Nitrous oxide gas emissions estimated by liquid-phase measurements: robustness and financial opportunity in single and multi-point monitoring campaigns.

Emissions Modelling Nitrous oxide Process configurations Sensor Wastewater

Journal

Environmental science and pollution research international
ISSN: 1614-7499
Titre abrégé: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9441769

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 28 03 2019
accepted: 12 11 2019
pubmed: 11 12 2019
medline: 5 3 2020
entrez: 11 12 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

A liquid-phase nitrous oxide sensor can be used as a proxy to estimate the gas emissions. Experiments conducted in a pilot-scale Anammox reactor, at different degrees of aeration intermittency, indicate a predictive error in the range of 13.4-19.3% during the stripping phase, with a higher error range in the unaerated phases (23.4-62.8%). The total emissions not explained by the aerated model amounted to 14.1%. Only a negligible fraction (3.6%) of the total nitrous oxide emissions were not captured by the unaerated phase model, indicating thus a minor concern for full-scale application. A sensitivity analysis performed on the present study indicates that the quality of the nitrous oxide measurement is of extreme importance to decrease the load prediction uncertainty. Air flow measurement errors have lower impact on the overall load prediction. The financial attractivity of this monitoring approach is significant in completely mixed tank reactors. In presence of a multi-point analysis, and starting from two monitoring points, the financial interest deteriorates by the relatively short lifetime of the commercially available liquid-phase nitrous oxide sensor.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31820232
doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-07047-0
pii: 10.1007/s11356-019-07047-0
doi:

Substances chimiques

Air Pollutants 0
Nitrous Oxide K50XQU1029

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

890-898

Références

Water Res. 2014 Dec 1;66:12-21
pubmed: 25179869
Water Sci Technol. 2014;69(5):1074-9
pubmed: 24622558
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 May 5;367(1593):1265-77
pubmed: 22451112
Water Environ Res. 2010 Dec;82(12):2362-72
pubmed: 21214030
Water Sci Technol. 2017 Nov;76(9-10):2337-2349
pubmed: 29144292
Water Res. 2010 Feb;44(3):831-44
pubmed: 19913869
Water Res. 2016 Aug 1;99:171-179
pubmed: 27155989
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 08;6:20792
pubmed: 26852718
Sci Total Environ. 2015 Dec 1;536:1-11
pubmed: 26188527
Bioresour Technol. 2015 Mar;179:510-517
pubmed: 25575212
Water Sci Technol. 2018 Feb;77(3-4):880-890
pubmed: 29488951

Auteurs

Alessio Fenu (A)

Aquafin NV, R&D, Dijkstraat 8, 2610, Aartselaar, Belgium. alessio.fenu@aquafin.be.

Tom Wambecq (T)

Aquafin NV, R&D, Dijkstraat 8, 2610, Aartselaar, Belgium.

Kris de Gussem (K)

Aquafin NV, R&D, Dijkstraat 8, 2610, Aartselaar, Belgium.

Marjoleine Weemaes (M)

Aquafin NV, R&D, Dijkstraat 8, 2610, Aartselaar, Belgium.

Articles similaires

India Carbon Sequestration Environmental Monitoring Carbon Biomass
Rivers Turkey Biodiversity Environmental Monitoring Animals
1.00
Iran Environmental Monitoring Seasons Ecosystem Forests
Nigeria Environmental Monitoring Solid Waste Waste Disposal Facilities Refuse Disposal

Classifications MeSH