Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells

Jeffrey M Foley, René A Rozendal, Christopher K Hertle, Paul A Lant and Korneel Rabaey UGent (2010) ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. 44(9). p.3629-3637
abstract
Existing wastewater treatment options are generally perceived as energy intensive and environmentally unfriendly. Much attention has been focused on two new approaches in the past years, (i) microbial fuel cells and (ii) microbial electrolysis cells, which directly generate electrical current or chemical products, respectively, during wastewater treatment. These systems are commonly denominated as bioelectrochemical systems, and a multitude of claims have been made in the past regarding the environmental impact of these treatment options. However, an in-depth study backing these claims has not been performed. Here, we have conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impact of three industrial wastewater treatment options, (i) anaerobic treatment with biogas generation, (ii) a microbial fuel cell treatment, with direct electricity generation, and (iii) a microbial electrolysis cell, with hydrogen peroxide production. Our analysis showed that a microbial fuel cell does not provide a significant environmental benefit relative to the "conventional" anaerobic treatment option. However, a microbial electrolysis cell provides significant environmental benefits through the displacement of chemical production by conventional means. Provided that the target conversion level of 1000 A.m(-3) can be met, the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentally harmful emissions (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons) of the microbial electrolysis cell will be a key driver for the development of an industrial standard for this technology. Evidently, this assessment is highly dependent on the underlying assumptions, such as the used reactor materials and target performance. This provides a challenge and an opportunity for researchers in the field to select and develop appropriate and environmentally benign materials of construction, as well as demonstrate the required 1000 A.m(-3) performance at pilot and full scale.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
SEWAGE-TREATMENT PROCESSES, ELECTRICITY-GENERATION, WASTE-WATER TREATMENT, HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE, TREATMENT-PLANT, SYSTEM, REDUCTION, DIGESTION, CULTURE, DRIVEN
journal title
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Environ. Sci. Technol.
volume
44
issue
9
pages
3629 - 3637
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000277067000070
JCR category
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
JCR impact factor
4.825 (2010)
JCR rank
2/45 (2010)
JCR quartile
1 (2010)
ISSN
0013-936X
DOI
10.1021/es100125h
language
English
UGent publication?
no
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
2008095
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-2008095
date created
2012-01-30 16:10:47
date last changed
2016-12-19 15:45:09
@article{2008095,
  abstract     = {Existing wastewater treatment options are generally perceived as energy intensive and environmentally unfriendly. Much attention has been focused on two new approaches in the past years, (i) microbial fuel cells and (ii) microbial electrolysis cells, which directly generate electrical current or chemical products, respectively, during wastewater treatment. These systems are commonly denominated as bioelectrochemical systems, and a multitude of claims have been made in the past regarding the environmental impact of these treatment options. However, an in-depth study backing these claims has not been performed. Here, we have conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the environmental impact of three industrial wastewater treatment options, (i) anaerobic treatment with biogas generation, (ii) a microbial fuel cell treatment, with direct electricity generation, and (iii) a microbial electrolysis cell, with hydrogen peroxide production. Our analysis showed that a microbial fuel cell does not provide a significant environmental benefit relative to the {\textacutedbl}conventional{\textacutedbl} anaerobic treatment option. However, a microbial electrolysis cell provides significant environmental benefits through the displacement of chemical production by conventional means. Provided that the target conversion level of 1000 A.m(-3) can be met, the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentally harmful emissions (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons) of the microbial electrolysis cell will be a key driver for the development of an industrial standard for this technology. Evidently, this assessment is highly dependent on the underlying assumptions, such as the used reactor materials and target performance. This provides a challenge and an opportunity for researchers in the field to select and develop appropriate and environmentally benign materials of construction, as well as demonstrate the required 1000 A.m(-3) performance at pilot and full scale.},
  author       = {Foley, Jeffrey M and Rozendal, Ren{\'e} A and Hertle, Christopher K and Lant, Paul A and Rabaey, Korneel},
  issn         = {0013-936X},
  journal      = {ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE \& TECHNOLOGY},
  keyword      = {SEWAGE-TREATMENT PROCESSES,ELECTRICITY-GENERATION,WASTE-WATER TREATMENT,HYDROGEN-PEROXIDE,TREATMENT-PLANT,SYSTEM,REDUCTION,DIGESTION,CULTURE,DRIVEN},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {9},
  pages        = {3629--3637},
  title        = {Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es100125h},
  volume       = {44},
  year         = {2010},
}

Chicago
Foley, Jeffrey M, René A Rozendal, Christopher K Hertle, Paul A Lant, and Korneel Rabaey. 2010. “Life Cycle Assessment of High-rate Anaerobic Treatment, Microbial Fuel Cells, and Microbial Electrolysis Cells.” Environmental Science & Technology 44 (9): 3629–3637.
APA
Foley, J. M., Rozendal, R. A., Hertle, C. K., Lant, P. A., & Rabaey, K. (2010). Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 44(9), 3629–3637.
Vancouver
1.
Foley JM, Rozendal RA, Hertle CK, Lant PA, Rabaey K. Life cycle assessment of high-rate anaerobic treatment, microbial fuel cells, and microbial electrolysis cells. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. 2010;44(9):3629–37.
MLA
Foley, Jeffrey M, René A Rozendal, Christopher K Hertle, et al. “Life Cycle Assessment of High-rate Anaerobic Treatment, Microbial Fuel Cells, and Microbial Electrolysis Cells.” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 44.9 (2010): 3629–3637. Print.