Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Upgrading small wastewater treatment plants with the sequencing

batch biofilter granular reactor technology: Techno-economic and
environmental assessment
Claudio Di Iaconi a, *, Guido Del Moro a, Giorgio Bertanza b, Matteo Canato b,
Giuseppe Laera a, Sara Heimersson c, Magdalena Svanstro €m c
a
CNR e National Research Institute, Viale De Blasio 5, 70132, Bari, Italy
b
University of Brescia, Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, Via Branze 43, 25123, Brescia, Italy
c
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, SE 412 96, Go €teborg, Sweden

a r t i c l ein fo abstract

Article history: This paper is aimed at evaluating, from a techno-economic and environmental point of view, the per-
Received 16 September 2016 formance of an existing wastewater treatment plant in which the traditional biological section is
Received in revised form upgraded with an innovative Sequencing Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor. Two scenarios were simulated
23 January 2017 in order to model and assess the performances of conventional (CAS, Conventional Activated Sludge) and
Accepted 5 February 2017
innovative solutions, based on mass balances, techno-economic evaluation and environmental assess-
Available online 6 February 2017
ment. The results showed that converting the activated sludge process into an SBBGR allows to achieve a
drastic reduction in sludge production (up to 75% as volatile suspended solids). Furthermore, the sec -
Keywords:
ondary sedimentation and sludge stabilization units can be dismissed, reducing the area requirement (up
SBBGR
Granular sludge
to 50%). The technical assessment is mainly positive, with the electric energy consumption being the only
Techno-economic assessment critical item. The higher energy demand of the upgraded plant (about 25% more than the conventional
Environmental impacts treatment) is mainly associated with the recycle flow in the SBBGR system. Although the economic
Plant upgrading sustainability of the upgraded plant depends on local conditions, it can be considered to be likely
Sludge minimization favourable: sludge disposal and materials & reagents costs, together with the investment for plant
reconstruction are those items that should be carefully evaluated before upgrading the CAS plant with
SBBGR technology. The environmental assessment shows also mostly positive results, although it points
to the increased phosphorus concentration in the effluent as a potentially critical issue and it highlights
the electricity use and the increased nitrous oxide generation as other matters that need to be carefully
checked in real case application.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The management of sludge produced during municipal waste-
water treatment is an issue of increasing importance. Although the
volume of sludge produced is only about 2% of the treated waste-
water volume, its treatment and final disposal entails very high
capital and operating costs to 50% of the total operating costs of the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: claudio.diiaconi@ba.irsa.cnr.it (C. Di Iaconi), guido.delmoro@
ba.irsa.cnr.it (G. Del Moro), giorgio.bertanza@unibs.it (G. Bertanza), matteo.
canato@unibs.it (M. Canato), giuseppe.laera@ba.irsa.cnr.it (G. Laera), sara.
heimersson@chalmers.se (S. Heimersson), magdalena.svanstrom@chalmers.se (M.
Svanstro€ m).
wastewater treatment plant (Horan, 1990; Wei et al., 2003; Pérez-
Elvira et al., 2006; Ozdemir and Yenigun, 2013).
Sludge amounts have dramatically increased worldwide over
the last two decades. In Europe (EU-15), an increase of about 50%
was observed from 1998 to 2005, reaching an annual production of
9.8 million tons dry solids (Foladori et al., 2010). Including also the
contribution from EU-12 countries (i.e., the new Members States
that joined EU after 2004) a global value close to 11 million tons dry
solids can be obtained (Kelessidis and Stasinakis, 2012). These fig-
ures are expected to increase further, as a result of both more
stringent effluent regulation and a growing number of wastewater
treatment plants. In response to this increased sludge production
and to concerns related to efficient management of resources,
various approaches are often considered for plants upgrading and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.034
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
refurbishment for recovery of material and energy from sludge,
including sludge quality control to allow for agricultural use (Wang
et al., 2008). However, these options are usually not feasible or
convenient in case of small treatment plants (due to low sludge
quality and/or amount) or high industrial contributions (resulting
in poor sludge quality). In these cases, reducing the excess sludge
production appears to be the only possible way to minimize
treatment, transport and disposal costs.
In the last decade, a new biological system, the Sequencing
Batch Biofilter Granular Reactor (SBBGR), has been developed and
tested for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment. This
system is able to significantly reduce the quantity of sludge in
comparison with the biological stage of a conventional wastewater
treatment plant (Di Iaconi et al., 2010a). SBBGR consists of a single
basin operated in cycles of wastewater feeding, treatment and
discharge. It combines the advantages of attached biomass systems
(i.e., robustness and compactness) with those of periodic systems
(i.e., flexibility and stability) (Rodgers and Zhan, 2003; Bajaj et al.,
2008; Farhadian et al., 2008). Similarly to these systems, SBBGR
presents a higher potential for use than suspended growth biomass
reactors since it can retain a higher concentration of biomass with
higher metabolic activity. Moreover, the attached biomass is usu-
ally found to be more resistant to toxicity (Pedersen and Arvin,
1995), and so better suited for the treatment of industrial efflu-
ents. SBBGR is, however, a unique system in virtue of the particular
type of biomass growing in it, which consists of two different
fractions: the biofilm attached to the carrier material and the
biomass granules entrapped in the pores produced by packing a
part of the reactor with a filling material (Di Iaconi et al., 2010a). It is
worth noting that in SBBGR, the granules are retained by the filling
material rather than being suspended as in recently proposed
granular biomass sequencing batch reactors (Gao et al., 2011; Pronk
et al., 2015). The whole biomass (i.e., biofilm and granules) is
completely confined in a dedicated zone of the reactor known as
the bed (or biofilter), and a secondary settler is therefore no longer
necessary. This feature gives a great advantage in terms of oper-
ating stability compared to granular biomass sequencing batch
reactors, where selection of granular biomass and washing out of
floccular biomass are obtained by applying a very short sedimen-
tation phase (Qin et al., 2004). Such a hydraulic selective pressure
may also lead to the washout of the granular biomass from the
reactor when slight modifications of the granule structure and
density occur (e.g., in the case of filamentous bacteria growth). In
fact, the long-term instability of granular biomass is one of the
major bottlenecks that have prevented the practical full scale
application of the innovative aerobic granular sludge technology
(Lee et al., 2010). This drawback cannot occur in a SBBGR system
since there is no sedimentation phase as the biomass is entrapped
in the filling material. This efficient biomass retention allows to
achieve very high sludge age in SBBGRs (up to one order of
magnitude higher than in conventional suspended growth sys-
tems), with consequent reduction of sludge production (Di Iaconi
et al., 2009). In fact, the microorganisms spend much time in the
endogenous metabolism phase, where the contribution of biomass
decay rate on biomass growth rate becomes relevant (Di Iaconi
et al., 2010a). Moreover, due to both high biomass concentration
and dynamic conditions arising from the sequential operation, the
SBBGR biomass is exposed to the alternation of aerobic and
anaerobic conditions that activates an uncoupled metabolism (Liu,
2003). Thus, dissipating catabolically extracted energy limits
anabolism and results in a reduced biomass yield (Low et al., 2000),
as observed in other systems with alternating exposure to oxic and
anaerobic environments (Wei et al., 2003). This has been clearly
demonstrated for SBBGR, when this replaced the activated sludge
stage of a conventional wastewater treatment plant (based on
607
primary and secondary treatment) and a significant reduction of
sludge production was obtained (Di Iaconi et al., 2010a).
The SBBGR technology has been successfully applied for treating
various types of wastewater (municipal wastewater, landfill
leachates, tannery and textile effluents). In particular, in the case of
primary municipal effluents, the SBBGR removed 80% of chemical
oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS) and nitrogen
content, ensuring residual concentrations lower than the Italian
limits for discharge into soil. These performances were assured up
to organic loading rate (OLR) as high as 2.5 kg COD/m 3d (Di Iaconi
et al., 2010a). In the treatment of scarcely biodegradable tannery
wastewater, with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) to COD ratios
of 0.41e0.43, removal efficiencies of 91%, 90% and 78% were ob-
tained for COD, TSS and ammonia, respectively, when operating the
SBBGR at OLR of 2.1 kg COD/m3d (Di Iaconi et al., 2010b). Also in the
case of mature municipal landfill leachates characterized by high
values of ammonia concentration (1.5e2 gN/L) and salinity
(16e22 mS/cm), the SBBGR technology was able to produce an
effluent with concentrations of ammonia and oxidised nitrogen as
low as 10 and 20 mg/L, respectively (Di Iaconi et al., 2011). Finally,
during the treatment of mixed municipal and textile wastewater,
the SBBGR reached removal efficiencies of 82%, 95%, 88% and 77%
for COD, TSS, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and surfactants,
respectively, allowing to meet the Italian limits for discharge into
surface water with no need of further tertiary treatment and with
much lower hydraulic residence time (11 h against 30 h) than in the
centralized plant treating the same wastewater (Lotito et al., 2014).
For all wastewater types, SBBGR was characterized by a low specific
sludge production (0.12e0.14 kgTSS/kgCODremoved) due to the high
biomass age of SBBGR system (higher than 200 d).
So far, the applicability and sustainability of SBBGR at full scale
have not been demonstrated. Therefore, the aim of this study was
to simulate the application of this technology for the upgrading of a
conventional activated sludge (CAS) treatment plant, equipped
with aerobic sludge stabilization and having a treatment capacity of
15,000 person equivalents (PE). The two configurations were
compared based on the results of mass and energy balances and a
techno-economic and environmental assessment of full-scale de-
signs. Plant-wide mass and energy balances were performed on
the basis of literature data (for CAS) and experimental results
deriving from a pilot plant monitoring campaign (for SBBGR). The
results of these balances were used for a techno-economic and
environmental assessment of the conventional and upgraded
configurations.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Pilot experiments
The effectiveness of the proposed upgrading scheme was eval-
uated by experiments on a demonstrative scale SBBGR prototype (a
pilot plant having a volume of 300 L). A detailed description of the
prototype configuration and operation is reported elsewhere (Di
Iaconi et al., 2014). The main feature of the prototype was the
complete separation of the biomass from the liquid phase. While
the biomass was confined to a dedicated compartment of the
reactor (biofilter) packed with plastic material (wheel shaped ele-
ments), the wastewater was circulated between an aeration
compartment with continuous air supply and the biofilter where
the biological degradation processes occurred. By this way, the
treated wastewater was always free of biomass and could be easily
disposed of. A sketch of SBBGR is shown in Fig. 1.
The operation of the prototype was based on a succession of 6-h
treatment cycles, each consisting of three consecutive phases:
filling, reaction and drawing. During the filling phase a fixed
608 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
volume of wastewater to be treated was added into the aerator by
means of a filling pump. In the reaction phase, wastewater in the
aerator was continuously recycled through the biomass supporting
material of the biofilter. Finally, in the drawing phase, the treated
wastewater was discharged from aerator compartment exploiting
gravity by opening a motorized valve. The plant was then ready to
start a new treatment cycle. The operative schedule (filling, recir-
culation, aeration, drawing) was completely automated, using a
programmable logic controller (PLC) which allowed the operating
times of the components (i.e., filling pump, recirculation pump,
blower, drawing valve) to be changed.
A pressure meter was set at the bottom of the biofilter
compartment and used to record the head losses due to biomass
growth and suspended solids retained from the influent waste-
water. When a set value of head loss was reached, a washing
operation was carried out by flushing air through the biofilter until
the head loss was decreased to a certain value. It must be high-
lighted that washing operations played the same role as the waste
sludge flow rate in CAS systems, i.e., to regulate sludge age, which is
the key parameter in the process operation. In fact, the sludge could
leave the SBBGR system either with the effluent (i.e., as suspended
solids) similarly to activated sludge systems, or as a result of a
washing operation (i.e., “forced exit”).
The SBBGR pilot plant was fed with raw municipal wastewater
coming from the local sewage system of Bari, a city of southern
Italy, and operated for about two years. After a start-up period
(seven months) aimed at generating the typical biomass of the
SBBGR system by the gradual shift of the attached biomass fraction
from the biofilm to granules (a detailed description of biomass
generation in SBBGR is reported in Di Iaconi et al., 2014), the
experimental activities were set up to maximize the wastewater
treatment capacity of the plant. In order to do this, the hydraulic
loading to the plant was increased in a stepwise fashion until the
effluent quality no longer met the requirements specified in Table 1.
The performance of the plant under maximum hydraulic loading
for achieving the effluent quality standards was monitored for
about six months, and assessed in terms of removal of the main
physical and chemical gross parameters such as chemical oxygen
demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD 5), total sus-
pended solids (TSS), total nitrogen (TN), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), ammonia nitrogen (NH3eN) and nitrate nitrogen (NO—3 -N).
The excess sludge production and its stabilization degree were also
evaluated.
Fig. 1. Sketch of the pilot SBBGR prototype.
Table 1
Effluent characteristics to be met by the plant (design
assumptions); for non-sensitive areas (thus no limita-
tions on phosphorus release).
Parameter Value (mg/L)
COD 50
BOD5 25
TSS 20
TN 18
NH3 eN 2
NO—3 N 14
COD, BOD5, TN, NO3eN, and total phosphorus (TP) were deter-
mined by means of Dr Lange test kits (COD: LCK314; BOD5: LCK555;
TN: LCK238; NeNO2: LCK341; NeNO3: LCK339; TP: LCK350).
NH3eN and TSS were determined using standard methods (APHA
et al., 2005). TKN was calculated as the difference between TN
and oxidised nitrogen.
2.2. Simulated scenarios
A CAS plant with a nominal capacity of 15,000 PE was consid-
ered as a reference scenario. The plant layout included screening,
biological section (anoxic and aerobic bioreactors), gravity thick-
ening of the waste activated sludge, followed by aerobic digestion
and sludge dewatering (centrifuge). The effluent was considered to
be discharged in a non-sensitive area, with design parameters as
reported in Table 1 (in non-sensitive areas, there are no limitations
for phosphorus release).
In this scenario, it was assumed that the treatment plant pro-
duced sludge that was not suitable for agricultural application and
had to be disposed of by incineration. Therefore, it was hypothe-
sized that upgrading the reference plant with a SBBGR would be a
convenient option for minimizing the sludge production and
reducing the cost of disposal via incineration. In detail, the upgra-
ded plant consisted of screening, SBBGR, sludge thickening, (no
stabilization) and dewatering. A rough schematic of the reference
and upgraded plants is reported in Fig. 2.
2.3. Mass and energy balances calculation
For both plants (reference and SBBGR), mass and energy
 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
balances were calculated based on the assumptions and procedures
described in Bertanza et al. (2015) and Mininni et al. (2015).
In brief, plant-wide mass balances were performed in a
spreadsheet, modelling the flows of water, TSS, VSS, COD (soluble
and particulate) and TN (soluble and particulate) and the exchanges
between water and sludge lines. All considered processes were
modelled under steady state conditions and annual average values
of loading and temperature (15 ○C). The biological section of the
reference plant was modelled with the support of the Activated
Sludge Computer Aided Modelling (ASCAM) software (Carucci
et al., 1994), while the performance data for the SBBGR unit were
obtained from experimental trials. All other sections of the refer-
ence and upgraded plants were modelled based on literature data.
Finally, the emissions to air and the distribution of phosphorus
between effluent and sludge were calculated after iteratively
solving the mass balance for the parameters described above.
The electric energy balance was performed by calculating the
power consumption of each device installed in the plants (e.g.
energy consumed by blowers for air supply in the biological stage,
water lifting, mixing, etc.). The power consumption of different
units was estimated for average loading conditions by means of
specific equations (either theoretical or empirical); for the SBBGR
system, power consumption was estimated from a scaled-up
design. Process parameters with their relative values assumed for
SBBGR energy demand estimation are listed in Table S1 in Sup-
plementary Materials.
2.4. Techno-economic and environmental assessment
The applied procedure for techno-economic and environmental
assessment is described in Svanstro € m et al. (2014). The method-
ology was inspired by methods developed in the Multi Criteria
Decision Analysis (MCDA) field for assessing complex problems. As
reported in Achillas et al. (2013), complex problems are charac-
terized by incommensurable and conflicting criteria or objectives
(e.g. cost, performance, reliability, safety, productivity and afford-
ability). Based on this definition, decision-making for systems
where suggested changes have technical, economic as well as
environmental consequences can be considered to be complex
problems.
In order to evaluate the impact of the upgrading on an existing
reference scenario
secondary sludge
Effluent water
treatment thickening
Wastewater pre-treatment
sludge
Effluent water SBBGR
thickening
upgraded scenario
Fig. 2. Schematic of the investigated scenarios and the system boundary for the environmental assessment.
609
plant, seven technical aspects were considered (i.e. reliability,
complexity and integration with existing structures, flexibility/
modularity, social & authorization aspects, residues & recovered
materials, consumption of raw materials & reagents, electric energy
consumption). For the economic assessment, seven economic items
were analysed (i.e. capital cost of upgrading/construction, ordinary
maintenance, power consumption, reagent consumption, plant
monitoring, sludge transportation, and sludge disposal); other
costs (e.g. personnel) were not considered to change in the
upgraded plant with respect to the reference one. The environ-
mental assessment, performed as a LCA, was based on six envi-
ronmental impact categories (climate change; acidification;
terrestrial, marine and freshwater eutrophication, and smog
formation).
It must be noted that there are differences in perspective be-
tween the different parts of the integrated assessment apart from
the obvious that they look into technical, economic and environ-
mental aspects, respectively. Firstly, the technical and economic
assessments evaluated only the changes induced by the upgrading
while the environmental assessment includes all impacts from
wastewater treatment and sludge management from a life cycle
perspective, also the parts that are not changed when the reference
plant is upgraded (attributional approach in LCA terms). Further,
the technical assessment was performed from the perspective of
the wastewater treatment plant manager, the economic assessment
from the perspective of the wastewater treatment operating com-
pany and the environmental assessment from a global perspective
(see Fig. 2 for the system boundaries of the environmental
assessment). With these different perspectives, the same conse-
quences of the considered upgrade can result in both positive and
negative impacts for the different categories assessed (e.g. mate-
rials or energy recovery may have economic and environmental
advantages but will increase administrative burdens for the
wastewater treatment plant manager).
The economic assessment was performed by comparing the
operating expenditures and the depreciation (only for new equip-
ment) of the upgraded and reference plants: the comparison was
expressed in terms of the difference (gap) between the costs of the
two plants. For taking into account of cost variability depending on
market conditions, two opposite situations were simulated, namely
the most favourable and the worst conditions, respectively. In the
aerobic
stabilization
common for both scenarios
dewatering transport incineration ash landfill
electricity and heat chemicals
production production
610 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615

first case, the assumed set of cost items was such that the upgrading Table 2
Inventory data for the life cycle assessment, apart from the results of mass and
option was favoured and vice versa. For instance, if the upgraded
energy balances performed within the project.
plant was expected to reduce sludge production while increasing
the power consumption, the operating costs under the most Assumptions for emissions from WWTP
N2 O 1% of denitrified N
favourable conditions were calculated using the upper limit of the
(Townsend-Small et al., 2011)
assumed range of variation of sludge disposal cost together with Assumptions for emissions
the lower limit of the assumed range of variation of electricity cost. to air from effluent recipient
The values of parameters utilized for the economic assessment CH4 0.025 kg per kg COD in
were taken from Bertanza et al. (2015) and are summarized in effluent (Foley et al., 2010)
Assumptions for incineration
Table S2 in Supplementary Materials.
NOx emissions to air 120.0 mg/Nm3 (IPPC, 2000;
The environmental assessment followed as far as possible in- BREF, 2006)
ternational LCA standards: ISO 14040:2006, ISO 14044:2006 and CO emissions to air 30.0 mg/Nm3 (IPPC, 2000;
the International Life Cycle Data Systems (ILCD) Handbook BREF, 2006)
HCl emissions to air 6.0 mg/Nm3 (BREF, 2006)
(European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2010). The environ-
SO2 emissions to air 30.0 mg/Nm3 (BREF, 2006)
mental impact categories were selected based on (1) relevance for Air flow rate 10.0 Nm3/kg SSinput (IPPC, 2000)
the studied systems, (2) categories assessed in similar LCA studies Fuel consumption for 0.134 Nm3 CH4/kg DS
reported in literature (e.g. Tarantini et al. (2007), Johansson et al. sludge at 25%DS
(2008), Peters and Rowley (2009)) and (3) availability of well- Conversion factor 2.44 kg CO2/kg CH4 in natural gas
Other assumptions
developed methodology and data. For more details, the reader is
Transport distance for sludge 100 km, truck with a payload
referred to Svanstro € m et al. (2014). of 30 tonnes
A colour code was eventually used to display the results of the Electricity production EU-27 mix (PE International, 2014)
different aspects of the integrated techno-economic-environ- Natural gas production EU-27 mix (PE International, 2014)
Polyelectrolyte production Acrylonitrile production
mental assessment, for highlighting potential problem areas and
(PE International, 2014)
trade-offs. As for the technical assessment, numerical values (e.g.
power consumption) and qualitative evaluations (e.g. reliability)
were converted into colours by means of an algorithm (as detailed
in Bertanza et al., 2015). For the economic and environmental also TSS were efficiently removed with residual concentration in
evaluations, colours were assigned on the basis of the ratio be- the effluent as low as 10 mg/L.
tween the results for the upgraded and the reference plants: red The excellent performance and high stability of the SBBGR in
was used when the ratio exceeded 10%; þ yellow, if the ratio fell removing TSS and COD could be ascribed to the fact that the
within the range ±10%; green, otherwise. biomass, being confined to a fixed filling material, acted as a
A full description of the techno-economic assessment procedure filtering medium for removing suspended particulate matter. In
is reported in Bertanza et al. (2015) and the full integrated approach effect, the particulate matter was firstly physically entrapped in the
with also the environmental assessment is reported in Svanstro €m reactor bed and then consecutively decomposed into soluble
et al. (2014). Inventory data for the LCA, other than the results compounds by the lytic enzymes produced by the biomass and
from the mass and energy balances, are listed in Table 2. finally mineralized or utilized for microbial growth.
Concerning nitrogen, the plant was able to remove more than
3. Results and discussion 95% of the TKN and NH 3eN influent content with residual final
concentrations very close to zero. Removal efficiencies of TN higher
3.1. Pilot experiments than 80% were also obtained with residual concentrations in the
effluent always lower than 15 mg/L. This was due to the presence of
As reported in section 2.1, the hydraulic loading applied to the a very stable nitrification and denitrification process (see the
plant was increased in a stepwise fashion until the effluent quality whiskers of standard deviation). Furthermore, the profiles of ni-
no longer met the requirements specified in Table 1. The technical trogen species recorded during a typical treatment cycle (data not
performance of the plant under the maximum hydraulic loading reported) supported the occurrence of a simultaneous nitrification-
denitrification process. In fact, the concentration of oxidised ni-
(i.e., 3.2 m3/m3biofilter,d corresponding to a hydraulic residence
time of the plant of 18 h) compatible with the achievement of the trogen remained very low throughout reaction phase despite the
requested effluent quality is shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In particular, recorded TKN removal. This ability of the system was ascribed to
Fig. 3 shows the average values (and relative standard deviations) the high value of biomass concentration present in the reactor bed,
of the COD, BOD5, TSS, TN, TKN and NH 3eN concentrations in the
influent and effluent of the pilot plant, whereas the relative
removal efficiencies are reported in Fig. 4.
The results reported in Figs. 3 and 4 clearly show that the pro-
posed system was able to guarantee good and stable technical
performance in a single step treatment. In fact, stable removal ef-
ficiencies exceeding 90% were achieved for COD, BOD 5, TSS, TKN
and NH3eN, reaching an effluent quality better than required.
Specifically, the plant successfully removed COD with an
average removal efficiency of 93%, the effluent residual concen-
tration being 40 mg/L. COD removal performances were very stable
regardless of the wide variation of influent COD concentration, as
confirmed by the length of the whiskers representing standard
deviation in Fig. 3. This allowed the discharge limit for COD to be
continuously met (COD concentration in the effluent never excee- Fig. 3. Average concentrations in influent and effluent of the SBBGR pilot plant (the
ded the value of 50 mg/L). Similarly to COD, Figs. 3 and 4 show that whiskers indicate the standard deviation).
 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
Fig. 4. Average removal efficiencies of the SBBGR pilot plant (the whiskers indicate the
standard deviation).
which allowed the cohabitation of nitrifying and denitrifying bac-
teria in the biomass layers as reported in De Sanctis et al. (2010) and
also previously demonstrated in suspended biomass systems
(Bertanza, 1997; Collivignarelli and Bertanza, 1999).
Specific sludge production, calculated by dividing TSS leaving
the system (i.e., TSS discharged with the effluentþ TSS removed
during the washing operations) by the amount of COD removed
during a period of 6 months, was 0.08 kg VSS/kg COD removed. This
value is considerably lower (60%e80% lower) than that reported in
the literature for municipal wastewater treatment plants operating
without a primary clarifier (Foladori et al., 2010). An acceptable
level of stabilization of excess sludge was also obtained (a VSS/TSS
ratio of about 0.53 was measured) so that a further stabilization
process might no longer be required. This result is particularly
interesting for small wastewater treatment plants where the sludge
stabilization section is not available and the excess sludge from the
biological tank is directly sent to reuse/disposal or is transported to
larger treatment plants or centralized sludge treatment facilities.
3.2. Mass and energy balances
The results of the mass balances for the reference and upgraded
scenarios are reported in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. Comparing the
performance of the two plants, it is evident that the SBBGR was
highly effective in reducing the amount of waste sludge: the excess
biomass produced in the biological process decreases from 68 g SS/
PE/d in the reference scenario to 16 g SS/PE/d in the upgraded plant.
Excess sludge produced during the SBBGR process, had accept- able
stabilization (see section 3.1) and therefore the aerobic stabi-
lization stage was not required. Hence, in terms of dewatered
sludge, the introduction of the SBBGR technology resulted in a
reduction of up to 70% of the solid residue produced in the refer-
ence scenario (i.e. 5.2 kg/PE/year instead of 17.4 kg/PE/year in the
conventional treatment). The reduction rate increased to 75% when
volatile fractions were considered, due to better stabilization ob-
tained with the SBBGR in comparison to biological treatment and
aerobic stabilization of reference scenario (a VSS/TSS ratio of 0.53
versus 0.65 in the reference case).
Additionally, the volume of dewatered sludge was further
reduced thanks to the improvement in sludge dewaterability of the
SBBGR system evaluated by capillary suction time (CST) test (UNI
EN 14701-1), which allowed to reduce the dosage of poly-
electrolyte and increased the dewatered sludge concentration up to
28% of dry matter after thickening and dewatering with centrifuge
(compared to 20% for reference scenario). This improvement is
important when considering the cost and environmental impact of
transport to the site for final disposal. This result is in agreement
with the findings of Lotito et al. (2012) who measured settling
611
properties, dewaterability and rheology of the sludge produced by
SBBGR treating mixed municipal and textile wastewater. Better
dewatering characteristics of granular biomass compared to acti-
vated sludge were also reported by Ekama (2015) and Ma et al.
(2015).
The phosphorus balance in the SBBGR evidences how its
removal with the sludge was limited and hence most of the influent
P (>90%) was discharged with the effluent. The scenario considered
in this study had no imposed limits for P discharge as a non-
sensitive area was considered and therefore, this increased
release is not an issue in terms of legal requirements. However, in
different applications of the SBBGR technology, this aspect should
be further considered (see further the discussion on environmental
impacts related to phosphorus below).
Results of the electric energy balance are reported in Fig. 7.
Notwithstanding the aerobic stabilization stage was removed in the
upgraded plant (with a corresponding power saving of 11.58 Wh/
(PE,d)), the upgrading of the existing biological section to an
SBBGR system implies an increase in energy requirement of about
24 Wh/(PE,d). This increase was mainly due to the internal recycle
flow rate of wastewater typical of SBBGR (about 45 Wh/(PE,d)) that
was embedded in the item “pumping” in Fig. 7.
3.3. Integrated techno-economic-environmental assessment
Results of the techno-economic-environmental assessment are
summarized in Table 3. It should be noted that the comparison had
the purpose (in particular for the technical and economic parts) of
evaluating the impact of the upgrading (i.e., reference CAS upgra-
ded with the SBBGR system) instead of the realisation ex novo of
both plants. Actually, the upgrading was a conversion of the
existing biological section into an SBBGR since the volume of the
activated sludge reactor of the reference CAS resulted to be very
close to that required for SBBGR. Secondary settling and sludge
stabilization units were no longer required for the plant upgraded
with SBBGR, and a reduction of the total area requirement of about
50% is therefore obtained.
From a technical point of view, the evaluation is quite positive
and only “Electric Energy consumption” was marked with yellow
colour, to underline that it can represent a “potentially critical” item.
In effect, from the viewpoint of practitioners, this item was evalu-
ated as potentially critical because the power consumption of the
SBBGR unit was more than 20% higher than that of the reference
plant (but lower than 100%, representing the threshold over which
red colour would have been attributed). One of the most important
advantages of upgrading with the SBBGR technology was found to
be the simplicity of the system and the operators of small waste-
water treatment plants can particularly appreciate this technical
aspect.
Looking at the technical assessment in more details, it appears
that two subcategories have to be considered with care in case of
upgrading an existing plant, even if the overall evaluation for
‘Reliability’ and ‘Complexity and integration with existing struc-
tures’ resulted in a green score. Under ‘Reliability’, the ‘Number of
full-scale application in EU’ was considered “critical” (and a red score
was attributed) mainly because the SBBGR system is not applied at
the full-scale. Despite this critical aspect, the overall score for
‘Reliability’ was green because the technology demonstrated very
stable performances under typical working conditions and influent
variability (see Table S3 in Supplementary Materials for more de-
tails). Similarly, despite the ‘Intervention required for integrating the
technology in the existing WWTP’ received a red score, the overall
evaluation of ‘Complexity and Integration … ’ was green because no
additional land, personnel training and safety standards were
required as a consequence of the upgrade (Table S3). In the specific
612 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615

Fig. 5. Mass balance of the reference scenario.

case of the ‘Intervention required for integrating the technology in the
existing WWTP’, it must be underlined that the SBBGR system
received a “negative” evaluation because this study considered the
upgrading of an existing WWTP (so the hydraulic and electric
connections have to be modify for adapting a CAS plant to a SBBGR).
In case of a new realisation, the plant engineering could be simpler
than in building a new CAS system, therefore resulting in a positive
assessment.
From Table 3 it can be deduced that the economic sustainability
of the upgrading depends on the local conditions but it is likely to
be satisfied: under the most favourable conditions (green colour
was attributed) the SBBGR system should allow a substantial
reduction of the costs (—38%) with respect to the reference plant.
Also, if the worst conditions should prevail, the increase in costs
should not be very high (þ8.6% with respect to the reference plant).
Therefore, a yellow score was attributed (see Table 3). In detail,
analysing the results of the economic sensitivity analysis reported
in Fig. 8 (where costs are expressed as V/(PE,y)), it can be seen that
the advantages of the SBBGR technology were mainly attributable
to two items: sludge disposal cost and materials & reagents cost
(polyelectrolyte in particular). On the contrary, capital expenditures
represented the most relevant contribution to the cost increase.
Therefore, these items have to be carefully taken into account in
case the applicability of the SBBGR system for full-scale realisation

Fig. 6. Mass balance of the upgraded scenario.

 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
Fig. 7. Details of the different items of the electric energy consumption in reference
and upgraded wastewater treatment plants.
is being evaluated. The present work was not carried out on a real
plant and therefore the cost estimation could be affected by some
uncertainties, in particular in estimating the capital cost for con-
verting the existing activated sludge basin into an SBBGR system
(e.g. subdivision of the existing biological reactor chamber into
some SBBGR units to ensure continuous treatment; realisation of
the biomass filling material housing in each SBBGR unit; realisation
of the wastewater distribution system; automation of the process,
etc.).
The environmental assessment indicated one challenge in
particular, as can be seen from the summary in Table 3. The effluent
from the upgraded plant was found to contain more phosphorus,
which influences strongly the freshwater eutrophication potential.
Freshwater ecosystems are normally sensitive to phosphate emis-
sions because in such ecosystems phosphorus is often a growth-
limiting nutrient; the results will thus depend on whether fresh-
water ecosystems or marine ecosystems are considered to be the
recipient of the effluent. This is seen also from the more detailed
LCA results that are shown in Fig. 9. Impacts related to sludge
transportation and disposal and chemicals decreased whereas
impacts related to electrical energy consumption, phosphorus in
the effluent and N2O to air increased when upgrading a CAS to
SBBGR. Some environmental impact categories, in particular acid-
ification, terrestrial eutrophication and smog formation, showed
better results for the upgraded plant, mainly due to their strong
correlation to either emissions to air from incineration which were
Table 3
Summary of technical, economic and environmental assessments. The colour code describes the overall impact of the upgrade on the WWTP: Green for minimum or negligible
impact; Yellow for moderate impact; Red for potentially crucial aspect (see text for more details).
Type of aspect
Technical
Economic
Environmental
* Specific evaluations are required because the final judgment depends on site-specific conditions
613
Fig. 8. Detailed results of the economic evaluation: cost differences (gaps) between
upgraded and reference plants. Cost variability due to market conditions are shown by
the bars width.
higher in the reference system due to larger incinerated sludge
amounts or to the lower consumption of chemicals. The higher
electricity consumption in the upgraded plant was thus compen-
sated for by reduced emissions from incineration and chemicals
consumption for those impact categories. The climate impact was
influenced by an expected increase in N 2O emissions to air after the
plant upgrade. Marine eutrophication was considerably lower in
the upgraded system due to reduced nitrogen content in the
effluent.
Two assumptions that impacted the results are related to the
electricity system and to the effluent recipient. The consumed
electricity was considered to be generated as for the average in EU-
27, which is 28% nuclear, 21% natural gas, 15% hard coal, 11% lignite
and 10% hydro and so forth. The importance of the electricity use
could both increase and decrease if another energy system would
be more reasonable to use in the calculation based on the local
conditions. As an example, if average Swedish electricity was
assumed, with mostly nuclear and hydropower, this would lower
the impact from the upgraded system, and for all impact categories
with a large contribution from the electricity, the upgrade would
appear even more advantageous than it already is. The opposite
would happen if, for example, only coal power was considered (e.g.
as to represent peak load electricity generation). In terms of the
Aspect Score *
Reliability GREEN
Complexity and integration with existing structures GREEN
Flexibility / Modularity GREEN
Social & Authorization aspects GREEN
Residues & Recovered materials GREEN
Consumption of Raw Materials & Reagents GREEN
Electric Energy consumption YELLOW
Cost variation under the most favourable conditions GREEN
Cost variation under the worst conditions YELLOW
Global warming potential, GWP GREEN
Acidification potential, AP GREEN
Eutrophication potential, EP, for freshwater ecosystems RED
Eutrophication potential, EP, for marine ecosystems GREEN
Eutrophication potential, EP, for terrestrial ecosystems GREEN
Photochemical oxidant formation potential, POFP GREEN
614 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
Fig. 9. Detailed results of the LCA (WWTP ¼ wastewater treatment plant).
effluent recipient, the current LCA modelling is made with a
freshwater ecosystem as the recipient. If the effluent would be
considered to be sent directly into a marine environment where
phosphorus is not growth-limiting, this could in fact better repre-
sent discharge into non-sensitive areas. Therefore, the modelling of
the effects of the increased phosphorus discharge in this LCA can be
seen as a worst case and highlights the importance of looking into
specific local conditions.
The direct effect of sludge minimization and increased dew-
aterability can be clearly seen in reduced impacts related to sludge
transport and disposal and use of chemicals, and the increase in
electricity use and N2O emissions seem to be acceptable trade-offs.
However, the increase in phosphorus in the effluent is a potential
concern in some areas. The environmental performance is thus
expected to be quite positive. Electricity use for the SBBGR, the
content of phosphorus in the wastewater treatment plant effluent
and N2O emissions to air from the plant should be checked and
minimized in case of real application of this technology.
Environmental impacts related to the reconstruction of the
wastewater treatment plant were not included (and neither was
any impacts related to construction of any facilities or equipment).
This was motivated by earlier studies that showed that production
capital commonly constitutes a smaller share of the overall impact,
considering the long expected lifetime of such constructions
(Peters and Rowley, 2009; Larsen et al., 2010). So, even if the
reconstruction may have a large impact on costs, it is not expected
to be important for the environmental outcome.
4. Conclusions
In this work, the sustainability of a conventional wastewater
treatment plant upgraded with SBBGR technology was evaluated
from techno-economic and environmental perspectives by means
of an assessment procedure developed by the authors. The evalu-
ation compared a reference CAS wastewater treatment plant
(15,000 PE equipped with a sludge aerobic stabilization stage) with
a plant upgraded with an SBBGR system. For both plants, mass and
energy balances were performed based on literature data and
experimental results (for the SBBGR).
As far as mass balance is concerned, a significant reduction in
sludge production was achievable when SBBGR technology was
used. According to our estimation, the upgraded plant would be
able to limit the solids production to 78.5 tonnes per year (i.e. 5.2
kgSS/PE/year) of sludge, dewatered at up to 28% of dry matter
content (i.e. better than in average conventional plants). Also, the
effluent quality was improved for all parameters except for
phosphorus.
The technical assessment of the upgrade was mainly positive
and only electric energy consumption was found to be quite a
critical item for the SBBGR. This high energy demand of the SBBGR
system (about 24 Wh/(PE,d) more than the CAS plant) was mainly
due to the wastewater recycle flow rate required by the system
(accounting for about 45 Wh/(PE,d)). Also the economic assess-
ment was mainly positive even if the economic sustainability of the
upgrading depends on local conditions. Those items that had the
greater impact on the overall cost and that therefore must be
evaluated with particular accuracy in a possible real situation are:
depreciation cost for plant reconstruction (responsible for cost in-
crease) and sludge disposal & reagent costs (which instead were
the main key points for cost reduction). In terms of the environ-
mental assessment, the major issue identified was the increased
content of phosphorus in the effluent of the upgraded plant, which
can cause problems when released into some environments (e.g.
lakes, reservoirs with low water exchange). Other issues of poten-
tial environmental concern in the upgrade are were electricity use
for the SBBGR and N2O emissions to air from the WWTP. All of these
areas should be checked and minimized in case of real application
of the SBBGR technology.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the project ROUTES, funded under
the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, techno-
logical development and demonstration (grant agreement No
265156).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.034.
References
Achillas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Karagiannidis, A., Banias, G., Perkoulidis, G., 2013.
The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management prob-
lems: a literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 115e129.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, twenty-first ed. American Public Health Association, Washington. Bajaj,
M., Gallert, C., Winter, J., 2008. Biodegradation of high phenol containing synthetic
wastewater by an aerobic fixed bed reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 99,
8376e8381.
Bertanza, G., 1997. Simultaneous nitrification - denitrification process in extended
aeration plants: pilot and real scale experiences. Water Sci. Technol. 35 (6),
53e61.
Bertanza, G., Canato, M., Laera, G., Tomei, M.C., 2015. Methodology for technical and
economic assessment of advanced routes for sludge processing and disposal.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22 (10), 7190e7202.
BREF, 2006. Waste Incineration. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/wi.html.
Accessed 17 February 2016.
Carucci, A., Ramadori, R., Rossetti, S., Tomei, M.C., 1994. Validation of “ASCAM”
model for biological nitrogen removal. In: Horan, N.J., Lowe, P. (Eds.), Removal
from Wastewaters. Technomic Publishing Company Inc., USA, pp. 143e149.
ISBN 9781566760997.
Collivignarelli, C., Bertanza, G., 1999. Simultaneous nitrification-denitrification
process in activated sludge plants: performance and applicability. Water Sci.
Technol. 40 (4e5), 187e194.
De Sanctis, M., Di Iaconi, C., Lopez, A., Rossetti, S., 2010. Granular biomass structure
and population dynamics in sequencing batch biofilter granular reactors
(SBBGR). Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2152e2158.
Di Iaconi, C., Del Moro, G., Lopez, A., Ramadori, R., 2009. The essential role of filling
material in aerobic granular biomass generation in a periodic submerged bio-
filter. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 6, 144e155.
Di Iaconi, C., De Sanctis, M., Rossetti, S., Ramadori, R., 2010a. SBBGR technology for
minimising excess sludge production in biological processes. Water Res. 44,
1825e1832.
Di Iaconi, C., Del Moro, G., De Sanctis, M., Rossetti, S., 2010b. A chemically enhanced
biological process for lowering operative costs and solid residues of industrial
recalcitrant wastewater treatment. Water Res. 44, 3635e3644.
Di Iaconi, C., De Sanctis, M., Rossetti, S., Mancini, A., 2011. Bio-chemical treatment of
medium-age sanitary landfill leachates in a high synergy system. Process Bio-
chem. 46 (12), 2322e2329.
 C. Di Iaconi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 606e615
Di Iaconi, C., De Sanctis, M., Lopez, A., 2014. A single-stage biological process for
municipal sewage treatment in tourist areas. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 34e41.
Ekama, G.A., 2015. Recent developments in biological nutrient removal. Water SA
41, 515e524.
European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2010. ILCD Handbook e International
Reference Life Cycle Data System, first ed. European Union.
Farhadian, M., Duchez, D., Vachelard, C.D., Larroche, C., 2008. Monoaromatics
removal from polluted water through bioreactors e a review. Water Res. 42,
1325e1341.
Foladori, P., Andreottola, G., Ziglio, G., 2010. Sludge Reduction Technologies in
Wastewater Treatment Plants. IWA Publishing, London.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K., Lant, P., 2010. Comprehensive life cycle inventories
of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 44 (5), 1654e1666.
Gao, D., Liu, L., Liang, H., Wu, W.-M., 2011. Aerobic granular sludge: characterization,
mechanism of granulation and application to wastewater treatment. Crit. Rev.
Biotechnol. 31 (2), 137e152.
Horan, N.J., 1990. Biological Wastewater Treatment Systems. Wiley, Chichester.
IPPC, 2000. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chap. 5e Waste. www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/
public/gp/english/. Accessed 17 Febraury 2016.
€ stergren, K., Sundstro
Johansson, B., Stahre, J., Berlin, J., O € m, B., Tillman, A.M., 2008.
Discrete Event Simulation with Lifecycle Assessment Data at a Juice
Manufacturing System.
Kelessidis, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2012. Comparative study of the methods used for
treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste
Manag. 32, 1186e1195.
Larsen, H.F., Hansen, P.A., Boyer-Souchet, F., 2010. NEPTUNE - new sustainable
concepts and processes for optimization and upgrading municipal wastewater
and sludge treatment, work package 4-assessment of environmental sustain-
ability and best practice. In: Deliverable 4.3-Decision Support Guideline Based
on LCA and Cost/efficiency Assessment.
Lee, D.J., Chen, Y.Y., Show, K.Y., Whiteley, C.G., Tay, J.H., 2010. Advances in aerobic
granule formation and granule stability in the course of storage and reactor
operation. Biotechnol. Adv. 28 (6), 919e934.
Liu, Y., 2003. Chemically reduced excess sludge production in the activated sludge
process. Chemosphere 50 (1), 1e7.
Lotito, A.M., Di Iaconi, C., Lotito, V., 2012. Physical characterisation of the sludge
produced in a sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor. Water Res. 46,
5316e5326.
Lotito, A.M., De Sanctis, M., Di Iaconi, C., Bergna, G., 2014. Textile wastewater
treatment: aerobic granular sludge vs activated sludge systems. Water Res. 54,
337e346.
Low, E.W., Chase, H.A., Milner, M.G., Curtis, T.P., 2000. Uncoupling of metabolism to
615
reduce biomass production in the activated sludge process. Water Res. 34 (12),
3204e3212.
Ma, Y.J., Xia, C.W., Yang, H.Y., Zeng, R.J., 2015. A rheological approach to analyse
aerobic granular sludge. Water Res. 50, 171e178.
Mininni, G., Laera, G., Bertanza, G., Canato, M., Sbrilli, A., 2015. Mass and energy
balances of sludge processing in reference and upgraded wastewater treatment
plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22 (10), 7203e7215.
Ozdemir, B., Yenigun, O., 2013. A pilot scale study on high biomass systems: energy
and cost analysis of sludge production. J. Membr. Sci. 428, 589e597.
PE International, 2014. Gabi Professional Database. Stuttgart, Germany.
Pedersen, A.R., Arvin, E., 1995. Removal of toluene in waste gases using a biological
trickling filter. Biodegradation 6 (2), 109e118.
Pérez-Elvira, S.I., Nieto, D., Fdz-Polanco, F., 2006. Sludge minimization technologies.
Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 375e398.
Peters, G.M., Rowley, H.V., 2009. Environmental comparison of biosolids manage-
ment systems using life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (8),
2674e2679.
Pronk, M., de Kreuk, M.K., de Bruin, B., Kamminga, P., Kleerebezem, R., van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2015. Full scale performance of the aerobic granular sludge
process for sewage treatment. Water Res. 84, 207e217.
Qin, L., Liu, Y., Tay, J.-H., 2004. Effect of settling time on aerobic granulation in
sequencing batch reactor. Biochem. Eng. J. 21 (1), 47e52.
Rodgers, M., Zhan, X.M., 2003. Moving-medium biofilm reactors. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 2, 213e224.
Svanstro € m, M., Bertanza, G., Bolzonella, D., Canato, M., Collivignarelli, C.,
Heimersson, S., Laera, G., Mininni, G., Peters, G., Tomei, M.C., 2014. Technical,
economic and environmental benchmarking of advanced sludge processing
routes. Water Sci. Technol. 69 (12), 2407e2416. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2014.092.
Tarantini, M., Butol, P., Marorino, L., 2007. An environmental LCA of alternative
scenarios of urban sewage sludge treatment and disposal. Therm. Sci. 11,
153e164.
Townsend-Small, A., Pataki, D.E., Tseng, L.Y., Tsai, C.Y., Rosso, D., 2011. Nitrous oxide
emissions from wastewater treatment and water reclamation plants in South-
ern California. J. Environ. Qual. 40, 1542e1550.
UNI EN 14701-1, 2006. Characterisation of Sludges - Filtration Properties - Part 1:
Capillary Suction Time (CST).
Wang, H., Brown, S.L., Magesan, G.N., Slade, A.H., Quintern, M., Clinton, P.W.,
Payn, T.W., 2008. Technological options for the management of biosolids. En-
viron. Sci. Pollut. Res. 15, 308e317.
Wei, Y., Van Houten, R.T., Borger, A.R., Eikelboom, D.H., Fan, Y., 2003. Minimization
of excess sludge production for biological wastewater treatment. Water Res. 37,
4453e4467.