## Benchmarking biological nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants: influence of mathematical model assumptions

Publication: Research - peer-review › Journal article – Annual report year: 2012

### Standard

**Benchmarking biological nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants: influence of mathematical model assumptions.** / Flores-Alsina, Xavier; Gernaey, Krist V.; Jeppsson, Ulf.

Publication: Research - peer-review › Journal article – Annual report year: 2012

### Harvard

*Water Science and Technology*, vol 65, no. 8, pp. 1496-1505., 10.2166/wst.2012.039

### APA

*Water Science and Technology*,

*65*(8), 1496-1505. 10.2166/wst.2012.039

### CBE

### MLA

*Water Science and Technology*. 2012, 65(8). 1496-1505. Available: 10.2166/wst.2012.039

### Vancouver

### Author

### Bibtex

}

### RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarking biological nutrient removal in wastewater treatment plants: influence of mathematical model assumptions

AU - Flores-Alsina,Xavier

AU - Gernaey,Krist V.

AU - Jeppsson,Ulf

PB - I W A Publishing

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - <p>This paper examines the effect of different model assumptions when describing biological nutrient removal (BNR) by the activated sludge models (ASM) 1, 2d & 3. The performance of a nitrogen removal (<em>WWTP1</em>) and a combined nitrogen and phosphorus removal (<em>WWTP2</em>) benchmark wastewater treatment plant was compared for a series of model assumptions. Three different model approaches describing BNR are considered. In the reference case, the original model implementations are used to simulate <em>WWTP1</em> (ASM1 & 3) and <em>WWTP2 </em>(ASM2d). The second set of models includes a reactive settler, which extends the description of the non-reactive TSS sedimentation and transport in the reference case with the full set of ASM processes. Finally, the third set of models is based on including electron acceptor dependency of biomass decay rates for ASM1 (<em>WWTP1</em>) and ASM2d (<em>WWTP2</em>). The results show that incorporation of a reactive settler: (1) increases the hydrolysis of particulates; (2) increases the overall plant's denitrification efficiency by reducing the S<sub>NOx</sub> concentration at the bottom of the clarifier; (3) increases the oxidation of COD compounds; (4) increases X<sub>OHO</sub> and X<sub>ANO</sub> decay; and, finally, (5) increases the growth of X<sub>PAO </sub>and formation of X<sub>PHA,Stor</sub> for ASM2d, which has a major impact on the whole P removal system. Introduction of electron acceptor dependent decay leads to a substantial increase of the concentration of X<sub>ANO</sub>, X<sub>OHO</sub> and X<sub>PAO</sub> in the bottom of the clarifier. The paper ends with a critical discussion of the influence of the different model assumptions, and emphasizes the need for a model user to understand the significant differences in simulation results that are obtained when applying different combinations of 'standard' models.</p>

AB - <p>This paper examines the effect of different model assumptions when describing biological nutrient removal (BNR) by the activated sludge models (ASM) 1, 2d & 3. The performance of a nitrogen removal (<em>WWTP1</em>) and a combined nitrogen and phosphorus removal (<em>WWTP2</em>) benchmark wastewater treatment plant was compared for a series of model assumptions. Three different model approaches describing BNR are considered. In the reference case, the original model implementations are used to simulate <em>WWTP1</em> (ASM1 & 3) and <em>WWTP2 </em>(ASM2d). The second set of models includes a reactive settler, which extends the description of the non-reactive TSS sedimentation and transport in the reference case with the full set of ASM processes. Finally, the third set of models is based on including electron acceptor dependency of biomass decay rates for ASM1 (<em>WWTP1</em>) and ASM2d (<em>WWTP2</em>). The results show that incorporation of a reactive settler: (1) increases the hydrolysis of particulates; (2) increases the overall plant's denitrification efficiency by reducing the S<sub>NOx</sub> concentration at the bottom of the clarifier; (3) increases the oxidation of COD compounds; (4) increases X<sub>OHO</sub> and X<sub>ANO</sub> decay; and, finally, (5) increases the growth of X<sub>PAO </sub>and formation of X<sub>PHA,Stor</sub> for ASM2d, which has a major impact on the whole P removal system. Introduction of electron acceptor dependent decay leads to a substantial increase of the concentration of X<sub>ANO</sub>, X<sub>OHO</sub> and X<sub>PAO</sub> in the bottom of the clarifier. The paper ends with a critical discussion of the influence of the different model assumptions, and emphasizes the need for a model user to understand the significant differences in simulation results that are obtained when applying different combinations of 'standard' models.</p>

KW - ASM1

KW - ASM2d

KW - ASM3

KW - Activated sludge model

KW - benchmarking

KW - Electron acceptor dependent decay

KW - Reactive settler

U2 - 10.2166/wst.2012.039

DO - 10.2166/wst.2012.039

JO - Water Science and Technology

JF - Water Science and Technology

SN - 0273-1223

IS - 8

VL - 65

SP - 1496

EP - 1505

ER -