Comparing two Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) systems in view of the updated European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

This study evaluates the pollutant removal performances and environmental impacts of two pilot-scale configurations: (I) an integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) system combined with a membrane bioreactor (MBR), and (II) IFAS coupled with secondary settling followed by ultrafiltration (UF). Treatment performance, membrane fouling, microbial activity (as measured by respirometry), nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) emissions, and carbon footprint (CF) were evaluated. Both systems achieved over 97 % total chemical oxygen demand removal, with slightly higher ammonium nitrogen removal in Configuration I (96 ± 3 % vs. 93 ± 6 %). Under the revised UWTD (2024/3019), effluent PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3-</sup>-P averaged about 5 mg L<sup>-1</sup> for both configurations, exceeding the 1 mg L<sup>-1</sup> discharge limit. For reuse (Regulation (EU) 2020/741), both configurations consistently met the Class B BOD₅ standard but failed to consistently achieve the more stringent Class A standard. All other monitored parameters complied with regulations. Respirometry tests indicated higher heterotrophic activity in the suspended biomass of Configuration II. Configuration I achieved superior total nitrogen removal (85 ± 11 % vs. 75 ± 15 %) due to its higher internal carbon-to‑nitrogen ratio (4.2 vs. 2.1 gCOD/gN). Membrane fouling was more pronounced in the MBR system, with an average fouling rate of 0.21 ± 0.2 bar day<sup>-1</sup> (0.16 ± 0.2 bar day<sup>-1</sup>). N<sub>2</sub>O emissions remained low, with emission factors slightly lower in the MBR (0.13 %) compared to the Settler-UF (0.09 %). The carbon footprint was estimated at 1.47 kg CO<sub>2</sub>eq d<sup>-1</sup> for Configuration I and 2.27 kg CO<sub>2</sub>eq d<sup>-1</sup> for Configuration II, mainly reflecting differences in energy consumption and nitrogen removal performance. Overall, combining IFAS with membrane technologies provides clear advantages for producing high-quality effluent, meeting regulatory requirements, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Science of The Total Environment
Published
2025-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180884
Primary Topic
Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing two Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) systems in view of the updated European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

Dilşad Soylu, Giorgio Mannina, Antonio Mineo, Marika Carnesi et al.
The Science of The Total Environment
Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
article

Comparing two Integrated Fixed-film Activated Sludge (IFAS) systems in view of the updated European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

Dilşad Soylu, Giorgio Mannina, Antonio Mineo, Marika Carnesi, Jie Jiang
article en

Abstract

This study evaluates the pollutant removal performances and environmental impacts of two pilot-scale configurations: (I) an integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) system combined with a membrane bioreactor (MBR), and (II) IFAS coupled with secondary settling followed by ultrafiltration (UF). Treatment performance, membrane fouling, microbial activity (as measured by respirometry), nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) emissions, and carbon footprint (CF) were evaluated. Both systems achieved over 97 % total chemical oxygen demand removal, with slightly higher ammonium nitrogen removal in Configuration I (96 ± 3 % vs. 93 ± 6 %). Under the revised UWTD (2024/3019), effluent PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3-</sup>-P averaged about 5 mg L<sup>-1</sup> for both configurations, exceeding the 1 mg L<sup>-1</sup> discharge limit. For reuse (Regulation (EU) 2020/741), both configurations consistently met the Class B BOD₅ standard but failed to consistently achieve the more stringent Class A standard. All other monitored parameters complied with regulations. Respirometry tests indicated higher heterotrophic activity in the suspended biomass of Configuration II. Configuration I achieved superior total nitrogen removal (85 ± 11 % vs. 75 ± 15 %) due to its higher internal carbon-to‑nitrogen ratio (4.2 vs. 2.1 gCOD/gN). Membrane fouling was more pronounced in the MBR system, with an average fouling rate of 0.21 ± 0.2 bar day<sup>-1</sup> (0.16 ± 0.2 bar day<sup>-1</sup>). N<sub>2</sub>O emissions remained low, with emission factors slightly lower in the MBR (0.13 %) compared to the Settler-UF (0.09 %). The carbon footprint was estimated at 1.47 kg CO<sub>2</sub>eq d<sup>-1</sup> for Configuration I and 2.27 kg CO<sub>2</sub>eq d<sup>-1</sup> for Configuration II, mainly reflecting differences in energy consumption and nitrogen removal performance. Overall, combining IFAS with membrane technologies provides clear advantages for producing high-quality effluent, meeting regulatory requirements, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Science of The Total EnvironmentVol. 1006
Hohai University (CN), Istanbul Technical University (TR), University of Palermo (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Wastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.