Study: Water vapor may help 'flatten global warming trend'

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
www.usatoday.com

Why the Earth's surface temperature hasn't warmed as expected over the past decade continues to be a puzzle for scientists. One study out earlier this month theorized that the Earth's climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently assumed.

Another surprising factor could be the amount of water vapor way up in the stratosphere, according to a new study out Thursday in the journal Science.

Water vapor, a potent, natural greenhouse gas that absorbs sunlight and re-emits heat, is "a wild card" of global warming, says the paper's lead author, senior scientist Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. Solomon was also a co-chair of one of the groups within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that put out the definitive forecast of global warming in 2007.

In the Science paper, Solomon and her colleagues found that a drop in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere "very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000."

While climate warming is continuing — the decade of 2000 to 2009 was the hottest on record worldwide — the increase in temperatures was not as rapid as in the 1990s.

The stratosphere is the layer of the atmosphere just above the troposphere, which is the layer of air here at the planet's surface. (The troposphere goes from the surface up to about 8 miles, and the stratosphere is from about 8 to 30 miles above the surface.)

The decline in water vapor in the stratosphere slowed the rate of surface warming by about 25%, compared to that which would have occurred due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, notes the study. Specifically, the planet should have warmed 0.25 degree F during the 2000s, but because of the influence of the water vapor, it rose just 0.18 degree F.

"We call this the 10/10/10 paper," says Solomon. "10 miles above your head, there is 10% less water vapor than there was 10 years ago."

Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."

The findings are "surprising," says Bill Randel, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not part of the study. He said it was surprising how big an effect such a very little change in stratospheric water vapor has had on the surface climate.

These fluctuations in water vapor could be part of a feedback loop. Although it's known that water vapor in the troposphere increases as the climate warms — and is a major climate feedback that is well simulated in global climate models — in sharp contrast, models do a poor job of simulating water vapor in the stratosphere, according to the paper.

But Solomon points out this isn't an indication that predictions on global warming are overstated: "This doesn't mean there isn't global warming," notes Solomon. "There's no significant debate that it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago, due to anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gases."

And how will this water vapor affect future global warming? "We really don't know the answer to this," says Solomon. "If the water changes are due to the specific way the sea-surface temperature pattern looks right now, then it may well not be linked to the overall warming. It could just be a source of variability from one decade to another as the ocean pattern slowly changes. Or it could be linked to the overall warming of the tropics, in which case it could continue to 'put the brakes on.' Only time will tell, and more data."

Cyclonic spray scrubber

Cyclonic spray scrubbers are an air pollution control technology. They use the features of both the dry cyclone and the spray chamber to remove pollutants from gas streams.

Generally, the inlet gas enters the chamber tangentially, swirls through the chamber in a corkscrew motion, and exits. At the same time, liquid is sprayed inside the chamber. As the gas swirls around the chamber, pollutants are removed when they impact on liquid droplets, are thrown to the walls, and washed back down and out.

Cyclonic scrubbers are generally low- to medium-energy devices, with pressure drops of 4 to 25 cm (1.5 to 10 in) of water. Commercially available designs include the irrigated cyclone scrubber and the cyclonic spray scrubber.

In the irrigated cyclone (Figure 1), the inlet gas enters near the top of the scrubber into the water sprays. The gas is forced to swirl downward, then change directions, and return upward in a tighter spiral. The liquid droplets produced capture the pollutants, are eventually thrown to the side walls, and carried out of the collector. The "cleaned" gas leaves through the top of the chamber.

The cyclonic spray scrubber (Figure 2) forces the inlet gas up through the chamber from a bottom tangential entry. Liquid sprayed from nozzles on a center post (manifold) is directed toward the chamber walls and through the swirling gas. As in the irrigated cyclone, liquid captures the pollutant, is forced to the walls, and washes out. The "cleaned" gas continues upward, exiting through the straightening vanes at the top of the chamber.

This type of technology is a part of the group of air pollution controls collectively referred to as wet scrubbers.

Particulate collection



Cyclonic spray scrubbers are more efficient than spray towers, but not as efficient as venturi scrubbers, in removing particulate from the inlet gas stream. Particulates larger than 5 µm are generally collected by impaction with 90% efficiency. In a simple spray tower, the velocity of the particulates in the gas stream is low: 0.6 to 1.5 m/s (2 to 5 ft/s).

By introducing the inlet gas tangentially into the spray chamber, the cyclonic scrubber increases gas velocities (thus, particulate velocities) to approximately 60 to 180 m/s (200 to 600 ft/s). The velocity of the liquid spray is approximately the same in both devices. This higher particulate-to-liquid relative velocity increases particulate collection efficiency for this device over that of the spray chamber. Gas velocities of 60 to 180 m/s are equivalent to those encountered in a venturi scrubber.

However, cyclonic spray scrubbers are not as efficient as venturi scrubbers because they are not capable of producing the same degree of useful turbulence.
Gas collection

High gas velocities through these devices reduce the gas-liquid contact time, thus reducing absorption efficiency. Cyclonic spray scrubbers are capable of effectively removing some gases; however, they are rarely chosen when gaseous pollutant removal is the only concern.

Maintenance problems

The main maintenance problems with cyclonic scrubbers are nozzle plugging and corrosion or erosion of the side walls of the cyclone body. Nozzles have a tendency to plug from particulates that are in the recycled liquid and/or particulates that are in the gas stream. The best solution is to install the nozzles so that they are easily accessible for cleaning or removal.

Due to high gas velocities, erosion of the side walls of the cyclone can also be a problem. Abrasion-resistant materials may be used to protect the cyclone body, especially at the inlet.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Cyclonic separation

Cyclonic separation is a method of removing particulates from an air, gas or water stream, without the use of filters, through vortex separation. Rotational effects and gravity are used to separate mixtures of solids and fluids.

A high speed rotating (air)flow is established within a cylindrical or conical container called a cyclone. Air flows in a spiral pattern, beginning at the top (wide end) of the cyclone and ending at the bottom (narrow) end before exiting the cyclone in a straight stream through the center of the cyclone and out the top. Larger (denser) particles in the rotating stream have too much inertia to follow the tight curve of the stream and strike the outside wall, falling then to the bottom of the cyclone where they can be removed. In a conical system, as the rotating flow moves towards the narrow end of the cyclone the rotational radius of the stream is reduced, separating smaller and smaller particles. The cyclone geometry, together with flow rate, defines the cut point of the cyclone. This is the size of particle that will be removed from the stream with a 50% efficiency. Particles larger than the cut point will be removed with a greater efficiency, and smaller particles with a lower efficiency.

An alternative cyclone design uses a secondary air flow within the cyclone to keep the collected particles from striking the walls to protect them from abrasion. The primary air containing the particulate enters from the bottom of the cyclone and is forced into spiral rotation by a stationary spinner. The secondary air flow enters from the top of the cyclone and moves downward toward the bottom, intercepting the particulate from the primary air. The secondary air flow also allows the collector to be mounted horizontally because it pushes the particulate toward the collection area.

Large scale cyclones are used in sawmills to remove sawdust from extracted air. Cyclones are also used in oil refineries to separate oils and gases, and in the cement industry as components of kiln preheaters. Smaller cyclones are used to separate airborne particles for analysis. Some are small enough to be worn clipped to clothing and are used to separate respirable particles for later analysis.

Analogous devices for separating particles or solids from liquids are called hydrocyclones or hydroclones. These may be used to separate solid waste from water in wastewater and sewage treatment.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Biofilter

Biofiltration is a pollution control technique using living material to capture and biologically degrade process pollutants. Common uses include processing waste water, capturing harmful chemicals or silt from surface runoff, and microbiotic oxidation of contaminants in air.



Examples of biofiltration include;

* Bioswales, Biostrips, Biobags, Bioscrubbers, and Trickling filters
* Constructed wetlands and Natural wetlands
* Slow sand filters
* Treatment ponds
* Green belts
* Living walls
* Riparian zones, Riparian forests, Bosques



Control of air pollution

When applied to air filtration and purification, biofilters use microorganisms to remove air pollution. The air flows through a packed bed and the pollutant transfers into a thin biofilm on the surface of the packing material. Microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi are immobilized in the biofilm and degrade the pollutant. Trickling filters and bioscrubbers rely on a biofilm and the bacterial action in their recirculating waters.

The technology finds greatest application in treating malodorous compounds and water-soluble volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Industries employing the technology include food and animal products, off-gas from wastewater treatment facilities, pharmaceuticals, wood products manufacturing, paint and coatings application and manufacturing and resin manufacturing and application, etc. Compounds treated are typically mixed VOCs and various sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide. Very large airflows may be treated and although a large area (footprint) has typically been required -- a large biofilter (>200,000 acfm) may occupy as much or more land than a football field -- this has been one of the principal drawbacks of the technology. Engineered biofilters, designed and built since the early 1990s, have provided significant footprint reductions over the conventional flat-bed, organic media type.



One of the main challenges to optimum biofilter operation is maintaining proper moisture throughout the system. The air is normally humidified before it enters the bed with a watering (spray) system, humidification chamber, bioscrubber, or biotrickling filter. Properly maintained, a natural, organic packing media like peat, vegetable mulch, bark or wood chips may last for several years but engineered, combined natural organic and synthetic component packing materials will generally last much longer, up to 10 years. A number of companies offer these types or proprietary packing materials and multi-year guarantees, not usually provided with a conventional compost or wood chip bed biofilter.

Although widely employed, the scientific community is still unsure of the physical phenomena underpinning biofilter operation, and information about the microorganisms involved continues to be developed. A biofilter/bio-oxidation system is a fairly simple device to construct and operate and offers a cost-effective solution provided the pollutant is biodegradable within a moderate time frame (increasing residence time = increased size and capital costs), at reasonable concentrations (and lb/hr loading rates) and that the airstream is at an organism-viable temperature. For large volumes of air, a biofilter may be the only cost-effective solution. There is no secondary pollution (unlike the case of incineration where additional CO2 and NOx are produced from burning fuels) and degradation products form additional biomass, carbon dioxide and water. Media irrigation water, although many systems recycle part of it to reduce operating costs, has a moderately high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and may require treatment before disposal. However, this "blowdown water", necessary for proper maintenance of any bio-oxidation system, is generally accepted by municipal POTWs without any pretreatment.

Biofilters are being utilized in Columbia Falls, Montana at Plum Creek Timber Company's fiberboard plant. The biofilters decrease the pollution emitted by the manufacturing process and the exhaust emitted is 98% clean. The newest, and largest, biofilter addition to Plum Creek cost $9.5 million, yet even though this new technology is expensive, in the long run it will cost less overtime than the alternative exhaust-cleaning incinerators fueled by natural gas (which are not as environmentally friendly). The biofilters use trillions of microscopic bacteria that cleanse the air being released from the plant.

Water treatment



Trickling filters have been used to filter water for various end uses for almost two centuries. Biological treatment has been used in Europe to filter surface water for drinking purposes since the early 1900s and is now receiving more interest worldwide. Biological treatment methods are also common in wastewater treatment, aquaculture and greywater recycling as a way to minimize water replacement while increasing water quality.

For drinking water, biological water treatment involves the use of naturally occurring micro-organisms in the surface water to improve water quality. Under optimum conditions, including relatively low turbidity and high oxygen content, the organisms break down material in the water and thus improve water quality. Slow sand filters or carbon filters are used to provide a place on which these micro-organisms grow. These biological treatment systems effectively reduce water-borne diseases, dissolved organic carbon, turbidity and colour in surface water, improving overall water quality.

Use in aquaculture



The use of biofilters are commonly used on closed aquaculture systems, such as recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). Many designs are used, with different benefits and drawbacks, however the function is the same: reducing water exchanges by converting ammonia to nitrate. Ammonia (NH4+ and NH3) originates from the brachial excretion from the gills of aquatic animals and from the decomposition of organic matter. As ammonia-N is highly toxic, this is converted to a less toxic form of nitrite (by Nitrosomonas sp.) and then to an even less toxic form of nitrate (by Nitrobacter sp.). This "nitrification" process requires oxygen (aerobic conditions), without which the biofilter can crash. Furthermore, as this nitrification cycle produces H+, the pH can decrease which necessitates the use of buffers such as lime.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Best available technology

Best available technology (or just BAT) is a term applied with regulations on limiting pollutant discharges with regard to the abatement strategy. Similar terms are best available techniques , best practicable means or best practicable environmental option. The term constitutes a moving targets on practices, since developing societal values and advancing techniques may change what is currently regarded as "reasonably achievable", "best practicable" and "best available".

A literal understanding will connect it with a "spare no expense" doctrine which prescribes the acquisition of the best state of the art technology available, without regard for traditional cost-benefit analysis. In practical use the cost aspect is also taken into account.

Best practicable means was used for the first time in UK national primary legislation in section 5 of the Salmon Fishery Act 1861 and another early use was found in the Alkali Act Amendment Act 1874, but before that appeared in the Leeds Act of 1848.

The BAT concept was first time used in the 1992 OSPAR Convention for protection of marine environment of North-East Atlantic for all types of industrial installations.

Some doctrine deem it already acquired the status of customary law.

In the United States, BAT or similar terminology is used in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

European Union directives

Best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC), sometimes referred to as best available technology, was introduced with the 1984 Air Framework Directive (AFD) and applies to air pollution emissions from large industrial installations.

In 1996 the AFD was superseded by the Integrated pollution prevention and control directive (IPPC), 96/61/EC, which applies the framework concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to the integrated control of pollution to the three media air, water and soil.

In the European Union directive 96/61/EC emission limit values were to be based on the best available techniques, as described in item #17: "Whereas emission limit values, parameters or equivalent technical measures should be based on the best available techniques, without prescribing the use of one specific technique or technology and taking into consideration the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and local environmental conditions; whereas in all cases the authorization conditions will lay down provisions on minimizing long-distance or transfrontier pollution and ensure a high level of protection for the environment as a whole.

The directive includes a definition of best available techniques in article 2.11:

"best available techniques" shall mean the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole:

- "techniques" shall include both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned,
- "available" techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator,
- "best" shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole.

United States environmental law

The Clean Air Act requires that certain facilities employ Best Available Control Technology to control emissions.

...an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this Act emitted from or which results from any major emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires issuance of national industrial wastewater discharge regulations (called "effluent guidelines"), which are based on BAT and several related standards.

...effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources,... which (i) shall require application of the best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants. ...Factors relating to the assessment of best available technology shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.

A related CWA provision for cooling water intake structures requires standards based on "best technology available."

...the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Best Available Control Technology

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is a pollution control standard mandated by the United States Clean Air Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines what air pollution control technology will be used to control a specific pollutant to a specified limit. When a BACT is determined, factors such as energy consumption, total source emission, regional environmental impact, and economic costs are taken into account. It is the current EPA standard for all polluting sources that fall under the New Source Review guidelines and is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The BACT standard is significantly more stringent than the Reasonably Available Control Technology standard but much less stringent than the Lowest Achievable Control Technology standard.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Baffle spray scrubber

Baffle spray scrubbers are a technology for air pollution control. They are very similar to spray towers in design and operation. However, in addition to using the energy provided by the spray nozzles, baffles are added to allow the gas stream to atomize some liquid as it passes over them.

A simple baffle scrubber system is shown in Figure 1. Liquid sprays capture pollutants and also remove collected particles from the baffles. Adding baffles slightly increases the pressure drop of the system.

This type of technology is a part of the group of air pollution controls collectively referred to as wet scrubbers.

A number of wet-scrubber designs use energy from both the gas stream and liquid stream to collect pollutants. Many of these combination devices are available commercially.

A seemingly unending number of scrubber designs have been developed by changing system geometry and incorporating vanes, nozzles, and baffles.

Particle collection

These devices are used much the same as spray towers - to preclean or remove particles larger than 10 μm in diameter. However, they will tend to plug or corrode if particle concentration of the exhaust gas stream is high.

Gas collection

Even though these devices are not specifically used for gas collection, they are capable of a small amount of gas absorption because of their large wetted surface.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/

Aerobic granulation

The biological treatment of wastewater in the waste water treatment plant often accomplished by means of the application of conventional activated sludge systems. These systems generally require large surface areas for implantation of the treatment and biomass separation units due to the usually poor settling properties of the sludge. In recent years, new technologies are being developed to improve this system. The use of aerobic granular sludge is one of them.

Aerobic granular biomass

A definition to discern between an aerobic granule and a simple floc with relatively good settling properties came out from the discussions which took place at the “1st IWA-Workshop Aerobic Granular Sludge” in Munich (2004) and literally stated that:

“Granules making up aerobic granular activated sludge are to be understood as aggregates of microbial origin, which do not coagulate under reduced hydrodynamic shear, and which settle significantly faster than activated sludge flocs”(de Kreuk et al. 2005)"

Formation of aerobic granules



Granular sludge biomass is developed in Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) and without carrier materials. These systems fulfil most of the requirements for their formation as:

Feast - Famine regime: short feeding periods must be selected to create feast and famine periods (Beun et al. 1999), characterized by the presence or absence of organic matter in the liquid media, respectively. With this feeding strategy the selection of the appropriate micro-organisms to form granules is achieved. When the substrate concentration in the bulk liquid is high, the granule-former organisms can storage the organic matter in form of poly-β-hydroxybutyrate to be consumed in the famine period, being in advantage with the filamentous organisms.

Short settling time: This hydraulic selection pressure on the microbial community allows retaining granular biomass inside the reactor while flocculent biomass is washed-out. (Qin et al. 2004)

Hydrodynamic shear force : Evidences show that the application of high shear forces favours the formation of aerobic granules and the physical granule integrity. It was found that aerobic granules could be formed only above a threshold shear force value in terms of superficial upflow air velocity above 1.2 cm/s in a column SBR, and more regular, rounder, and more compact aerobic granules were developed at high hydrodynamic shear forces (Tay et al., 2001 ).

Advantages

The development of biomass in the form of aerobic granules is being recently under study for its application to the removal of organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds from wastewater. Aerobic granules in aerobic SBR present several advantages compared to conventional activated sludge process such as:

Stability and flexibility: the SBR system can be adapted to fluctuating conditions with the ability to withstand shock and toxic loadings

Excellent settling properties: a smaller secondary settler will be necessary, which means a lower surface requirement for the construction of the plant.

Good biomass retention: higher biomass concentrations inside the reactor can be achieved, and higher substrate loading rates can be treated.

Presence of aerobic and anoxic zones inside the granules to perform simultaneously different biological processes in the same system (Beun et al.. 1999)

The cost of running a wastewater treatment plant working with aerobic granular sludge can be reduced by at least 20% and space requirements can be reduced by as much as 75% (de Kreuk et al.., 2004).

Treatment of industrial wastewater

Synthetic wastewater was used in most of the works carried out with aerobic granules. These works were mainly focussed on the study of granules formation, stability and nutrient removal efficiencies under different operational conditions and their potential use to remove toxic compounds. The potential of this technology to treat industrial wastewater is under study, some of the results:

* Arrojo et al. (2004) operated two reactors that were fed with industrial wastewater produced in a laboratory for analysis of dairy products (Total COD : 1500-3000 mg/L; soluble COD: 300-1500 mg/L; total nitrogen: 50-200 mg/L). These authors applied organic and nitrogen loading rates up to 7 g COD/(L·d) and 0.7 g N/(L·d) obtaining removal efficiencies of 80%.

* Schwarzenbeck et al. (2004) treated malting wastewater which had a high content of particulate organic matter (0.9 g TSS/L). They found that particles with average diameters lower than 25-50 µm were removed at 80% efficiency, whereas particles bigger than 50 µm were only removed at 40% efficiency. These authors observed that the ability of aerobic granular sludge to remove particulate organic matter from the wastewaters was due to both incorporation into the biofilm matrix and metabolic activity of protozoa population covering the surface of the granules.

* Cassidy and Belia (2005) obtained removal efficiencies for COD and P of 98% and for N and VSS over 97% operating a granular reactor fed with slaughterhouse wastewater (Total COD: 7685 mg/L; soluble COD: 5163 mg/L; TKN: 1057 mg/L and VSS: 1520 mg/L). To obtain these high removal percentages, they operated the reactor at a DO saturation level of 40%, which is the optimal value predicted by Beun et al. (2001) for N removal, and with an anaerobic feeding period which helped to maintain the stability of the granules when the DO concentration was limited.

* Inizan et al. (2005) treated industrial wastewaters from pharmaceutical industry and observed that the suspended solids in the inlet wastewater were not removed in the reactor.

* Tsuneda et al. (2006) , when treating wastewater from metal-refinery process (1.0-1.5 g NH4+-N/L and up to 22 g/L of sodium sulphate), removed a nitrogen loading rate of 1.0 kg-N/m3·d with an efficiency of 95% in a system containing autotrophic granules.

* Usmani et al. (2008) high superficial air velocity, a relatively short settling time of 5-30 min, a high ratio of height to diameter (H/D=20) of the reactor and optimum ogranic load facilitates the cultivation of regular compact and circular granules.

* Figueroa et al. (2008), treated wastewater from a fish canning industry. Applied OLR were up to 1.72 kg COD/(m3·d) with fully organic matter depletion. Ammonia nitrogen was removed via nitrification-denitrification up to 40% when nitrogen loading rates were of 0.18 kg N/(m3·d). The formation of mature aerobic granules occurred after 75 days of operation with 3.4 mm of diameter, SVI of 30 mL/g VSS and density around 60 g VSS/L-granule

* Farooqi et al. (2008), Wastewaters from fossil fuel refining, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides are the main sources of phenolic compounds. Those with more complex structures are often more toxic than the simple phenol. This study was aimed at assessing the efficacy of granular sludge in UASB and SBR for the treatment of mixtures of phenolics compounds. The results indicates that anaerobic treatment by UASB and aerobic treatment by SBR can be successfully used for phenol/cresol mixture, representative of major substrates in chemical and petrochemical wastewater and the results shows proper acclimatization period is essential for the degradation of m - cresol and phenol. Moreover, SBR was found as a better alternative than UASB reactor as it is more efficient and higher concentration of m cresols can be successfully degraded.

Pilot research in aerobic granular sludge

Aerobic granulation technology for the application in wastewater treatment is widely developed at laboratory scales. The large-scale experience is still limited but different institutions are making efforts to improve this technology:

* Since 1999 DHV Water, Delft University of technology (TUD), STW (Dutch Foundation for Applied Technology) and STOWA (Dutch Foundation for Applied Water Research) have been cooperating closely on the development of the aerobic granular sludge technology (Nereda). Based on the results obtained, a pilot plant was started up in September 2003 in Ede (Netherlands). The heart of the installation consists of two parallel biological reactors with each a height and diameter of 6 m and 0.6 respectively and a volume of 1.5 m3.

* From the basis of the aerobic granular sludge but using a contention system for the granules, a sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor (SBBGR) with a volume of 3.1m3 was developed by IRSA (Istituto di Ricerca Sulle Acque, Italy). Different studies were carried out in this plant treating sewage at an Italian wastewater treatment plant.

* The use of aerobic granules prepared in laboratory, as a starter culture, before adding in main system, is the base of the technology ARGUS (Aerobic Granules Upgrade System) developed by EcoEngineering Ltd.. The granules are cultivated on-site in small bioreactors called propagators and fill up only 2 to 3% of the main bioreactor or fermentor (digestor) capacity. This system is being used in a pilot plant with a volume of 2.7 m3 located in one Hungarian pharmaceutical industry.

* The Group of Environmental Engineering and Bioprocesses from the University of Santiago de Compostela is currently operating a 100 L pilot plant reactor.

The feasibility study showed that the aerobic granular sludge technology seems very promising (de Bruin et al., 2004. Based on total annual costs a GSBR (Granular sludge Sequencing Batch Reactors) with pre-treatment and a GSBR with post-treatment proves to be more attractive than the reference activated sludge alternatives (6-16%). A sensitivity analysis shows that the GSBR technology is less sensitive to land price and more sensitive to rain water flow. Because of the high allowable volumetric load the footprint of the GSBR variants is only 25% compared to the references. However, the GSBR with only primary treatment cannot meet the present effluent standards for municipal wastewater, mainly because of exceeding the suspended solids effluent standard caused by washout of not well settleable biomass.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/