| Title |
Multi-criterial evaluation of P-removal optimization in rural wastewater treatment plants for a sub-catchment of the Baltic Sea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-017-0977-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Cramer, Tatyana Koegst, Jens Traenckner |
| Abstract |
Rural wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are recognized as a significant phosphorous (P)-emission source in the German sub-catchments of the Baltic Sea. But enhancement of P-removal is cost intensive especially for small communities. This study proposes a concept to efficiently reduce P-emissions from WWTP by introducing low-cost non-constructional measures and assessing the resulting change of ambient water quality on a river basin scale. As case study, we choose the Warnow catchment in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) where 76 % of WWTP-emissions originate from treatment plants without P-discharge limits. For these facilities, we evaluated two modification options: (1) optimization of enhanced biological Phosphorous removal (EBPR) in activated sludge systems (ASS) and/or (2) chemical precipitation (where EBPR is applicable). The total operational optimization potential in the Warnow catchment is about 20 %. Further improvements can only be applied by a chemical precipitation, with the drawback of increasing the wastewater disposal cost up to 6.5 euros CAP(-1)a(-1). To prioritize relevant plants for improved P-removal we proposed two evaluation criteria: combining absolute emission, and impact on ambient water quality and costs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 9 | 26% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Energy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,573,826
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,346
of 1,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,511
of 437,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#25
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.