A Comparison of the Co-Treatment of Urban Wastewater and Acidic Water Using a Ternary Emergy Diagram
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. A Description of the Case Study
2.2. Characterization of Wastewater and Acidic Water
2.3. Study Scenarios
2.3.1. Treatment I
2.3.2. Treatment II
2.3.3. Treatment IIIa and IIIb
2.4. Estimation of Sustainability Indexes of Emergy
Emergy-Based Sustainability Indices
- Percentage of renewable emergy use (PR): This indicates what percentage of the total usable emergy comes from renewable resources. A system that uses a high fraction of renewable resources is considered more sustainable in the long term [26].
- Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR): This measures the efficiency of the process in incorporating inputs acquired from the economy to exploit local resources. The higher the EYR, the greater the contribution to the economy per unit of emergy invested [26].
- Environmental Load Ratio (ELR): The ELR measures the ratio of non-renewable resources (N) and the non-renewable fraction of inputs purchased by the economy (FN + SN) to the renewable resources employed in the system (R + FR + SR), including the renewable fraction of imported inputs. This value indicates the potential environmental impact and ecosystem stress due to the transformation process. As the ELR increases, the system becomes less sustainable [26].
- Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR): This is the ratio of the investment of resources imported from outside of the system to local resources. It relates emergy coming from the economy to that coming from the environment. The higher the value, the greater the dependence on the economy, and the smaller the dependence on internal resources. This indicator evaluates whether the system is a user of resources from the economy compared to other alternatives. Therefore, a system with a lower ratio is more likely to prosper in the market [26].
- Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI): This is an emergy sustainability index that measures the potential contribution of a process per unit of environmental load. This index reflects the overall sustainability of a production process, representing both economic and ecological compatibility [26].
2.5. Ternary Diagrams of Emergy
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chirinos Málaga, C.E. Índice de Calidad de Agua y Contenido de Metales Pesados en el río San Juan, Cerro de Pasco. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Perú, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- RoyChowdhury, A.; Sarkar, D.; Datta, R. Remediation of acid mine drainage-impacted water. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2015, 1, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Ye, Y.; Yao, N.; Hu, N.; Zhang, J.; Huang, Y. A critical review of prevention, treatment, reuse, and resource recovery from acid mine drainage. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, A.; Enman, J.; Gulkova, A.; Guntoro, P.I.; Dutkiewicz, A.; Ghorbani, Y.; Rova, U.; Christakopoulos, P.; Matsakas, L. Integrating biometallurgical recovery of metals with biogenic synthesis of nanoparticles. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 128306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaur, G.; Couperthwaite, S.J.; Hatton-Jones, B.W.; Millar, G.J. Alternative neutralisation materials for acid mine drainage treatment. J. Water Process. Eng. 2018, 22, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mavhungu, A.; Masindi, V.; Foteinis, S.; Mbaya, R.; Tekere, M.; Kortidis, I.; Chatzisymeon, E. Advocating circular economy in wastewater treatment: Struvite formation and drinking water reclamation from real municipal effluents. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 103957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.; Nan, J.; Yu, H.; Li, J. Embedded reservoir and constructed wetland for drinking water source protection: Effects on nutrient removal and phytoplankton succession. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 87, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rout, P.R.; Shahid, M.K.; Dash, R.R.; Bhunia, P.; Liu, D.; Varjani, S.; Zhang, T.C.; Surampalli, R.Y. Nutrient removal from domestic wastewater: A comprehensive review on conventional and advanced technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 296, 113246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.B.; Hallberg, K.B. Acid mine drainage remediation options: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2005, 338, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolonen, E.-T.; Sarpola, A.; Hu, T.; Rämö, J.; Lassi, U. Acid mine drainage treatment using by-products from quicklime manufacturing as neutralization chemicals. Chemosphere 2014, 117, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokgehle, T.M.; Tavengwa, N.T. Recent developments in materials used for the removal of metal ions from acid mine drainage. Appl. Water Sci. 2021, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buzzi, D.C.; Viegas, L.S.; Rodrigues, M.A.S.; Bernardes, A.M.; Tenório, J.A.S. Water recovery from acid mine drainage by electrodialysis. Miner. Eng. 2013, 40, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gervais, M.; Dubuc, J.; Paquin, M.; Gonzalez-Merchan, C.; Genty, T.; Neculita, C.M. Comparative efficiency of three advanced oxidation processes for thiosalts oxidation in mine-impacted water. Miner. Eng. 2020, 152, 106349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foudhaili, T.; Rakotonimaro, T.V.; Neculita, C.M.; Coudert, L.; Lefebvre, O. Comparative efficiency of microbial fuel cells and electrocoagulation for the treatment of iron-rich acid mine drainage. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 103149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, A.; Oka, M.; Fujii, Y.; Soda, S.; Ishigaki, T.; Machimura, T.; Ike, M. Removal of heavy metals from synthetic landfill leachate in lab-scale vertical flow constructed wetlands. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 584, 742–750. [Google Scholar]
- Skousen, J.; Ziemkiewicz, P. Performance of 116 passive treatment systems for acid mine drainage. In Proceedings of the 2005 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Breckenridge, CO, USA, 19–23 June 2005; ASMR: Lexington, KY, USA, 2005; pp. 1100–1133. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraz, R.M.; Costa, J.M.; Verola, L.M.; Sancinetti, G.P.; Rodriguez, R.P. Effects of the inoculum source, electron donor, and immobilization on the microbial community of sulfidogenic bioreactors. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 404, 126549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; He, M.; Lu, X.; Yan, B.; Duan, X.; Chen, G.; Wang, S.; Hou, L. Municipal solid waste derived biochars for wastewater treatment: Production, properties and applications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 177, 106003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, Y.T.; Idris, A.; Hussain, S.A.; Abdullah, N.; Man, H.C.; Suja, F. A tannin–based agent for coagulation and flocculation of municipal wastewater as a pretreatment for biofilm process. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isik, O.; Erbil, M.C.; Abdelrahman, A.M.; Ersahin, M.E.; Koyuncu, I.; Ozgun, H.; Demir, I. Removal of micropollutants from municipal wastewater by membrane bioreactors: Conventional membrane versus dynamic membrane. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 303, 114233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Mao, R.; Shi, Y.; Lin, S.; Qiao, M.; Zhao, X. Removal of phosphate in secondary effluent from municipal wastewater treatment plant by iron and aluminum electrocoagulation: Efficiency and mechanism. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2022, 286, 120439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aslam, A.; Khan, S.J.; Shahzad, H.M.A. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) for municipal wastewater treatment-potential benefits, constraints, and future perspectives: An updated review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 802, 149612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hossain, S.M.Z.; Sultana, N.; Jassim, M.S.; Coskuner, G.; Hazin, L.M.; Razzak, S.A.; Hossain, M.M. Soft-computing modeling and multiresponse optimization for nutrient removal process from municipal wastewater using microalgae. J. Water Process. Eng. 2022, 45, 102490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Hambly, A.C.; Dou, Y.; Wang, G.; Tang, K.; Andersen, H.R. Polishing micropollutants in municipal wastewater, using biogenic manganese oxides in a moving bed biofilm reactor (BioMn-MBBR). J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 427, 127889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Chen, X.; Yan, D.; Xu, Z.; Hu, P.; Li, H. Petrochemical and municipal wastewater treatment plants activated sludge each own distinct core bacteria driven by their specific incoming wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 826, 153962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhathini, T.P.; Mulopo, J.; Bakare, B.F. Possibilities for acid mine drainage co-treatment with other waste streams: A review. Mine Water Environ. 2020, 39, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spellman, C.D., Jr.; Tasker, T.L.; Strosnider, W.H.J.; Goodwill, J.E. Abatement of circumneutral mine drainage by Co-treatment with secondary municipal wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Younger, P.L.; Henderson, R. Synergistic wetland treatment of sewage and mine water: Pollutant removal performance of the first full-scale system. Water Res. 2014, 55, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, K.L.; Younger, P.L. The co-treatment of sewage and mine waters in aerobic wetlands. Eng. Geol. 2006, 85, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, T.A.; Gray, N.F. Co-treatment of acid mine drainage with municipal wastewater: Performance evaluation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20, 7863–7877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smyntek, P.M.; Chastel, J.; Peer, R.A.M.; Anthony, E.; McCloskey, J.; Bach, E.; Wagner, R.C.; Bandstra, J.Z.; Strosnider, W.H.J. Assessment of sulphate and iron reduction rates during reactor start-up for passive anaerobic co-treatment of acid mine drainage and sewage. Geochem. Explor. Environ. Anal. 2018, 18, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strosnider, W.H.; Nairn, R.W. Effective passive treatment of high-strength acid mine drainage and raw municipal wastewater in Potosí, Bolivia using simple mutual incubations and limestone. J. Geochem. Explor. 2010, 105, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, D.; Weidhaas, J.L.; Lin, L.-S. Kinetics and microbial ecology of batch sulfidogenic bioreactors for co-treatment of municipal wastewater and acid mine drainage. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 305, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masindi, V.; Shabalala, A.; Foteinis, S. Passive co-treatment of phosphorus-depleted municipal wastewater with acid mine drainage: Towards sustainable wastewater management systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 324, 116399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arden, S.; Ma, X.; Brown, M. Holistic analysis of urban water systems in the Greater Cincinnati region: (2) resource use profiles by emergy accounting approach. Water Res. X 2019, 2, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arguello Delago, J.G.; Gonzales Aguinaca, P.J. Evaluación de Emergía de Medio Ambiente y la Económia de Nicaragua (1995–1999). Undergradate Thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria, Managu, Nicaragua, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Londoño, N.A.C.; Suárez, D.G.; Velásquez, H.I.; Ruiz-Mercado, G.J. Emergy analysis for the sustainable utilization of biosolids generated in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannetti, B.F.; Barrella, F.A.; Almeida, C.M.V.B. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: Ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labor. Patarcocha, Último Patrimonio Natural e Histórico de la ciudad del Cerro de Pasco. Pasco, Perú, 2010. Available online: https://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/2016_2021/Dictamenes/Proyectos_de_Ley/00490DC08MAY20170623.pdf. (accessed on 13 December 2023).
- Ledesma, W.; Lopez, J. Propuesta de Tratamiento del Depósito de Relaves de Quiulacocha-Pasco Para su Remediación Ambiental, Basada en Experiencias Exitosas en Empresas Mineras 2018. Masther’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional Daniel Alcides Carrión, Pasco, Perú, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Villarreal Huacachi, M.P. Calidad de Agua del río San Juan, en el Departamento de Pasco 2016. Undergraduate Thesis, Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Lima, Perú, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Younger, P.L.; Banwart, S.A.; Hedin, R.S. Mine Water: Hydrology, Pollution, Remediation, 1st ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 127–270. [Google Scholar]
- Mannino, I.; Franco, D.; Piccioni, E.; Favero, L.; Mattiuzzo, E.; Zanetto, G. A cost-effectiveness analysis of seminatural wetlands and activated sludge wastewater-treatment systems. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muga, H.E.; Mihelcic, J.R. Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roetman, E.T. The Sterilization of Sewage by Acid Mine Water 1932. Masther’s Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 1932. [Google Scholar]
- Joseph, J.M.; Shay, D.E. Viability of Escherichia coli in acid mine waters. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 1952, 42, 795–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rogers, T.O.; Wilson, H.A. pH as a selecting mechanism of the microbial flora in wastewater-polluted acid mine drainage. J. (Water Pollut. Control. Fed.) 1966, 38, 990–995. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, P.D.; Boshoff, G.A.; Van Hille, R.P.; Wallace, L.C.M.; Dunn, K.M.; Duncan, J.R. An integrated algal sulphate reducing high rate ponding process for the treatment of acid mine drainage wastewaters. Biodegradation 1998, 9, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Hille, R.P.; Boshoff, G.A.; Rose, P.D.; Duncan, J.R. A continuous process for the biological treatment of heavy metal contaminated acid mine water. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1999, 27, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCullough, C.D.; Lund, M.A.; May, J.M. Field-scale demonstration of the potential for sewage to remediate acidic mine waters. Mine Water Environ. 2008, 27, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Viadero, R.C., Jr.; Bhojappa, S. Phosphorus removal by acid mine drainage sludge from secondary effluents of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 2008, 42, 3275–3284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strosnider, W.H.; Nairn, R.W.; Peer, R.A.M.; Winfrey, B.K. Passive co-treatment of Zn-rich acid mine drainage and raw municipal wastewater. J. Geochem. Explor. 2013, 125, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barreto-Pio, C.; Bravo-Toledo, L.; Virú-Vásquez, P.; Borda-Contreras, A.; Zarate-Sarapura, E.; Pilco, A. Optimization Applying Response Surface Methodology in the Co-treatment of Urban and Acid Wastewater from the Quiulacocha Lagoon, Pasco (Peru). Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2023, 79, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nepfumbada, C.; Tavengwa, N.T.; Masindi, V.; Foteinis, S.; Chatzisymeon, E. Recovery of phosphate from municipal wastewater as calcium phosphate and its subsequent application for the treatment of acid mine drainage. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 190, 106779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Ma, L.; Yan, Y. A Dynamic comparison sustainability study of standard wastewater treatment system in the straw pulp papermaking process and printing & dyeing papermaking process based on the hybrid neural network and emergy framework. Water 2020, 12, 1781. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, L.; Wang, L. Emergy analysis of seawater desalination system in coastal areas: A case study in Qingdao of China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
N° | Parameter | Concentration (mg/L) | |
---|---|---|---|
Urban Wastewater | Eutrophicated Water from Lake Patarcocha | ||
N: 8820489.96 E: 361900.75 | N: 8818441.49 E: 363081.15 | ||
1 | BOD5 | 151.20 | 66.50 |
2 | COD | 255.50 | 111.30 |
4 | Total phosphorus | 8.50 | 5.46 |
5 | Sulfates | 500.00 | |
6 | pH | 7.30 | 8.81 |
7 | Nitrate | 3.15 | 1.66 |
8 | Nitrite | 0.01 | |
9 | Ammonia nitrogen | 0.01 | 1.30 |
N: 8820489.96 E: 361900.75 | Acidic Water from the Contaminated Quiulacocha Lake | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N° | Parameter | Concentration (mg/L) | N° | Parameter | Concentration (mg/L) | N° | Parameter | Concentration (mg/L) |
1 | Sulfate | 6000.00 | 13 | Total Cadmium | 0.0001 | 24 | Total Nickel | 0.001 |
2 | pH | 1.80 | 14 | Total Calcium | 284.81 | 25 | Silver Total | 0.005 |
4 | Total Iron | 1316.65 | 15 | Total Cesium | 0.02 | 26 | Total Potassium | 8.19 |
5 | Total Zinc | 1.02 | 16 | Total Cobalt | 0.002 | 27 | Total Selenium | 0.001 |
6 | Total Copper | 2.69 | 17 | Total Chromium | 0.0003 | 28 | Total Silica | 22 |
7 | Total Lead | 335.87 | 18 | Total Phosphorus | 4.6 | 29 | Total Sodium | 20.39 |
8 | Total Arsenic | 0.002 | 19 | Total Lithium | 0.12 | 30 | Total Titanium | 0.0007 |
9 | Total Aluminum | 19.59 | 20 | Total Magnesium | 1023.72 | 31 | Total Uranium | 0.005 |
10 | Total Barium | 0.0002 | 21 | Total Manganese | 498.94 | 32 | Total Vanadium | 0.0002 |
11 | Bismuth Total | 0.009 | 22 | Total Mercury | 0.001 | |||
12 | Total Boron | 0.002 | 23 | Molybdenum Total | 0.001 |
Properties | Description | Illustration |
---|---|---|
Resource flow lines | The ternary combinations are represented by points within the triangle, and the relative proportions of the elements are given by the lengths of the perpendiculars from the given point to the side of the triangle opposite the appropriate element. These lines are parallel to the sides of the triangle and are very useful for comparing the use of by-products or resource processes. | |
Sensitivity lines | Any point along the straight line joining a vertex to a point represents a change in the amount of flow associated with the vertex. Any point along the line represents a condition in which the other two fluxes remain in the same initial proportion. For example, the system illustrated on the right is progressively poorer in N as it moves from A to B, but R and F remain in the same initial proportion. | |
Synergy point | When two different ternary compositions, represented by points A and B inside the triangle, are mixed, the resulting composition will be represented by point S, called the “synergy point”, which is located somewhere on segment AB. | |
Sustainability lines | The graphical tool allows for lines indicating constant values of the sustainability index to be drawn. The sustainability lines start from the apex, N, in the direction of the RF side, allowing the division of the triangle into sustainability areas, which are very useful for identifying and comparing the sustainability of products and processes. |
Variable | Description | Solar Emergy (seJ) | Units | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario I | Scenario II | Scenario IIIa | Scenario IIIb | |||
R | Renewable resources | 2.59 × 1019 | 2.59 × 1019 | 2.59 × 1019 | 1.12 × 1019 | seJ/year |
N | Non-renewable resources (N + N + N)012 | 9.79 × 1018 | 9.79 × 1018 | 9.79 × 1018 | 4.9 × 1018 | seJ/year |
N0 | Non-renewable resources for rural use | 9.79 × 1018 | 9.79 × 1018 | 9.79 × 1018 | 4.9 × 1018 | seJ/year |
N1 | Non-renewable resources for urban use | seJ/year | ||||
N2 | Non-renewable resources directly exported | seJ/year | ||||
F | Fuel imports | 3.16 × 1015 | 6.52 × 1015 | 8.49 × 1015 | 1.26 × 1018 | seJ/year |
G | Import of goods | 4.42 × 1017 | 4.93 × 1017 | 6.15 × 1017 | 1.89 × 1018 | seJ/year |
P I2 | Services and other imported goods | 1.37 × 1018 | 3.19 × 1018 | 5.7 × 1018 | 5.7 × 1018 | seJ/year |
P1E | Emergy value of exported goods and services | 2.97 × 1019 | 2.97 × 1019 | 2.97 × 1019 | 2.97 × 1019 | seJ/year |
Index Name | Expression | Unit | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Imported emergy flow | F + G + P I2 | 1.81 × 1018 | 3.69 × 1018 | 6.32 × 1018 | 8.85 × 1018 | seJ/year |
Total emergy inflows | R + N + F + G + P I2 | 3.75 × 1019 | 3.93 × 1019 | 4.20 × 1019 | 2.50 × 1019 | seJ/year |
Total emergy used, U | N0 + N1 + R + F + G + P I2 | 2.77 × 1019 | 3.93 × 1019 | 3.22 × 1019 | 2.50 × 1019 | seJ/year |
Fraction of emergy use derived from local sources | (N0 + N1 + R)/U | 128.82 | 90.63 | 110.78 | 64.57 | % |
Imports minus exports | (F + G + P2 I) − (N2 + P1E) | −2.79 × 1019 | −2.60 × 1019 | −2.34 × 1019 | −2.09 × 1019 | seJ/year |
Import/export ratio | (F + G + P2 I)/(N2 + P1E) | 0.06 | 1.24 × 10−1 | 2.13 × 10−1 | 0.3 | % |
Renewable used fraction | R/U | 93.44 | 65.74 | 80.36 | 44.97 | % |
Fraction of imported services | P I/U2 | 4.95 | 8.1 | 17.71 | 22.81 | % |
Fraction used being compared | (F + G + P2 I)/U | 0.066 | 0.094 | 0.196 | 0.354 | % |
Use per unit area | U/(area ha) | 1.85 × 1020 | 2.62 × 1020 | 2.15 × 1020 | 1.67 × 1020 | seJ/ha |
Usage per person | U/population | 4.70 × 1014 | 6.68 × 1014 | 5.46 × 1014 | 4.24 × 1014 | seJ/person |
Emergy/dollar ratio | P = U/GDP ** | 1.24 × 108 | 1.77 × 108 | 1.45 × 108 | 1.12 × 108 | seJ/USD |
ELR—Environmental Loading Ratio | (N0 + N1 + F + G + P2I)/R | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.62 | 1.22 | |
EIR—Emergy Investment Ratio | F + G + P2I/R + N | 0.05 | 0.1 | 0.18 | 0.55 | |
EYR—Net Yield Ratio | U/(F + G + P2I) | 15.25 | 10.671 | 5.09 | 2.82 | |
SI—Sustainability Index | EYR/ELR | 33.99 | 20.48 | 8.17 | 2.31 |
Types of Treatments | EYR | EIR | ELR | SI |
---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment I | 15.26 | 0.05 | 0.45 | 33.99 |
Treatment II | 10.67 | 0.10 | 0.52 | 20.48 |
Treatment IIIa | 5.09 | 0.18 | 0.62 | 8.17 |
Treatment IIIb | 2.82 | 0.55 | 1.22 | 2.31 |
Type of Treatment | Total Emergy (E+18 seJ/Year) | R (E+18 seJ/Year) | %R | N (E+18 seJ/Year) | %N | F (E+18 seJ/Year) | %F |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment I | 37.47 | 25.87 | 69.0 | 9.79 | 26.13 | 1.81 | 4.84 |
Treatment II | 39.34 | 25.87 | 65.7 | 9.79 | 24.89 | 3.69 | 9.37 |
Treatment IIIa | 41.97 | 25.87 | 61.6 | 9.79 | 23.33 | 6.31 | 15.04 |
Treatment IIIb | 51.56 | 11.23 | 21.8 | 4.90 | 9.50 | 35.43 | 68.72 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bravo Toledo, L.; Montaño Pisfil, J.A.; Rodríguez Aburto, C.A.; del Águila Vela, E.; Poma García, J.A.; Poma García, C.R.; Poma García, J.L.; Montaño Miranda, B. A Comparison of the Co-Treatment of Urban Wastewater and Acidic Water Using a Ternary Emergy Diagram. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2609. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072609
Bravo Toledo L, Montaño Pisfil JA, Rodríguez Aburto CA, del Águila Vela E, Poma García JA, Poma García CR, Poma García JL, Montaño Miranda B. A Comparison of the Co-Treatment of Urban Wastewater and Acidic Water Using a Ternary Emergy Diagram. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2609. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072609
Chicago/Turabian StyleBravo Toledo, Luigi, Jorge Alberto Montaño Pisfil, César Augusto Rodríguez Aburto, Edgar del Águila Vela, José Antonio Poma García, Claudia Rossana Poma García, Jorge Luis Poma García, and Beatriz Montaño Miranda. 2024. "A Comparison of the Co-Treatment of Urban Wastewater and Acidic Water Using a Ternary Emergy Diagram" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2609. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16072609