Energy 41 (2012) 153e164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy efciency in waste water treatments plants: Optimization of activated

sludge process coupled with anaerobic digestion
N. Descoins a, *, S. Deleris b, R. Lestienne b, E. Trouv b, F. Marchal a
a
Industrial Energy Systems Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 9, CH1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
b
Anjou Recherche, Veolia Environnement, Chemin de la Digue, BP 76, F-78603 Maisons Lafte, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents a study concerning the optimization of a Waste Water Treatment process. The
Received 30 September 2010 process deals with carbon and nitrogen removal and includes activated sludge reactors coupled with an
Received in revised form anaerobic digestion reactor. Nitrication and de-nitrication biochemical reactions are due to the bio-
28 March 2011
logical activity of heterotrophic and autotrophic micro-organisms occurring inside the reactors. Rigorous
Accepted 31 March 2011
Available online 4 May 2011
Plant-Wide models that represent the main biochemical transformations have been constructed as per
the CEIT approach [1]. The energy consumption for each Physical Unit Operation (P.U.O.) involved in the
ow-sheet is evaluated and a full link is made between the biological activity and the electrical demand
Keywords:
WWTP
or production. Steady-state mathematical optimizations are then computed and the inuence of primary
Plant-wide settling efciency on electrical autonomy is quantied and demonstrated. The ammonium recycling from
Steady-state digestion to activated sludge reactors is also demonstrated to be a limiting factor for the overall energy
Optimization efciency, as well as the C-substrate availability for denitrifying. Some conclusions are then drawn to
Modeling improve the global electrical efciency of the system.
Energy efciency 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and general context
Wastewater treatment consists mainly of three major processes:
biochemical treatments, liquid/solid separations operation and
thermal processes for sludge treatment and valorization. The Fig. 1
is an overview of a classical Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP),
each unit representing a Physical Unit Operation (PUO). The
wastewater is rst treated by mean of biochemical and settling
processes in the water stream.
This water stream nally results in two new streams: the puri-
ed water and a sludge stream concentrated in biomass. The
sludge stream processes consist then in stabilizing and valorizing the
sludge before the remaining matter is released to the environment.
The most used technology for liquid/solids separation is the
settling process. Due to the phenomena of gravity, the particles
settle down and nally two streams are produced: a particle clar-
ied stream and a particle concentrated stream. The settlers are
generally classied into primary and secondary settlers. The
primary settling is applied directly to the raw wastewater and
produces a carbon-rich primary sludge, while the secondary
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 41 21 693 3521; fax: 41 21 693 3502.
E-mail address: nicolas.descoins@ep.ch (N. Descoins).
settling process is applied to separate the biomass produced in the
Activated Sludge reactors from the water (see Fig. 1).
Aerobic biological treatment consists of supplying oxygen inside
the Activated Sludge reactors in order to maintain and grow micro-
organisms. Both the carbon-based pollutants and the nitrogen-
based pollutants are then degraded inside the reactors by the
combined biological activities of heterotrophic and autotrophic
bacteria [2]. Anaerobic digestion is a biological phenomenon that
appears when oxygen and nitrate concentrations are very low in
the sludge. Under specic temperature and for sufcient residence
times, specialized micro-organisms become active. The organic
nutrients present in the sludge are then used by these micro-
organisms which partially convert it into a mix of methane and
carbon dioxide [3]. This anaerobic biological treatment is therefore
combined with dewatering and drying processes and a stabilized
sludge is nally obtained. The biogas produced by the digester can
be burned inside a cogeneration engine. Heat and electricity can
therefore be produced locally and contribute to reduce the energy
costs.
Up to now the scientic community involved in the eld of
waste water treatment has focused mainly on the water quality and
associated modelling issues. In our opinion, efforts must be done to
link water quality and WWTP pollutants removal efciency with
energy aspects, because future industrial practice in the context of

0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.078
154 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164

Nomenclature g Gravitational constant (9.81 m s2)

Lpipe Pipe length (m)
Haer Height of liquid above air diffusers (m)
Abbreviations Hp Polytropic head (J mol1)
ASM Activated Sludge Model KL ia Mass transfer coefcient for compound i (day1)
ADM Anaerobic Digestion Model Mi,k Molar equivalent (g m3)
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand m _ liq Liquid mass ow rate (kg day1)
PUO Physical Unit Operation nk Compound concentration in gas phase (mol liter1)
PW-AD Plant-Wide Anaerobic Digestion P,DP Pressure (Pa)
PW-AS Plant-Wide Activated Sludge r_ i Source term for compound i (g m3 day1)
ThOD Theoretical Oxygen Demand T Temperature (K)
TSS Total Suspended Solids (g m3) Vliq,gas Liquid or gas volume (m3)
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant V_ liq;gas Liquid or gas volume ow rate (m3 day1)
DZ Altitude difference (m)
Symbols np Polytropic efciency (e)
Ci Compound concentration in liquid phase (g m3) rj Kinetic rate of process j (g m3 day1)
Cisat Saturation concentration in liquid phase (g m3) rliq Density of liquid (kg m3)
Dpipe Pipe diameter (m) h Efciency (e)
E_ Electrical power (kWh day1)

global warming and fossil resource rarefaction will be greatly
impacted by the energy costs. On another side, environmental
pressure on aquatic resources become more and more severe and
the energy consumption to purify wastewater and keep rivers and
lakes in an ecologically acceptable state will probably increase.
Mathematical models and rigorous optimization algorithms are
really helpful in this context, as they capture the main features of
each PUO. Furthermore models bring a deep understanding of the
physical and biological mechanisms and their interactions. The
mathematical models used in this study were developed based on
the scientic literature and are implemented on the gPROMS
platform [4]. Efforts have been done to systematically link the
biological activity and the corresponding energy consumption or
production, providing by this way a link between water quality
and energy efciency. The objective of the study presented in this
paper was in fact to determine how the global energy efciency of
WWTP could be improved, by acting on process design. In this
context, the key factors are the trends given by the models, rather
than a very accurate prediction of the pollutants concentration at
the exit of the plant. All the computations presented in this paper
have been done using the numerical solvers provided by Process
System Enterprise.
2. Modeling methodology
The rst section introduces the main equations used to run
steady-state optimizations. Some equations are not introduced as
they are classical models available in the extensive literature con-
cerning WWTP modeling. This is the case for the settling processes,
including one-dimensional models and point models. Actually, these
models are the basis for all the liquid/solid separation processes
included on the ow-sheet studied in this paper (see Fig. 1).
The biochemical reactions modeling have been the subject of
special attention. The models developed are fully conservative in
terms of mass, by opposition to the original ASM1 model that
conserve only the Theoretical Oxygen Demand (ThOD), nitrogen and
ionic charge [2]. The mass transfer between the liquid and gaseous
phases is also included in the reactors model. Each chemical
compound is described by a stoichiometric formula and quantied
by a concentration expressed as mole, grams of nitrogen or grams of
ThOD. The ThoD is assumed to be equivalent to the Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD). The COD is a specic chemical measurement that
characterizes the Carbon content of the wastewater and it is widely
used in the eld of WWTP engineering. The plant-wide method used
to quantify the biochemical reactions implies a homogeneous

Fig. 1. Studied Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) ow-sheet. Water Quality constraints and recycles lines are located.
 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164
matter composition in all the different PUO. No special interfaces are
then needed to connect the Activated Sludge process with the
Anaerobic Digestion reactor. These models are based on the CEIT
methodology [1]. The reactors models as well as the compressors
and pumps models are also introduced in this section.
2.1. Plant-wide biochemical modeling
The plant-wide models included in the reactors models are
presented under the form of a Petersen matrix and a kinetic vector,
similarly to the ASM [2] and ADM [3] models. They are called PW-
AS (Plant-wide Activated Sludge) and PW-AD (Plant-Wide Anaer-
obic Digestion) models and are able to reproduce all the features of
ASM and ADM models. The full details and the methodology used
to develop these models will be given in a dedicated paper. The
models have been compared successfully with literature bench-
marks. The Fig. 2 presents for example a comparison of the PW-AS
model with the classical ASM1 model in the context of the
Benchmark Simulator n 1 (BSM1) [5]. The quantity plotted on Fig. 2
is the rejected concentration of ammonium.
2.1.1. Common set of species
The rst step to build the biochemical models consists of dening
the set of species that is included in the plant-wide models. This set
must be able to reproduce all the features of ASM and ADM models. A
particular effort has been made to avoid the use of lumped compo-
nents and all the chemical species needed to fully describe the
different biological activities are included. Minerals compounds and
corresponding acids/bases equilibriums are also taken into account.
The plant-wide models include 39 species (except water) divided
into 25 soluble species and 14 particulate species. Each component
included in the model is characterized in term of C, H, O, N, P, charge
and equivalent ThOD. The elemental compositions for each
compound are the same as those reported in [1].
Some species are considered to be aqueous and are included in
the liquid/gas mass transfer. Biological inerts are represented both
in soluble and particulate forms. These fractions are assumed to be
common to the different biological models. Some particulates
components are considered as substrates and others as groups of
Fig. 2. Comparison of PW-AS model with the ASM1 model in the context of the Benchmark Simulator n 1. The simulation is corresponding to the dry weather setting.
155
micro-organisms which degrade and transform the organic matter,
producing in the same time minerals and gaseous species. One
composite compound is also included in the models and represents
the biggest organic particles and macromolecules.
2.1.2. Petersen matrix and kinetics vector for PW-AS and PW-AD
models
The mathematical equations and formulas employed to build
the Activated Sludge and Anaerobic Digestion plant-wide models
consists of writing stoichiometry matrices and kinetics vectors
(Petersen formalism). The behavior of the different kinds of micro-
organisms considered in the aerobic/anoxic and anaerobic reactors
is described by assuming that the different groups are fully differ-
entiated. The matrixes are then balanced for each element: C, H, O,
N, P and ThOD. This is done for each process j by computing correct
values for the sink or sources coefcients in the matrices (noted qjk,
with k e {C, N, P, H, O, ThoD}, see appendix A). The species chosen to
fulll the elemental balances are mineral ones: dissolved oxygen,
ammonium, protons, phosphates, water and dissolved carbon
dioxide or bicarbonate (HCO3).
Each biochemical process introduced in the PW matrices are
linked to kinetics expressions that follow general rules concerning
the modeling of micro-organisms growth (Monod kinetics formu-
lation). Generally-speaking and for a biological process corre-
sponding to a growth referred by index j, the general kinetic
mathematical form is:
Ssub Ssub
rj km A A  /I I
1 pH /Xbio (1)
Hsub Ssub Stot NH4 HPO4
The terms noted ANH AHPO4 / are called activation terms and are
4
related to the sink/source terms used to balance the stoichiometry
matrix. The terms I1IpH.are inhibition terms related to some
specic chemicals compounds or pH. Each process corresponding
to a growth includes a rate kinetic parameter named km which is
corresponding to a substrate uptake.
The macro substrates (particles) are rst hydrolyzed by enzymes
to become available to the micro-organisms. Corresponding disin-
tegration and hydrolysis rates expressions are expressed as func-
tions of the ratio between the hydrolyzed substrate concentration
156 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164

and the total micro-organisms concentration [2]. The full expres- rate is then deduced from the ideal gas law by including the mass
sions for the PW-AS and PW-AD kinetics vector are written transfer from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase:
following these rules. The source term involved in mass balance !
out
in T out
Pgas T out X
Ngas
Cksat Ckout
equations for each specie i is then computed by the following V_ gas
gas _ in  R gas V
V k a  (5)
out in gas out liq l k
relationship: Pgas Tgas Pgas Mk Mk
k1

Npro   The gas pressure at the entry (the bottom of the reactor) is corre-
X
r_ i nij rj (2) sponding to the pressure required to compensate the pressure
j1 surrounding the bubbles which is mainly caused by the diffusers
submergence (water column above the diffusers). The inlet pres-
nij are the stoichiometry matrices coefcients, rj the kinetics rates sure Pgasinis then deduced from Eq. (6) where Haer is the height of
and Npro the number of chemical processes included in the bio- the water column above the diffuser:
logical model. As an example, the complete stoichiometry matrix
for the PW-AS model is given in Appendix: Table A-1eTable A-3. in
Pgas Patm rliq gHaer (6)
The kinetics expressions are reported in Table A-4.
It means that the aeration system (usually compressors) must
pressurize the gas to the required pressure Pgasin to form bubbles
inside the reactor, but it also need to compensate the head losses
2.2. Completely stirred tank reactors (CSTR) models
due to the network distribution pipes and diffusers.
Activated Sludge processes are usually operated in aerated
2.3. Pumps and compressor modeling
tank reactors and channels. Part of the mixing is ensured by
mechanical work (impellers) and the other part by aerators.
WWTPs involve the ow of many different liquids and gases
Concerning Anaerobic Digestion, more sophisticated reactors
through pipes monitored by pumps and compressors. Even if the
exist and particles could be separated from water using
main water stream is powered by gravity only (caused by height
membranes and/or settling effects. The reactors involved in this
differences), the electric consumption caused by pumping and
work are modeled using the CSTR hypothesis. Each reactor model
pressurizing is the main plant energy consumer. In practice, pumps
includes two phases: a liquid and a gaseous phase. This is done
account for 25 percent of the total electrical consumption while
mainly because all the energy aspects involved in Waste Water
compressors used for aeration accounts for almost 70 percent. The
Treatment are strongly associated to gaseous mass transfer
head losses insides the pipes are quantied by mathematical
(oxygen transfer to activated sludge and methane production by
expressions. The following well-known semi-empirical relation-
digestion).
ship (Lechapt-Calmon formulae) is employed for the head losses
computations:
2.2.1. Liquid phase mass balances
 
The mass conservation equations for the liquid phase are 5:01
DP rliq g 0:0011  m liq Dpipe Lpipe DZ
_ 1:89 (7)
written under the following form for each compound i, where Ci is
a concentration referring to one of the soluble or particulate The pipe dimensions are taken into account, as well as the altitude
components included in the plant-wide models. differences between the start and the end of the ow (DZ). The
exponents upon the liquid mass ow rate and the pipe diameter
dCi V_ liq  in   
Ci  Ciout r_ i kiL ai Cisat  Ciout (3) could be identied from experiments. The energy requirement for
dt Vliq pumping the liquid through the pipe considered is then deduced
from the following law (assuming incompressible ow):
Some compounds are then subjected to mass transfer with the gas
phase (but not all the compounds). The Henrys law coupled with 100 _
an experimental law for computing the liquid gas exchange coef- E_ pumps V liq DP (8)
h
cient quanties the mass transfer phenomenon for the activated
sludge reactors. The exchange coefcient kLia is then a function of
gas ow rate, gas composition and diffusers characteristics. For the
digester, the exchange coefcient is set to the constant value indi-
cated in [3]. Combined with plant-wide models, 40 Ordinary
Differential Equations (ODE) must be solved for each reactor if the
water compound is included.

2.2.2. Gas phase mass balances

The use of mole per liter (noted n) as the unit for gases is
convenient and mass balances equations for gaseous components
could be deduced from general mass balance equation:

in out !
dnout V_ gas nin _ out
i  V gas ni Vliq Cisat Ci
i
 kiL ai  (4)
dt Vgas Vgas Mi Mi

Chemical interactions are not considered to occur in the gas phase

and consequently no source terms appear in the Eq. (4). The mass
transfer between liquid and gas is still taken into account by
means of the kLiai coefcient and the associated term involving
saturation constants for aqueous compound. The total gas ow Fig. 3. Mass balances during initialization.
 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164 157

Table 2
Main constraints imposed to the system.

Rejected Rejected Rejected Sludge Residence TSS in AS TSS in sludge

COD NH4 NO3- age Time in reactor to digester
digester n 5

gCOD/m3 gN/m3 gN/m3 Days Days g/l g/l

Min 0 0 0 5 10 1 50
Max 60 Vary 8,12,20 35 50 9 50

3.1. Initialization and steady-state

In order to compute a steady-state solution, an inuent stream

Fig. 4. Layout of the computation algorithm for parametric optimization.
E_ pumps is expressed in kWh day1, and h is the pump efciency,
usually ranges within 60 and 85 percent.
Oxygen is supplied to the micro-organisms growing in the
reactors by mean of a pressurized gas stream (usually air). This air is
distributed by a network of pipes and diffusers placed on the
bottom of the tanks. Only subsurface aeration is considered in this
work as it is the most efcient way from an energy point of view to
blow air into the reactors [6]. The gas must be pressurized to the
required pressure (deduced from Eq. (6)) in order to produce a gas
ow through the reactor and to transfer the oxygen needed by the
micro-organisms to grow.
A simple compressor model is used to estimate the energy
consumption. The model is based on the assumption of a polytropic
ow, the corresponding law is given by Eq. (9):
to the process is rst specied by dening the inlet temperature,
the volumetric ow rate of water and the concentration of the
different species considered in the PW models. A complete set of
parameters is also provided and the ASM1 benchmark (BSM1) [5]
with the ADM1 [3] report has been used as references for the
biochemical, aeration and settlers models. The inuent stream to
the WWTP was also specied similarly to the BSM1 dry weather
conguration. The characteristics of each pumps and compressors
are deduced from the energetic data consumption available in the
BSM1 [5] or in the Swiss Federal Ofce for Energy report [6].
The models are solved for steady-state, by an initialization
procedure that consists in applying a step at initial time to the
wastewater inuent to the plant. The system is then relaxed and the
dynamic equations converge to the nal steady-state, accordingly
to the step and the parameters settings chosen for the different
models. The mass balances are systematically checked to ensure
that a steady-state is effectively reached (see Fig. 3).

PV np cst (9) 3.2. Optimal point and parametric procedure

1
The polytropic head Hp (in J mol ) is deduced from Eq. (9) and
In order to optimize the WWTP some variables are set as deci-
represent the energy required to pressurize one mole of gas:
sion variables. The optimization algorithm next computes this set
2 3 (within a predened range) to minimize or maximize a predened
! np

DP
np 1
np 6 P out 7 objective function. Some constraints are also imposed on the
Hp RT in 4 15 (10) system and must be satised during this procedure. The optimal set
np  1 P in
of variables obtained is then corresponding to a minimum or
a maximum of the objective function that satises the constraints
The term DP represents the uniform losses inside the pipe network
imposed. The methodology used to solve the optimization problem
linked to the diffusers and used to distribute the gas to the aerated
is a gradient-based method (Sequential Quadratic Programming
reactor surface. It is calculated using the singular head losses
algorithm) included in the gPROMS software.
relationship given by Eq. (7). The power E_ comp consumed to pres-
If one (or more) constraint(s) is(are) modied, a new set of
surize the gas from Pin to Pout is then given by Eq. (11):
decision variables and a new value for the objective function are
in obtained. This procedure is called parametric optimization and
100 V_ P in
E_ comp Hp (11) a special algorithm has been developed in order to obtain
h RT in a complete range of optimal points that corresponds to different
constraints on water quality.
The procedure is resumed on Fig. 4. For each optimal set of
3. Steady-state optimizations decision variables (corresponding to each constraint value)
a steady-state optimal point is recomputed and saved as a text le
The PUO models are linked on a ow-sheet to reproduce the (including all the models variables). The nal result could be, for
Activated Sludge process combined with the Anaerobic Digestion example, the optimal value of the objective function as a function of
process. The resulting model is a set of equations that could be the varying constraint, but any model variable (decision variables
solved both for dynamic or steady-state cases. The WWTP cong- or not) could be represented as a function of the varying constraint.
uration studied is reproduced on Fig. 1. This method provides a valuable tool for analysing the optimal

Table 1
Main decision variables and units.
1 2 3 4 5 was no recy
V_ gas V_ gas V_ gas V_ gas V_ gas Rdig V_ liq V_ liq V_ liq hpri
Air ow rate in Air ow rate in Air ow rate in Air ow rate in AS Air ow rate in Digester Secondary settler Nitrate Secondary Primary settler
AS reactor n 1 AS reactor n 2 AS reactor n 3 reactor n 4 AS reactor n 5 radius wastage recycle settler recycle efciency
M3/day m3/day M3/day m3/day m3/day m m3/day m3/day m3/day e
158 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164
Fig. 5. Optimal electrical autonomy for different values of primary settler efciency
and as a function of rejected ammonium concentration. The nitrate rejected concen-
tration is equal to 8 gN/m3.
results and understanding what the limiting factors are, as shown
in the last section of this paper. The variables selected as decision
variables are reported in the Table 1.
These constraints dene the water quality by specifying indexes
on COD and nitrogen concentration at the exit of the WWTP (in the
claried and treated water), as indicated on Fig. 1. Ammonium and
nitrate are differentiated and the values are expressed by cubic
meter of water.
A constraint is also specied for the sludge age, ensuring a tech-
nical acceptable range. The sludge age is a quantity representing the
residence time of particles in the Activated Sludge process and it is
an important design variable for the Activated Sludge process.
Constraints are also imposed for the residence time in digester, for
Total Solids Suspended (TSS) in Activated Sludge reactors and in the
incoming sludge to the digester reactor. For all computations the pH
in the digestion reactor is maintained above 7. This is done by adding
bicarbonate to the reactor (buffer effect). The Table 2 summarizes
the constraints and the associated units and range.
The constraint on rejected NH4 is varying and it is the object of
the parametric optimization procedure, because the removal of
ammonium is known to be a strong limiting factor to the overall
energy efciency of WWTP. The constraint on rejected NO3 is also
varied and set to predened values (8, 12 and 20 gN/m3).
Fig. 6. Optimal electrical autonomy for different values of primary settler efciency
and as a function of rejected ammonium concentration. The nitrate rejected concen-
tration is equal to 20 gN/m3.
4. Results
The parametric optimization procedure has been applied to the
ow-sheet reported on Fig. 1. The objective function to maximize
was dened as the electrical autonomy of the WWTP, described by
the following equation:
E_ cogen
Eauto P P PNpuo _ m (12)
Ncomp _ k N _n
E
k 1 comp
n pump
1 Epump m 1 E mix
m
Where E_ mix is the electrical consumption for mixing and operate
the PUO indexed by m. Ncomp, Npump and Npuo are respectively the
numbers of compressors, pumps and PUO involved in the process.
Consequently, the optimizer algorithm will compute optimal
conguration corresponding to a minimal operating electrical
consumption and maximal biogas production (or maximal elec-
tricity production by the cogeneration engine, which is equivalent).
The cogeneration engine is assumed to be efcient to 30 percent
concerning the electricity production [6]. The thermal autonomy
was not directly investigated during the computations. If necessary
it could be included in the objective function or as a new constraint.
The electrical autonomy and the electrical consumption are known
to be critical issues of WWTP and the results presented in this
paper focus on electrical aspects. Anyway, most of the conclusions
deduced from the computations presented in this paper are still
valid if considering the thermal autonomy.
4.1. Primary settling efciency as a parameter
The rst computations presented have been done by setting the
primary settler efciency as a parameter varying between 0% and
100%. 0% efciency means that the particles incoming to the WWTP
are not segregated by the primary settler. The particles concen-
trations in the main water ux and in the primary sludge ux are
then equal. 100% efciency means that all the particles incoming to
the WWTP are sent to the primary sludge and consequently in the
digester. The thickener before the digester reactor ensures that the
mix of secondary and primary sludge is sufciently concentrated in
all the cases (the particles concentration in the sludge to digest is
constrained to 50 g/l). The results corresponding to the rejected
NO3 concentration equal to 8 gN/m3 are presented on Fig. 5.
As reported, the optimal electrical autonomy is strongly sensi-
tive to the nitrogen concentration at the exit of the WWTP (in the
claried water stream). The plant is non electrical autonomous for
high N-removal (corresponding to values for rejected NH4 inferior
to 10 gN/m3). For low-N removal (corresponding to values for
rejected NH4 superior to 40 gN/m3) it can be noticed that the plant
has a big potential as an energy producer. The computations shows
that the electricity produced could be almost four times the elec-
tricity required to aerate the reactors and drive the pumps in the
plant. The active constraint in this case is only the constraint on
COD and the objective function become independent of the
nitrogen removal (the curves become at).
Some comments could also be made on the inuence of the
primary settling efciency: The more efcient the primary settler is
and the more particulate organic substrates are sent to the digester.
In this case, the primary sludge is richer in C-substrate available to
the micro-organisms and consequently the potential of biogas
production is increased. The electrical autonomy is effectively
increased when the primary settler efciency is increased, but this
trend reverses for efciencies superior to 50% and for high NH4
removal (see Fig. 5). This characteristic could be linked with the de-
nitrication process, as explained in the Section 4.2.
To further investigate this point the same calculations have been
done, except, here the rejected nitrate concentration constraint has
 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164
Fig. 7. Optimal nitrogen rates by biochemistry as a function of rejected ammonium concentration in the different reactors (Activated Sludge and digester). The primary settler
efciency is equal to 100 % and the rejected nitrate concentration is equal to 8 gN/m3.
been increased to 20 gN/m3. The corresponding results are reported
on Fig. 6.
In this case, the primary settler efciency still exhibits a strong
inuence on the electrical autonomy. But compared to the previous
case an increase of the objective function is noticed for primary
settler efciency values superior to 25%. For 75% and 100% primary
efciency the electrical autonomy is more than 100 %.
These results demonstrate that both the nitrication and de-
nitrication process by autotrophic and heterotrophic micro-
organisms are limiting the overall energy efciency of the system.
The nitrication biological process results in the transformation of
the NH4 ions into nitrate NO3- by consuming some dissolved
oxygen and some electricity. So the more NH4 removal is requested,
the higher the electrical consumption is. To visualise the intensity of
nitrication/de-nitrication in the Activated Sludge reactors and the
ammonium production in the digester for optimal points, the cor-
responding optimal production or consumption by biochemical
reactions of NH4 and NO3 species are plotted on Fig. 7.
Fig. 8. Optimal contributions to total ammonium load as a function of rejected
ammonium concentration. The primary settler efciency is equal to 100 % and the
rejected nitrate concentration is equal to 8 gN/m3.
159
More biogas is effectively produced by the digester when the
primary sludge is richer in available C-substrate (the primary
settler efciency is then equal to 100%). But in the same time extra
ammonium is also produced. This ammonium production is caused
by the hydrolysis of the proteins present in the primary sludge sent
to the digester, which contains both C and N elements. The
ammonium produced is then returned at the entry of the Activated
Sludge process when the sludge outgoing from the digester is
dewatered, as shown on Fig. 1.
As the liquid recycling from dewatering is highly concentrated in
ammonium ions, the contribution to the total load is quite impor-
tant. It can be noticed that the optimal solutions consists of limiting
the size of the digestion reactor in order to maintain the production
of NH4 to reasonable levels (accounting for no more than 25%
percent of the total load, see Fig. 8). This is easily checked by plotting
the optimal residence time in the digestion reactor, see Fig. 9.
Another point is that by limiting the size of the digestion reactor,
the degradation of carbon substrates is not complete. Consequently,
Fig. 9. Optimal residence time in digester for different values of primary settler ef-
ciency and as a function of rejected ammonium concentration. The rejected nitrate
concentration is equal to 8 gN/m3.
160 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164
Fig. 10. Optimal sludge age for different values of primary settler efciency and as
a function of rejected ammonium concentration. The rejected nitrate concentration is
equal to 8 gN/m3.
some organic carbon is sent back to the Activated Sludge process to
full the requirements on carbon for denitrifying.
The lack of Carbon in the anoxic reactors for denitrifying is also
compensated by increasing the sludge age in the Activated Sludge
process, as reported on Fig. 10. The optimizer increases the sludge
age when the primary settler efciency increases. More particulate
substrate and biomass is then maintained in the Activated Sludge
reactors and the consequence is a production of some available
Carbon substrates in the rst reactor (the source term is positive),
as indicated on Fig. 11. This sludge age increase also has a negative
impact on the oxygen requirements. As a result, to maintain the
population of active micro-organisms, more air must be blown
inside the reactors and consequently the electrical energy
consumption for aeration is increased.
4.2. Primary settling efciency as a decision variable
The results presented in the previous section demonstrate both
the importance of primary settling and the availability of organic
Fig. 11. Optimal C-substrates rates by biochemistry as a function of rejected ammonium concentration in the different Activated Sludge reactors. The primary settler efciency is
equal to 100% and the rejected nitrate concentration is equal to 8 gN/m3.
Fig. 12. Optimal electrical autonomy as a function of rejected ammonium concentra-
tion. The primary settler efciency is a decision variable for the two cases (with and
without carbon addition).
carbon in the different reactors: carbon is required for de-
nitrication in the AS process but it is also required for biogas
production in the digestion reactor. It means that the optimal elec-
trical autonomy of the whole process is strongly related to the carbon
and nitrogen splitting between the aerobic and anaerobic treatment.
In the next computations, the primary settling efciency was set
as a decision variable. The optimizer can now estimate optimum
values for this efciency. The others decision variables and
constraints are identical. The optimal electrical autonomy is
computed for two values of NO3 concentrations at the exit of the
WWTP and the results are reported on Fig. 12.
Compared to the case where the efciency of the primary settler
is xed a priori, the electrical autonomy is increased (superior for
all cases to 50%). The corresponding optimal values for the primary
settler efciency are reported on the Fig. 13.
As shown, optimal values for the primary settling efciency
exists and the more ammonium and nitrate removal is required,
lesser particulate substrates are sent to the digester. Indeed, both
the ammonium production by the digester and the carbon
 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164
Fig. 13. Optimal primary settler efciency as a function of rejected ammonium
concentration for the cases with carbon addition and without.
requirement for denitrifying are limiting the overall energy ef-
ciency of the system.
This result appears to be an interesting feature that can be
evaluated by model-based and system analysis. As is known, the
primary settling process is not sized by considering the overall
energy efciency but only by considering the load to treat and the
water quality requested.
In order to further increase the electrical autonomy, the effect of
carbon addition to the Activated Sludge process has been investi-
gated. A source unit has been added to the Activated Sludge process
(see Fig. 1) and represent the addition of methanol for enhancing
de-nitrication. The added carbon ow rate to the Activated Sludge
process is then set as a decision variable. The primary settling
efciency is still a decision variable. The decision variables and the
constraints introduced in Table 1 and Table 2 are also still valid.
For high N-removal (corresponding to low values for rejected
NH4) the optimal electrical autonomy is greatly increased by
adding available carbon for micro-organisms, as reported on Fig. 12.
The addition of external carbon to the activated sludge process for
de-nitrication allows the optimizer to maximize the primary
settler efciency (see Fig. 13). In other words, all the particulate
substrate contained in the inuent stream is now sent to the
digester and the biogas production is increased, as reported on
Fig. 14. The production of ammonium ions by the digestion is still
Fig. 14. Optimal biogas production as a function of rejected ammonium concentration
for the cases with carbon addition and without. The primary settler efciency is
a decision variable.
161
Fig. 15. Optimal added carbon ow rate as a function of rejected ammonium
concentration. The primary settler efciency is a decision variable.
a limiting factor for the overall efciency in this case, as shown on
the Fig. 8. The optimum contribution of digestion to the total
ammonium load counts for almost 25 % in the case of carbon
addition. This is greater than the results obtained for the case
without the carbon addition and this is especially true for high N-
removal where the production of ammonium by digestion strongly
limit the overall energy efciency.
Another interesting feature achieved by running optimizations
is that the exact quantity of carbon needed for satisfying the
constraint on rejected nitrate is quantied, as reported on Fig. 15. As
expected, additional carbon is required for the highest nitrogen
removal. The quantities are quite important (a few tons per day)
and some economic costs could be included in the objective func-
tion. The optimizer should then be able to determine the optimal
quantity of carbon to add to the process, depending on the relative
economic costs of electricity and carbon.
5. Conclusions and perspectives
Mathematical models for most of the PUO involved in WWTP
have been developed and implemented on the gPROMS platform.
The resulting sets of equations are solved to compute optimal steady-
state congurations. The results presented in this paper focus on
electrical efciency but others studies are possible. For example
economic costs and/or thermal criterion could be easily included in
the objective functions. Two mechanisms have been demonstrated to
be limiting factors to the overall energy efciency: the production of
ammonium by the digestion process and the lack of available C-
substrate for denitrifying in the Activated Sludge reactors.
The interest of specialized treatment for ammonium highly
concentrated streams is highlighted, as well as the interest to
provide carbon substrates form external sources. Wastes from
others industries could be, for example, very attractive depending
on their bio-degradability. Future work will focus on including
Sharon-Annamox [7] process to the models library. A rigorous
methodology to identify models parameters from a real pilot plant
is also planned by using the identication parameters and experi-
ments design methodology available on gPROMS software.
Model-based analysis seems to be a promising method for
improving energy efciency in the eld of wastewater treatment.
Process variables can be optimized and tuned and technologies can
be compared in a rigorous way, especially by including energy
aspects in the computations. Investigations concerning the PUO
interactions at system level are also possible and could reveal some
unintuitive issues.
162 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164

Appendix. Tables for plant-wide activated sludge model

(parameters settings not included)

Table A-1
Plant-Wide Activated Sludge Model stochiometry matrix: soluble components (part 1).

Process jY i / Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

So Ssu Saa Sfa Shva Sva Shbu Sbu Shpro Shpro Shac Sac Sno3
ThOD
1 Dis q1
2 Hy_Ch q2ThOD 1
3 Hy_Pr q3ThOD 1
4 Hy_Li q4ThOD 1  fsli;fa 1  fsli;fa
5 Ae_Up_Su q5ThOD 1
6 Ae_Up_Aa q6ThOD 1
7 Ae_Up_Fa q7ThOD 1
8 Ae_Up_hVa q8ThOD 1
9 Ae_Up_Va q9ThOD 1
10 Ae_Up_hBu q10
ThOD
1
11 Ae_Up_Bu q11
ThOD
1
12 Ae_Up_hPro q12
ThOD
1
13 Ae_Up_Pro q13
ThOD
1
14 Ae_Up_hAc q14
ThOD
1
15 Ae_Up_Ac q15
ThOD
1
16 An_Up_Su 1 q16
ThOD

17 An_Up_Aa 1 q17
ThOD

18 An_Up_Fa 1 q18
ThOD

19 An_Up_hVa 1 q19
ThOD

20 An_Up_Va 1 q20
ThOD

21 An_Up_hBu 1 q21
ThOD

22 An_Up_Bu 1 q22
ThOD

23 An_Up_hPro 1 q23
ThOD

24 An_Up_Pro 1 q24
ThOD

25 An_Up_hAc 1 q25
ThOD

26 An_Up_Ac 1 q26
ThOD

27 Up_nh4 qThOD
27 1
28 Dec_Xh qThOD
28
29 Dec_Xa qThOD
29
30 Dec_Xsu qThOD
30
31 Dec_Xaa qThOD
31
32 Dec_Xfa qThOD
32
33 Dec_Xc4 qThOD
33
34 Dec_Xpro qThOD
34
35 Dec_Xac qThOD
35
36 Dec_Xh2 qThOD
36

Table A-2
Plant-Wide Activated Sludge Model stochiometry matrix: soluble components (part 2).

Process jY i / Component 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Sh2 po Shpo2 Snh4 Snh3 Sn2 Sh2 Sch4 Sco2 Shco Sh Soh Si
4 4 3

1 Dis q1P q1N q1C q1H fXc ;Si

2 Hy_Ch q2P q2N q2C q2H
3 Hy_Pr q3P q3N q3C q3H
4 Hy_Li q4P q4N q4C q4H
5 Ae_Up_Su q5P q5N q5C q5H
6 Ae_Up_Aa q6P q6N q6C q6H
7 Ae_Up_Fa q7P q7N q7C q7H
8 Ae_Up_hVa q8P q8N q8C q8H
9 Ae_Up_Va q9P q9N q9C q9H
10 Ae_Up_hBu q10
P
q10
N
q10
C
q10
H

11 Ae_Up_Bu q11
P
q11
N
q11
C
q11
H

12 Ae_Up_hPro q12
P
q12
N
q12
C
q12
H

13 Ae_Up_Pro q13
P
q13
N
q13
C
q13
H

14 Ae_Up_hAc q14
P
q14
N
q14
C
q14
H

15 Ae_Up_Ac q15
P
q15
N
q15
C
q15
H

16 An_Up_Su q16
P
q16
N
q16
ThOD
q16
C
q16
H

17 An_Up_Aa q17
P
q17
N
q17
ThOD
q17
C
q17
H

18 An_Up_Fa q18
P
q18
N
q18
ThOD
q18
C
q18
H

19 An_Up_hVa q19
P
q19
N
q19
ThOD
q19
C
q19
H

20 An_Up_Va q20
P
q20
N
q20
ThOD
q20
C
q20
H

21 An_Up_hBu q21
P
q21
N
q21
ThOD
q21
C
q21
H

22 An_Up_Bu q22
P
q22
N
q22
ThOD
q22
C
q22
H

23 An_Up_hPro q23
P
q23
N
q23
ThOD
q23
C
q23
H

24 An_Up_Pro q24
P
q24
N
q24
ThOD
q24
C
q24
H
 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164 163

Table A-2 (continued )

Process jY i / Component 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Sh2 po Shpo2 Snh4 Snh3 S n2 Sh2 Sch4 Sco2 Shco Sh Soh Si
4 4 3

25 An_Up_hAc q25
P
q25
N
q25
ThOD
q25
C
q25
H

26 An_Up_Ac q26
P
q26
N
q26
ThOD
q26
C
q26
H

27 Up_nh4 q27
P
q27
N
q27
C
q27
H
p
28 Dec_Xh q28 q28
N
q28
C
q28
H
fbio;Si
p
29 Dec_Xa q29 q29
N
q29
C
q29
H
fbio;Si
p
30 Dec_Xsu q30 q30
N
q30
C
q30
H
fbio;Si
p
31 Dec_Xaa q31 q31
N
q31
C
q31
H
fbio;Si
p
32 Dec_Xfa q32 q32
N
q32
C
q32
H
fbio;Si
p
33 Dec_Xc4 q33 q33
N
q33
C
q33
H
fbio;Si
p
34 Dec_Xpro q34 q34
N
q34
C
q34
H
fbio;Si
p
35 Dec_Xac q35 q35
N
q35
C
q35
H
fbio;Si
p
36 Dec_Xh2 q36 q36
N
q36
C
q36
H
fbio;Si

Table A-3
Plant-Wide Activated Sludge Model stochiometry matrix: particulate components.

Process jY i / Component 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Xc Xch Xpr Xli Xh Xa Xsu Xaa Xfa Xc4 Xpro Xac X h2 Xi Sh2 o
1 Dis 1 fXc ;Xch fXc ;Xpr fXc ;Xli q1O
2 Hy_Ch 1 q2O
3 Hy_Pr 1 q3O
4 Hy_Li 1 q4O
5 Ae_Up_Su Yh,ae q5O
6 Ae_Up_Aa Yh,ae q6O
7 Ae_Up_Fa Yh,ae q7O
8 Ae_Up_hVa Yh,ae q8O
9 Ae_Up_Va Yh,ae q9O
10 Ae_Up_hBu Yh,ae q10
O

11 Ae_Up_Bu Yh,ae q11

O

12 Ae_Up_hPro Yh,ae q12

O

13 Ae_Up_Pro Yh,ae q13

O

14 Ae_Up_hAc Yh,ae q14

O

15 Ae_Up_Ac Yh,ae q15

O

16 An_Up_Su Yh,an q16

O

17 An_Up_Aa Yh,an q17

O

18 An_Up_Fa Yh,an q18

O

19 An_Up_hVa Yh,an q19

O

20 An_Up_Va Yh,an q20

O

21 An_Up_hBu Yh,an q21

O

22 An_Up_Bu Yh,an q22

O

23 An_Up_hPro Yh,an q23

O

24 An_Up_Pro Yh,an q24

O

25 An_Up_hAc Yh,an q25

O

26 An_Up_Ac Yh,an q26

O

27 Up_nh4 Ya q27
O

28 Dec_Xh fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q28

O

29 Dec_Xa fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q29

O

30 Dec_Xsu fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q30

O

31 Dec_Xaa fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q31

O

32 Dec_Xfa fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q32

O

33 Dec_Xc4 fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q33

O

34 Dec_Xpro fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q34

O

35 Dec_Xac fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q35

O

36 Dec_Xh2 fbio;Xch fbio;Xpr fbio;Xli 1 fbio;Xi q36

O

Table A-4
Kinetics expressions for plant-wide activated sludge model.

N 
Process description Reference Process rate rj
1 Disintegration Dis kas
dis
as X
Xc =Xh =Xc =Xh Hdis h
2 Hydrolysis Carbohydrates Hy_Ch kas
hyd;ch
as
Xch =Xh =Xch =Xh Hhyd;ch Xh
3 Hydrolysis Proteins Hy_Pr kas
hyd;pr
as
Xpr =Xh =Xpr =Xh Hhyd;pr Xh
4 Hydrolysis Lipids Hy_Li kas
hyd;li
Xli =Xh =Xli =Xh Hhyd;li
as Xh
5 Aerobie uptake of sugars Ae_Up_Su ae S S =S X A
km;Xh Ssu =Hsu ul
Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
su su s h hco
3 4

6 Aerobie uptakes of amino acids Ae_Up_Aa ae S S =S X A

km;Xh Saa =Haa ul
Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
aa aa s h hco3 4
7 Aerobie uptake of LCFA Ae_Up_Fa ae S S =S X A
km;Xh Sfa =Hfa  ul
fa s h hco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph

fa 4

(continued on next page)

164 N. Descoins et al. / Energy 41 (2012) 153e164

Table A-4 (continued )

N 
Process description Reference Process rate rj
8 Aerobie uptake of h-Valerate Ae_Up_hVa km;Xh Shva =Hhva
ae S
hva Shva =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
  ul
4

9 Aerobie uptake of Valerate Ae_Up_Va ae S  S  =S X A

km;Xh Sva =Hva ul
Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
va va s h hco
3 4
ae S
km;Xh Shbu =Hhbu ul
10 Aerobie uptake of h-Butyrate Ae_Up_hBu hbu Shbu =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph

4

11 Aerobie uptake of Butyrate Ae_Up_Bu  ae

km;Xh Sbu =Hbu Sbu Sbu =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
    ul
4

12 Aerobie uptake of h-Propionate Ae_Up_hPro km;Xh Shpro =Hhpro

ae Shpro Shpro =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph ul
4
ae Spro ul
13 Aerobie uptake of Propionate Ae_Up_Pro km;Xh Spro =Hpro Spro Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
Ss 4
ae S
km;Xh Shac =Hhac ul
14 Aerobie uptake of h-Acetate Ae_Up_hAc hac Shac =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ao2 Anh Ahpo4 Iph

4

15 Aerobie uptake of Acetate Ae_Up_Ac ae S  S  =S X A

km;Xh Sac =Hac A A A  I ul
ac ac s h hco3 o2 nh hpo4 ph
4

16 Anoxic uptake of sugars An_Up_Su hkm;Xh Ssu =Hsu

an S S =S X A
su su s h hco 3
Ano3 Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

17 Anoxic uptake of amino acids An_Up_Aa hkm;Xh Saa =Haa Saa Saa =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano3 Anh Ahpo4 Iph Io2
an  
4
 ul

18 Anoxic uptake of LCFA An_Up_Fa hkm;Xh Sfa =Hfa

an S S =S X A
fa fa s h hco3 Ano

3
Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

19 Anoxic uptake of h-Valerate An_Up_hVa hkm;Xh Shva =Hhva

an S
hva Shva =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano

3
A nh
A
4
hpo
 I ul I
4 ph
o2

20 Anoxic uptake of Valerate An_Up_Va hkm;Xh Sva =Hvaan S  S  =S X A

va va A
s h hco3 no3 nhA
4
A  I ul I
hpo4 ph o2
21 Anoxic uptake of h-Butyrate An_Up_hBu hkm;Xh Shbu =Hhbu
an S
hbu Shbu =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano

3
Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

22 Anoxic uptake of Butyrate An_Up_Bu hkm;Xh Sbu =Hbuan S  S

bu bu =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano

3
Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

23 Anoxic uptake of h-Propionate An_Up_hPro hkm;Xh Shpro =Hhpro

an S
hpro Shpro =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano

3
Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

24 Anoxic uptake of Propionate An_Up_Pro hkm;Xh Spro =Hpro Spro Spro =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano3 Anh4 Ahpo4 Iph
an ul I
o2

25 Anoxic uptake of h-Acetate An_Up_hAc hkm;Xh Shac =Hhac

an S
hac Shac =Ss Xh Ahco3 Ano

3
Anh Ahpo4 Iph
4
ul I
o2

26 Anoxic uptake of Acetate An_Up_Ac hkm;Xh Sac =Hac

an S  S  =S X A
ac ac A
s h hco3 no3 nhA
4
A  I ul I
hpo4 ph o2
27 Uptake of Ammonium Up_nh4 ul
km;Xa Snh =Hnh4 Snh Xa Aco2 Ao2 Ahpo4 Iph
4 4

28 Decay of Xh Dec_Xh kdec;Xh Xh

29 Decay of Xa Dec_Xa kdec;Xa Xa
30 Decay of Xsu Dec_Xsu kdec;Xsu Xsu
31 Decay of Xaa Dec_Xaa kdec;Xaa Xaa
32 Decay of Xfa Dec_Xfa kdec;Xfa Xfa
33 Decay of Xc4 Dec_Xc4 kdec;Xc4 Xc4
34 Decay of Xpro Dec_Xpro kdec;Xpro Xpro
35 Decay of Xac Dec_Xac kdec;Xac Xac
36 Decay of Xh2 Dec_Xh2 kdec;Xh Xh2
2

References [4] gROMS, Process System Enterprise, (PSE), http://www.psenterprise.com/

company/index.html.
[5] Benchmark Simulator Model n 1: http://www.iea.lth.se/publications/Reports/
[1] Grau P, de Gracia M, Vanrolleghem PA, Ayesa E. A new plant-wide modelling
LTH-IEA-7229.pdf.
methodology for WWTPs. Water Research 2007;41:4357e72.
[6] Muller Ernst A, Thommen Rolf, Stahli Peter. Lnergie dans les stations dpu-
[2] Henze M, Gujer, Mino, T, and van Loosdrecht M. Activated sludge models ASM1,
rations. In: Ofce Fdral des questions conjoncturelles, 3003; 1996. Berne,
ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3. IWA Scientic and Technical Report, London.
Switzerland.
[3] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelikadi RI, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A, et al.
[7] van Dongen U, Jetten MSM, and van Loosdrecht MCM, The SHARON-
Anaerobic digestion model n 1. V.A. Scientic and Technical Report n 13.
Anammox process for treatment of ammonium rich wastewater. Water
London: IWA Publishing; 2000.
Science and Technology, 44 (No. 1) pp 153e160.