the top with
lean solvent (29.9%w/w MEA, T = 35◦ C). The rich flue-gas feed is uni­
formly distributed into four inlets uniformly positioned from the bottom
to stage 32. The absorber products are water-saturated decarbonated
flue-gas with 0.4%mol CO2 (EmissionPCC-MEA, Table 1) and CO2-rich
solvent. The reboilered 10-staged stripper of PCC-MEA produces atmo­
spheric water-saturated CO2-rich gas (T = 40◦ C, 93.2%mol CO2) in the
I.B.S. Poblete et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763

Fig. 1. SWTP-BGCC-CCS concept.

MATLAB®2012 – correspond to 100 days at 30oC. BGCC and PCC-MEA

Table 1
were steady-state simulated via HYSYS v10. Fig. 2 depicts the informa­
Power/emission/capture tributaries of SWTP-BGCC-CCS.
tion flows between MATLAB®2012 and Aspen-HYSYS v10 showing
System Tributary Description constant parameters, input variables and state/output variables of each
MAD Powerb1 - block.
Air Compressor
b
Biogas Power 2 -
Compressors 3.1. Technical analysis of SWTP-BGCC-CCS
Gas Turbines Powerb3 Net power after subtracting GT air-
compressor power
Table 2 presents modeling assumptions of SWTP-BGCC-CCS. Fig. 3
Rankine-Cycle Powerb4 -
SWTP-BGCC PowerSWTP-BGCC Powerb3 + Powerb4-Powerb1-Powerb2 shows the SWTP-BGCC-CCS flowsheet. The sewage-water flow after the
Rankine- Powerb5 Powerb5 < Powerb4 due to LPS to PCC- addition of sewage-sludge is 40000 m3/d at 10kgCOD/m3. The SWTP
CyclePCC-MEAa MEA operates 20 equal parallel AD reactors (HRT = 10 days). An individual
CO2 Compressors Powerb6 - AD reactor is simulated by ADM-1 dynamic model, which is presented in
PCC-MEA Pumps Powerb7 Solvent recirculation pump power and LPS
condensate pump power
Supplemnet A, Supplementary Materials (Jeppsson and Rosen, 2006). In
SWTP-BGCC- PowerSWTP-BGCC-CCS Powerb3 + Powerb5-Powerb1 the MAD section of the SWTP, 10 MAD reactors were modeled as tran­
CCS -Powerb2-Powerb6-Powerb7 sient continuous stirred tank reactors (T = 30◦ C, P = 1 atm) in Eq. (2),
MAD EmissionMAD CO2 emitted in MAD exhaust air where qin and qout represent inlet and outlet liquid flowrates (m3/d) with
BGCC EmissionBGCC CO2 potential emission in BGCC flue-gas
qin = qout = 4000 m3/d per reactor. The soluble COD in the MAD inlet
PCC-MEA EmissionPCC-MEA CO2 emitted in treated flue-gas
EOR CaptureEOR Captured CO2 to EOR from the AD step is Sin (kgCOD/m3), while the COD in the MAD outlet is
SWTP-BGCC- Net-EmissionSWTP- EmissionMAD + EmissionPCC-MEA Sliq (kgCOD/m3). The reactor liquid volume is Vliq = 8000 m3 with first
CCS BGCC-CCSb
-CaptureEOR order reaction rate coefficient Kd = 8 d− 1 (Eckenfelder et al., 2009).
a
Rankine-Cycle reduced power due to PCC-MEA LPS consumption. dSliq qin qout
b
Net (negative) emission of SWTP-BGCC-CCS. = Sin − Sliq − Kd Sliq (2)
dt Vliq Vliq

top condenser and lean solvent (T = 104◦ C) as bottoms. A heat-
integration exchanger preheats the rich solvent from 47◦ C to 84◦ C
while cooling down the lean solvent from 104◦ C to 64◦ C. The HRSG is
retrofitted to replace part of the HPS production by low-pressure satu­
rated steam (LPS, P = 3.0 bar, T = 135◦ C) production from saturated LPS
condensate to fed the PCC-MEA reboiler. The Rankine-Cycle net power
now corresponds to Power#5 (Table 1). The CO2-rich gas from PCC-MEA
is compressed in a 5-staged intercooled-compression train producing a
liquid CO2 stream (P = 116 bar, T = 40◦ C) which is pumped and cooled
down to dispatch conditions (P = 200 bar, T = 40◦ C). CO2 compression
and pumping to EOR consume Power#6 (Table 1). The net power output
of BGCC-CCS is PowerBGCC-CCS (Table 1). The net (negative) emissions of
SWTP-BGCC-CCS is written as Net-EmissionSWTP-BGCC-CCS (Table 1).
3. Methods
Techno-economic aspects of SWTP-BGCC-CCS were evaluated
through the following steps: (i) simulation of SWTP with AD and MAD
operations in MATLAB; (ii) the steady-state biogas production from AD
feeds the BGCC-CCS flowsheet solved in HYSYS to give powers, heat
duties, equipment sizes and all material streams; and (iii) economic
assessment. Table 2 shows SWTP-BGCC-CCS modeling assumptions. The
implemented ADM-1 model was validated in a previous work (Poblete
et al., 2020). AD and MAD simulations – executed by ODE15S solver of
In the BGCC section two biogas-fired GTs provide electricity and heat
to the BGCC. The Rankine-Cycle expands HPS in the ST, generating more
electricity. The PCC-MEA unit captures ≈ 92% of CO2 in the BGCC flue-
gas. The intercooled CO2 compressor train recovers condensed water
and exports liquid CO2 to EOR.
3.2. Economic analysis of SWTP-BGCC-CCS
Economic analysis follows Turton et al. (2009) and the assumptions
in Table 3. Equipment fixed capital investments (FCI,MMUSD) are esti­
mated via Eq. (3) – NEQ number of equipment items – in terms of bare
module costs (CBM) calculated from purchased costs in a reference
condition corrected via design/pressure/material factors, and updated
to the reference date (December-2017) via the Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index 567.5. For equipment capacities above correlation
limits, CBM is extrapolated via Eq. (4); where CF is a capacity factor. The
cost of utilities (CUT,MMUSD/y) – Eq. (5) – comprises the costs of
electric energy (CUTEE) and cooling-water (CUTCW). The cost of
manufacturing (COM,MMUSD/y) – Eq. (6) – comprises fixed costs and
raw materials (CRM,MMUSD/y), utilities (CUT,MMUSD/y) and labor
(COL,MMUSD/y) costs. Gross annual profit (GAP,MMUSD/y) and annual
profit (AP,MMUSD/y) follow via Eq. (7), where REV (MMUSD/y), ITR
(%) and DEPR (MMUSD/y) respectively stand for revenues, income tax
rate, and annual depreciation. The net present value, NPV, follows via

5
I.B.S. Poblete et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763

Table 2 Eq. (8), where N and i(%) represent number of operation years and
SWTP-BGCC-CCS Modeling assumptions. annual interest rate.
Item Description Assumptions NEQ
∑
N

A1 Thermodynamic Air, Biogas aamp; CO2 Compressors aamp; FCI = 1.18 CBM (j) (3)
Expanders: Peng-Robinson Equation-of-State (PR- j=1
EOS) with Free-Water;
/ ( / )0.6
PCC-MEA: HYSYS Acid-Gas Package;
CBM CBM Lim = CF CF Lim (4)
Modeling BGCC Rankine-Cycle: ASME Steam-Table.
A2 Feedstock Sewage-Water (Raunkjær et al., 1994) with
Sewage Sludge at 10kgCOD/m3; CUT = CUT EE + CUT CW (5)
Carbohydrate(23%) = 2.34kgCOD/m3;
Protein(37%) = 3.63kgCOD/m3; Lipids(40%) =
COM = 0.18FCI + 2.73COL + 1.23(CUT + CRM) (6)
4.03kgCOD/m3;
Flowrate = 40,000 m3/d; CODRemoved =
99.7%b,a.
A3 AD Inlet (One Reactor) Flowrate = 2000 m3/d at 10kgCOD/m3; {
PInlet = 1 bar; TInlet = 30◦ C. GAP− (GAP− DEPR).ITR/100(GAP>DEPR)
GAP=REV − COM; AP=
A4 AD Reactors Vliq = 20000 m3; Vgas = 2000 m3; 20 Reactors; GAP (GAP≤DEPR)
CODRemoved = 95%. (7)
A5 MAD Inlet (One Reactor) Flowrate = 4000 m3/d at 0.5kgCOD/m3; PInlet = 1
bar; TInlet = 30◦ C ( )
( ) ∑
N +2
A6 MAD Reactors V = 8000 m3; PReactor = 1 bar; TReactor = 30◦ C; 10
NPV = − 0.4 + 0.6q− 1
FCI + AP q− k
, q = (1 + i / 100) (8)
Reactors; k=2
Specific Reaction Rate: 8 d− 1 (Eckenfelder et al.,
2009); CODRemoved = 94%.
A7 Steady-State Biogas CH4 = 60.5%molb; CO2 = 35.0%molb; Water = 4. Results and discussion
Composition (30oC) 4.5%molb.
A8 Cooling-Water TInlet = 35oC, TOutlet = 55oC.
Technical and economic results are presented for the SWTP-BGCC
A9 CO2 to EOR PEOR = 200 bar; CO2 = 99.5%mola.
A10 MAD Air Compressor Flow = 1100 m3/h (actual);PInlet = 1 atm; POutlet and SWTP-BGCC-CCS. For AD and MAD reactors a dynamic analysis of
= 1.4 atm; TOutlet = 30◦ C. COD removal and biogas production is presented until the steady-state.
A11 Heat Exchangers ΔTApproach = 50◦ C (HRSG); ΔTApproach = 10◦ C All other processes were evaluated at steady-state conditions.
(Gas-CW);
Head-Loss: 0.5 bar.
A12 Steam HPS: P = 30 bar, T = 492◦ C; LPS: P = 3 bar, T =
134oC.
4.1. Technical results
A13 Adiabatic Efficiencies ηPumps = 75%; ηST = 75%;ηGT-Expander =
83%;ηCompressors = 75%. The AD biogas production attained 10280 m3/d for each AD reactor
A14 Steam-Turbine (ST) PInlet = 30 bar; POutlet = 0.15 bar; Outlet Quality: after 100 days of operation, corresponding to 205600 m3/d for the 20
95.44%a.
AD reactors. The OLR of AD reactors was 1.0kgCOD/m3d with a hydraulic
A15 Air T = 25oC; P = 1 atm; Dry-Basis: N2 = 79%mol,
O2 = 21%mol; retention time (HRT) of 10 days. Fig. 4 depicts the steady-state solutions
Relative-Humidity = 60%. for one AD reactor and one MAD reactor, showing the biogas with 60.5%
A16 Gas-Turbine (GT) Siemens SGT-300; Heat-Rate = 11,773 kJ/kWh; mol CH4, 35.0%mol CO2, 4.5%mol H2O and 29.8ppm-mol H2, a biogas
PInlet = 14 bar; Air/Fuel = 22.5 kg/kg; TFlue-Gas
composition similar to the results of (Jeppsson and Rosen, 2006). Fig. 5
= 542◦ C;
Biogas-Flowa = 20b10280 m3/d = 205600 m3/
depicts dynamic paths of several variables of AD and MAD reactors.
d (actual); 2 GTs. From day 100 onwards, the AD COD removal reaches 95% and biogas
A17 PCC-MEA Aqueous-MEA Solvent (MEA = 29.9%w/w); production achieves a clear steady-state. Thus, the AD effluent contains
Capture-Ratio: CR = 13.9 kgSolvent/kgCO2; 0.5kgCOD/m3 at steady-state in the inlet of the MAD reactors. On the
Treated Flue-Gasa: 0.4%mol CO2 (91.7% CO2
other hand, each MAD reactor achieves 94% of COD removal after 5
Removal)
Stripping Heat-Ratio: HR = 222.11 kJ/molCO2. days of simulation, implying a steady-state COD removal of 99.7% and
A18 BGCC Thermodynamic Single-Cycle: YieldSC = 30.61%a; steady-state remaining COD in the reusable water of 0.029kgCOD/m3.
Yield Combined-Cycle: YieldCC = 48.5%a. The net power output of BGCC is 21.078 MW or an equivalent supply
a
Calculated values. of electricity to 50,589 houses considering 300 kWh/house.month. On
b
ADM-1 steady-state values. the other hand, the net power output of BGCC-CCS reaches only 13.206
MW, a 37.3% reduction (or 7.871 MW less power exportation) due to

Fig. 2. SWTP-BGCC-CCS information flow, parameters and input/output variables.

6
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
Fig. 3. SWTP-BGCC-CCS flowsheet: a) Biogas and reusable water production; b) Rankine-Cycle and PCC-MEA; and c) CO2 compressor train.
CCS energy penalty. The biogas-fired GTs generate 14.04 MW, but the
Rankine-Cycle faces an energy penalty of 76.6% due to LPS production
that is absorbed by the PCC-MEA plant, consequently lowering the HPS
production to steam-turbines. The total power consumption of the CO2
compression train and pump reaches 1.57 MW. By its turn, the MAD air
compressor demands 137.5 kW. Table 4 summarizes power consump­
tions/productions of SWTP-BGCC-CCS.
Fig. 6 reports power produced/consumed by SWTP-BGCC-CCS
(Fig. 6a) and equivalent (potential) CO2 emissions (Fig. 6b). In this re­
gard, BGCC emits 14.267tCO2/h via GT flue-gas; MAD air effluent emits
1.88tCO2/h from biochemical oxidation, while PCC-MEA captures 91.7%
(13.052tCO2/h) of the CO2 in GT flue-gas and emits 0.4%mol CO2 in the
treated flue-gas or 1.215tCO2/h. The captured CO2 exported to EOR en­
tails SWTP-BGCC-CCS negative net emissions of -9.957tCO2/h.
Table 5 evaluates SWTP-BGCC-CCS via four performance ratios: (i)
kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-Removed; (ii) kgCO2-Emitted/tReusable-Water; (iii) tCO2-Emmited/
MWhExported; and (iv) kWhExported/tReusable-Water. All emission ratios are
7
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
negative due to CO2 utilization, demonstrating that SWTP-BGCC-CCS is
a truly BECCS system that continuously drains CO2 from the atmosphere
while executing large-scale sewage-water treatment with electricity
production. Besides, the CO2 emitted in the MAD step and in the treated
flue-gas from PCC-MEA has a biogenic source; i.e., these emissions do
not contribute to a long-term increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (Zaimes
et al., 2015).
SWTP-BECCS has superior performance of carbon footprint
-0.60kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-Removed compared to 2.4kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-
Removed
for MAD treatment and 1.0 kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-Removed for AD
treatment as reported by Keller et al. (Keller and Hartley, 2003). Besides,
the production of electricity of SWTP-BECCS with an emission factor of
-0.76tCO2-Emitted/MWhExported is much more environmentally friendly
than the counterparts of thermoelectric plants firing oil and natural gas,
respectively, of 0.76tCO2-Emitted/MWhExported and 0.53tCO2-Emitted/M­
WhExported (Working groupI r, 2021).
I.B.S. Poblete et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763

Table 3 electricity. CO2 to EOR was supposed to be traded at 1bblOil/tCO2 or

Economic assumptions. 42USD/tCO2 (nergy Informati, 2020). FCI and NPV were estimated – 52
Item Description Assumption years of project lifetime – with the following results: FCISWTP-BGCC =
64.36MMUSD, NPVSWTP-BGCC = 85.07MMUSD (payback-time = 12years);
E1 Project Lifetime Construction: 2 years allocating 40%/60% FCI (
Carminati et al., 2019) Operation: 50b years ( FCISWTP-BGCC-CCS = 72.95MMUSD, NPVSWTP-BGCC-CCS = 6.86MMUSD
Brigagão et al., 2019) (payback-time = 39years). Profits can be even greater considering the
E2 DEPR (MMUSD/y) 10% FCI carbon market since SWTP-BGCC-CCS generates negative CO2 emis­
E3 Income Tax Rate ITR = 34% (Carminati et al., 2019) sions. Fig. 7 depicts NPV profiles of SWTP-BGCC and SWTP-BGCC-CCS
E4 Annual Interest Rate i = 5%a
E5 Annual Cost of Labor COL ≈ 0 MMUSD/y (negligible vis-à-vis FCI &
versus time. Supplement B, Supplementary Materials, presents
CUT) detailed equipment FCI values and all components of NPV calculations
E6 Operation 8000 h/y (Carminati et al., 2019), (Brigagão (i.e., CUT, COM, REV, GAP, DEPR and AP).
et al., 2019) Although CCS inclusion results in a reduction of approximately
E7 Annual Cost of Raw- Sewage-Water & Sewage-Sludge:CRM ≈
78.21MMUSD in the final NPV, SWTP-BGCC-CCS solution presents
Materials 0 MMUSD/y
E8 Electricity Price 125USD/MWh (IEA, 2020) payback-time = 39years, demonstrating the economic viability of the
E9 EOR Remuneration 1 bblOil/tCO2 (Carminati et al., 2019) BECCS concept applied to large-scale STWP, if the captured CO2 is
E10 Oil Price 42USD/bbl (nergy Informati, 2020) traded (e.g., for EOR). In SWTP-BGCC-CCS the EOR revenues are higher
E11 Reactors FCI AD Reactor (20,000 m3): FCI = 2.11MMUSD ( than the electricity counterpart. Moreover, the payback-time of SWTP-
Brigagão et al., 2019)
MAD Reactor (8,000 m3): FCI = 1.27MMUSD (
BGCC-CCS may lower considering a possible rise of oil prices in the
Process Design and, 2011) near future.
E12 Reference Date for December-2017
Economic Analysis 5. Future research directions
a
Low interest rate adequate to infrastructure enterprises aiming at social
welfare and environmental objectives. The research that generated this work is continuously evolving and
b
SWTP plants are sufficiently durable to justify a project lifetime of 50 years its main future targets comprise expansions in the mathematical
of operation. modeling as well as in the non-technical analysis (i.e., socio-economic
and environmental grounds), namely: (i) expansion of the current uni­
form and isothermal dynamic AD model (ADM-1) towards a non-
isothermal and distributed (i.e., including spatial dependencies) dy­
namic AD model; (ii) inclusion of fully heterogeneous AD conditions (i.
e., spatial dependencies of dependent variables such as metabolite
concentrations and temperature) in the AD reactor; (iii) expansion of the
economic analysis towards a socio-economic-environmental context
comprising, among other things, governmental policies for tax reduction
and financial incentives related to the renewable energy market and low
carbon economy; and (iv) inclusion of socio-economic analysis based on

Table 4
SWTP-BGCC-CCS: Steady-state power consumptions/
productions.
System kW

BGCC 21,078
Fig. 4. Single reactor AD and MAD results: steady-state solution from day BGCC-CCS 13,206
100 onwards. GT 14,044
Rankine-Cycle 8227
Rankine-CycleCCS 1928
4.2. Economic assessment
CO2 Compressors/Pump − 1572
MAD Air Compressor − 137.5
REV and COM of SWTP-BGCC (i.e., no CCS) and SWTP-BGCC-CCS Biogas Compressors − 1055
were estimated with market prices (Table 3) of raw materials and

Fig. 5. a) AD dynamics with biogas production and percent COD removal; b) MAD dynamics with effluent COD and percent COD removal.

8
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
Fig. 6. SWTP-BGCC-CCS: a) consumed/produced powers; b) equivalent CO2 emission.
Table 5
SWTP-BGCC-CCS performance indicators.
Indicator
kgCO2-Emitted/kgCOD-Removed
kgCO2-Emitted/tonReusable-Water
tonCO2-Emmited/MWhExported
kWhExported/tonReusable-Water
Fig. 7. NPV (MMUSD) vs operation time.
quantitative metrics regarding, for example, the social impacts of SWTP-
BECCS case.
6. Conclusions
This work demonstrates the techno-economic feasibility of a new
concept of sewage-water treatment plant (SWTP) with bioenergy
exportation and negative CO2 emissions, i.e., a legitimate SWTP-BECCS.
SWTP-BECCS receives 40000 m3/d sewage-water enriched with sewage-
sludge totaling 10kgCOD/m3 and exports 40000 m3/d of reusable water
(assumed priceless), electricity (13.2 MW) and CO2-to-EOR (13.05tCO2/
h). SWTP-BECCS uses 20 AD reactors followed by 10 MAD reactors. This
setup abates 99.7% of the inlet COD producing 205600 m3/d of biogas
(60.5%mol CH4) which is burnt in a biogas-combined-cycle (BGCC) for
electricity generation. BGCC flue-gas feeds a PCC-MEA plant for post-
combustion removal of ≈ 92% of CO2. This captured CO2 is com­
pressed to EOR, wherein it can be traded at 1bblOil/tCO2 generating extra
revenues. BGCC supplies heat/electricity to SWTP-BECCS, especially for
CCS (PCC-MEA stripping heat-ratio and CO2 compressors). The main
point of this work was to prove that SWTP-BECCS is economically and
environmentally sustainable – despite of a 37.3% energy penalty
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
entailed by CCS over the BGCC power exportation and the extra in­
vestment burden brought by the CCS train – with positive NPV52years and
negative CO2 emissions of -9.957tCO2/h, not mentioning the huge vol­
Value ume of reusable water exported without any revenue associated.
− 0.60
− 5.98
− 0.76 Declaration of competing interest
7.92
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge financial support from Petrobras S/A
(5850.0107386.18.9). JL de Medeiros and OQF Araújo also acknowl­
edge support from CNPq-Brazil (313861/2020-0).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131763.
Author credit statement
Israel Bernardo S. Poblete: Software, Writing – original draft, Writing
– review & editing, Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Visualization. Ofélia de Queiroz F. Araújo: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration,
Resources, Writing – review & editing. José Luiz de Medeiros: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing,
Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Funding
acquisition, Project administration, Resources.
References
WBA - World Bioenergy Association, 2020. GLOBAL BIOENERGY STATISTICS 2020-
Annual report. http://www.worldbioenergy.org/uploads/201210%20WBA%20GBS
%202020.pdf. (Accessed 29 June 2021).
Ahmad, T., Zhang, D., 2020. A critical review of comparative global historical energy
consumption and future demand: the story told so far. Energy Rep. 6, 1973–1991.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.020.
Alsaleh, M., Abdul-Rahim, A.S., 2021. The pathway toward pollution mitigation in EU28
region: does bioenergy growth make a difference? Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 32
(3), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-08-2020-0177.
Alsaleh, M., Abdulwakil, M.M., Abdul-Rahim, A.S., 2021. Does social businesses
development affect bioenergy industry growth under the pathway of sustainable
development? Sustainability 13 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041989.
Andrews, J.F., Graef, S.P., 1971. Dynamic modeling and simulation of the anaerobic
digestion process. In: Anaerobic Biological Treatment Processes. AMERICAN
CHEMICAL SOCIETY, pp. 126–162. https://doi.org/10.1021/ba-1971-0105.ch008.
9
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
Angelidaki, I., Ellegaard, L., Ahring, B.K., 1999. A comprehensive model of anaerobic
bioconversion of complex substrates to biogas. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 63 (3), 363–372.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0290(19990505)63:3<363::AID-BIT13>3.0.
CO;2-Z.
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrève, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems, K., Van Impe, J.,
Dewil, R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and
research challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (9), 4295–4301. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121.
Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Kassaveti, A., Ladas, D., 2008. 6 - food waste treatment
methodologies. In: Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (Ed.), Waste Management for the Food
Industries. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 345–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-012373654-3.50009-2.
Astals, S., Musenze, R.S., Bai, X., Tannock, S., Tait, S., Pratt, S., Jensen, P.D., 2015.
Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and algae: impact of intracellular algal
products recovery on co-digestion performance. Bioresour. Technol. 181, 97–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.039.
Aziz, A., Basheer, F., Sengar, A., Irfanullah, Khan, S.U., Farooqi, I.H., 2019. Biological
wastewater treatment (anaerobic-aerobic) technologies for safe discharge of treated
slaughterhouse and meat processing wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 686, 681–708.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.295.
Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., Pavlostathis, S.G., Rozzi, A.,
Sanders, W.T.M., Siegrist, H., Vavilin, V.A., 2002. The IWA anaerobic digestion
model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 45 (10), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2002.0292.
Bello, S., Galán-Martín, Á., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., Guillén-Gosálbez, G., 2020. BECCS
based on bioethanol from wood residues: potential towards a carbon-negative
transport and side-effects. Appl. Energy 279, 115884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.115884.
Brigagão, G.V., Wiesberg, I.L., Pinto, J.L., Araújo, O.d.Q.F., de Medeiros, J.L., 2019.
Upstream and downstream processing of microalgal biogas: emissions, energy and
economic performances under carbon taxation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112,
508–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.009.
Carminati, H.B., Milão, R.d.F.D., de Medeiros, J.L., Araújo, O.d.Q.F., 2019. Bioenergy
and full carbon dioxide sinking in sugarcane-biorefinery with post-combustion
capture and storage: techno-economic feasibility. Appl. Energy 254, 113633.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113633.
Chang, C.-C., Manh, D., Hsu, W.-L., Liu, B.-L., Chang, C., Chen, Y.-H., Yuan, M.-H.,
Lin, C.-F., Yu, C.-P., Chen, Y.-H., Shie, J.-L., Wu, W.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Tuyen, T., 2019.
A case study on the electricity generation using a micro gas turbine fuelled by biogas
from a sewage treatment plant. Energies 12, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en12122424.
Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N.H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F.,
Chum, H., Corbera, E., Delucchi, M., Faaij, A., Fargione, J., Haberl, H., Heath, G.,
Lucon, O., Plevin, R., Popp, A., Robledo-Abad, C., Rose, S., Smith, P., Stromman, A.,
Suh, S., Masera, O., 2015. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment.
GCB Bioenergy 7 (5), 916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205.
Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A., 2011. Chapter 8 - biogas - biogas from waste and
renewable Resources. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632794.ch8.
Donoso-Bravo, A., Olivares, D., Lesty, Y., Bossche, H.V., 2020. Exploitation of the ADM1
in a XXI century wastewater resource recovery facility (WRRF): the case of
codigestion and thermal hydrolysis. Water Res. 175, 115654. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2020.115654.
Eckenfelder, W.W., Davis, L.F., Andrew, J.E., 2009. Industrial Water Quality - Charper 6
Principles of Aerobic Biological Oxidation. McGraw-Hill, New York. www.accesse
ngineeringlibrary.com/content/book/9780071548663/chapter/chapter6.
Gerba, C.P., Pepper, I.L., 2019. Chapter 22 - municipal wastewater treatment. In:
Brusseau, M.L., Pepper, I.L., Gerba, C.P. (Eds.), Environmental and Pollution Science,
third ed. Academic Press, pp. 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
814719-1.00022-7.
Ghangrekar, M.M., Behera, M., 2014. 3.5 - suspended growth treatment processes. In:
Ahuja, S. (Ed.), Comprehensive Water Quality and Purification. Elsevier, Waltham,
pp. 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382182-9.00087-6.
Giovannini, G., Sbarciog, M., Steyer, J.-P., Chamy, R., Vande Wouwer, A., 2018. On the
derivation of a simple dynamic model of anaerobic digestion including the evolution
of hydrogen. Water Res. 134, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.01.036.
Girault, R., Bridoux, G., Nauleau, F., Poullain, C., Buffet, J., Steyer, J.P., Sadowski, A.G.,
Béline, F., 2012. A waste characterisation procedure for ADM1 implementation
based on degradation kinetics. Water Res. 46 (13), 4099–4110. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.028.
González-Arias, J., Gil, M.V., Fernández, R.Á., Martínez, E.J., Fernández, C.,
Papaharalabos, G., Gómez, X., 2020. Integrating anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis
for treating digestates derived from sewage sludge and fat wastes. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (26), 32603–32614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-
09461-1.
Guilera, J., Andreu, T., Basset, N., Boeltken, T., Timm, F., Mallol, I., Morante, J.R., 2020.
Synthetic natural gas production from biogas in a waste water treatment plant.
Renew. Energy 146, 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.044.
Hao, X., Chen, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Li, J., Jiang, H., 2020. Sustainable disposal of
excess sludge: incineration without anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 170, 115298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115298.
Hill, D.T., Barth, C.L., 1977. A dynamic model for simulation of animal waste digestion.
Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 49 (10), 2129–2143. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/25039421.
Huang, Y., Ma, Y., Wan, J., Wang, Y., 2019. Mathematical modelling of the internal
circulation anaerobic reactor by Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1, simultaneously
10
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
combined with hydrodynamics. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 6249. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-42755-0.
Husain, A., 1998. Mathematical models of the kinetics of anaerobic digestion—a selected
review. Biomass Bioenergy 14 (5), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.01.036.
IEA, 2020. I.E.A. Household electricity prices in select IEA countries. https://www.iea.
org/data-and-statistics/charts/household-electricity-prices-in-select-iea-countries-
2018.
IEA Bioenergy Task 37, 2020. Country report summaries 2019. https://task37.ieabioen
ergy.com/country-reports.html.
Jeppsson, U., Rosen, C., 2006. Aspects on ADM1 Implementation within the BSM2
Framework. IEA LTH. Available at: https://www.iea.lth.se/publications/Reports
/LTH-IEA-7224.pdf.
Kamali, M., Costa, M.E., Aminabhavi, T.M., Capela, I., 2019. Sustainability of treatment
technologies for industrial biowastes effluents. Chem. Eng. J. 370, 1511–1521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.04.010.
Keller, J., Hartley, K., 2003. Greenhouse gas production in wastewater treatment: process
selection is the major factor. Water Sci. Technol. 47 (12), 43–48. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wst.2003.0626.
Lafratta, M., Thorpe, R.B., Ouki, S.K., Shana, A., Germain, E., Willcocks, M., Lee, J.,
2020. Dynamic biogas production from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge for on-
demand electricity generation. Bioresour. Technol. 310, 123415. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123415.
Laqbaqbi, M., García-Payo, M.C., Khayet, M., El Kharraz, J., Chaouch, M., 2019.
Application of direct contact membrane distillation for textile wastewater treatment
and fouling study. Separ. Purif. Technol. 209, 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seppur.2018.09.031.
Lee, S., Esfahani, I.J., Ifaei, P., Moya, W., Yoo, C., 2017. Thermo-environ-economic
modeling and optimization of an integrated wastewater treatment plant with a
combined heat and power generation system. Energy Convers. Manag. 142,
385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.03.060.
Li, Z., Yang, P., 2018. Review on physicochemical, chemical, and biological processes for
pharmaceutical wastewater. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 113, 012185 https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/113/1/012185.
Manchala, K.R., Sun, Y., Zhang, D., Wang, Z.-W., 2017. Chapter two - anaerobic digestion
modelling. In: Li, Y., Ge, X. (Eds.), Advances in Bioenergy. Elsevier, pp. 69–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aibe.2017.01.001.
Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., Ren, G., 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas
from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 540–555. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032.
Masebinu, S.O., Akinlabi, E.T., Muzenda, E., Aboyade, A.O., 2019. A review of biochar
properties and their roles in mitigating challenges with anaerobic digestion. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 103, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.048.
Mirmasoumi, S., Ebrahimi, S., Saray, R.K., 2018. Enhancement of biogas production from
sewage sludge in a wastewater treatment plant: evaluation of pretreatment
techniques and co-digestion under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Energy
157, 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.003Get.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, N., 2011. Process Design of Wastewater
Treatment for the NREL Cellulosic Ethanol Model. NREL/SR-5100-51838. https
://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/51838.pdf.
EIA U.S., 2020. Energy information administration., short-term energy outlook. October
2020. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf.
Nguyen, L.N., Kumar, J., Vu, M.T., Mohammed, J.A.H., Pathak, N., Commault, A.S.,
Sutherland, D., Zdarta, J., Tyagi, V.K., Nghiem, L.D., 2020. Biomethane production
from anaerobic co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants: a critical review on
development and innovations in biogas upgrading techniques. Science of The Total
Environment, p. 142753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142753.
Novak, J.T., Banjade, S., Murthy, S.N., 2011. Combined anaerobic and aerobic digestion
for increased solids reduction and nitrogen removal. Water Res. 45 (2), 618–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.08.014.
Ozgun, H., Dereli, R.K., Ersahin, M.E., Kinaci, C., Spanjers, H., van Lier, J.B., 2013.
A review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment:
integration options, limitations and expectations. Separ. Purif. Technol. 118,
89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.06.036.
Parra-Orobio, B.A., Donoso-Bravo, A., Torres-Lozada, P., 2020. Energy balance and
carbon dioxide emissions comparison through modified anaerobic digestion model
No 1 for single-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Biomass
Bioenergy 142, 105814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105814.
Peng, W., Lü, F., Hao, L., Zhang, H., Shao, L., He, P., 2020. Digestate management for
high-solid anaerobic digestion of organic wastes: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 297,
122485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122485.
Poblete, I.B.S., Araujo, O.d.Q.F., de Medeiros, J.L., 2020. Dynamic analysis of sustainable
biogas-combined-cycle plant: time-varying demand and bioenergy with carbon
capture and storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 131, 109997. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.109997.
Pour, N., Webley, P.A., Cook, P.J., 2018. Potential for using municipal solid waste as a
resource for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Cont. 68, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2017.11.007.
NREL, 2011. Process Design and Economics for Biochemical Conversion of
Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol: Dilute-Acid Pretreatment and Enzymatic
Hydrolysis of Corn Stover. NREL/TP-5100-47764. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/
fy11osti/47764.pdf.
Raunkjær, K., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Nielsen, P.H., 1994. Measurement of pools of
protein, carbohydrate and lipid in domestic wastewater. Water Res. 28 (2), 251–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)90261-5.
I.B.S. Poblete et al.
Rubio, J.A., Garcia-Morales, J.L., Romero, L.I., Fernandez-Morales, F.J., 2020.
Modelization of anaerobic processes during co-digestion of slowly biodegradable
substrates. Chemosphere 250, 126222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.126222.
Schwarzenbeck, N., Pfeiffer, W., Bomball, E., 2008. Can a wastewater treatment plant be
a powerplant? A case study. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (10), 1555–1561. https://doi.
org/10.2166/wst.2008.215.
Sendjaja, A.Y., Tan, Y., Pathak, S., Zhou, Y., bin Abdul Majid, M., Liu, J.L., Ng, W.J.,
2015. Regression based state space adaptive model of two-phase anaerobic reactor.
Chemosphere 140, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.11.027.
Shammas, N., Wang, L., 2009. Aerobic digestion - biological treatment processes. In:
Handbook of Environmental Engineering, vol. 8. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ,
pp. 635–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-156-1_15.
Siemens, 2020. Gas Turbine Portfolio - we power the world with innovative gas turbines.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:5001be9f0e51e56dbb66d
cf0c0130538bf5722cd/gas-turbines-siemens-int.pdf.
Singh, A.D., Upadhyay, A., Shrivastava, S., Vivekanand, V., 2020. Life-cycle assessment
of sewage sludge-based large-scale biogas plant. Bioresour. Technol. 309, 123373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123373.
Tamjidi Farahbakhsh, M., Chahartaghi, M., 2020. Performance analysis and economic
assessment of a combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) system in wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs). Energy Convers. Manag. 224, 113351. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113351.
11
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131763
Turton, R., Bailie, R.C., Whiting, W.B., Shaeiwitz, J.A., 2009. Analysis, Synthesis and
Design of Chemical Processes, third ed.
Tyagi, V.K., Fdez-Güelfo, L.A., Zhou, Y., Álvarez-Gallego, C.J., Garcia, L.I.R., Ng, W.J.,
2018. Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW):
progress and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 380–399. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.051.
Water Environment, F., 2008. Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants:
MoP No. 11, sixth ed. sixth ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York https://www.acc
essengineeringlibrary.com/content/book/9780071543675.
IPCC. Working group III report. Mitigation of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch
/report/ar4/wg3/. (Accessed 1 April 2021).
Zaimes, G.G., Khanna, V., 2015. Chapter 8 - life cycle sustainability aspects of microalgal
biofuels. In: Klemeš, J.J. (Ed.), Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impact and
Sustainability. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 255–276. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00008-7.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38, 383–392. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038.
Zhou, H., Ying, Z., Cao, Z., Liu, Z., Zhang, Z., Liu, W., 2020. Feeding control of anaerobic
co-digestion of waste activated sludge and corn silage performed by rule-based PID
control with ADM1. Waste Manag. 103, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.12.021.