ABSTRACT
Measuring greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants is of utmost importance in the context of climate change. However, due to their variability and complexity, it is a particularly challenging task in aerated reactors. The current methods involve capturing gas emissions from the water surface, measuring gas flow rates, and determining the concentration of the emitted gas at that location. Our study proposes a new, more efficient method that eliminates the need for gas flow rate measurements and additional equipment. The proposed technique uses a gas analyzer and a specially designed floating chamber to measure the transient trend of gas concentration within the chamber from the moment it is deployed to when it reaches a new steady state. Our research shows that this method accurately determines methane and carbon dioxide emissions from aerated reactors and potentially other gases emitted in wastewater treatment plants. It is cost effective, versatile, and simplifies the measurement process. This method facilitates the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in wastewater treatment plants. Our findings are backed by comprehensive testing in the aeration tanks of a full-scale activated sludge plant, across diverse conditions, including fine- and coarse-bubble aeration.
HIGHLIGHTS
A simple chamber method is proposed to measure gas emissions in aerated reactors.
The method is designed for surface gas flow rate and concentration determination.
It utilizes only a chamber and a gas analyzer for simplicity and cost savings.
Together, these features offer a simplified tool for characterizing large-scale reactors.
The method was successfully applied to a full-scale wastewater plant.
INTRODUCTION
Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are greenhouse gases (GHGs) that play a crucial role in climate change. Monitoring their emissions is essential for understanding and addressing their impact in a global context. Emissions generated in the waste sector are a major contributor to the global GHG budget, and it is estimated that wastewater treatment plants generate about 5% of the global CH4 emissions (Ye et al. 2022), which are estimated to be 582 Tg (IPCC 2019). These estimates are primarily based on the Tier 1 method (IPCC 2006), which combines default emission factors, activity data, and/or simple models that require minimal data inputs. Compared to Tier 1, a migration to Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods would be beneficial for improving the precision and reliability of current estimates. This transition holds the potential for substantial benefits in enhancing current estimates. However, it comes at the expense of requiring more intricate and specific data, mandating measurements tailored to the unique characteristics of each process unit, site, facility, and region. Consequently, measuring gas emissions from specific process units in wastewater treatment plants is not only important but also a formidable task due to the diversity of unit operations involved. Among these units, determining emissions from aerated reactors poses challenges. This is attributed to the continuous injection of airflow, demanding precise quantification of the off-gas flow rate and its composition in a highly turbulent and heterogeneous medium.
As documented elsewhere, various methods have been suggested for this purpose (Zhan et al. 2017; Pavelka et al. 2018; Ye et al. 2022). Most of these methods rely on capturing gas emissions from the reactor's water surface, combined with measuring the gas flow rate and using an analyzer to determine gas composition. These methods are commonly based on ‘open flux chambers’ (OFCs), devices floating on the water's surface to capture the gas emitted and connected to a gas analyzer. While the question of which gas analyzer to use is straightforward and essentially a commercial choice, measuring the gas flowing through OFCs might be challenging, and several approaches have been suggested, as listed by Parravicini et al. (2022). There are three main methods for measuring the gas flow rate in an OFC, and the first and most obvious one is the direct measurement of the gas flow rate (Chandran 2011; Foley 2015; Pan et al. 2016; van Loosdrecht et al. 2016), which can be difficult due to the highly dynamic and variable nature of the gas flow. Measuring the gas flow rate may also require a pressure measurement device in addition to a flow meter, since changes in pressure might affect the measurements. The second general method involves using a tracer gas, injected into the OFC at a known flow rate. The tracer gas concentration in the chamber outflow is measured to estimate the dilution factor and determine the actual gas flow rate emitted by the aerated surface (Rodriguez-Caballero et al. 2014; Ribera-Guardia et al. 2019; Tauber et al. 2019). This method generally requires a gas cylinder, a flow controller to deliver the tracer gas at a fixed flow rate, and an additional analyzer for the measurement of the tracer gas concentration, which need to be sensitive enough to measure it at a relatively high dilution ratio. Both direct flow rate measurement and tracer gas methods make the design of OFCs more complex. They require additional equipment, connections, and/or flexible tubing in addition to the target gas analyzer, resulting in a more complex setup operation. In addition, in some cases, these methods are limited to discrete measurement of the gas flow rate, which may be subject to a relatively large error compared to continuous measurement. The third option for measuring the air flow rate is to determine it at the level of the compressors, which is a simple approach but lacks spatial resolution. Lastly, regarding methods for flux measurement, it is worth noting that some analyzers, of the target gas and/or the tracer gas, might require a gas conditioning unit to remove moisture and/or other gases that might interfere with the measurement (Nguyen et al. 2019; Parravicini et al. 2022).
In this study, we introduce a simplified method for precisely quantifying point-specific gas flow rates and target gas concentration at the surface of aerated reactors. Our approach eliminates the need for extra equipment beyond an OFC and a gas analyzer, removing the necessity for flowmeters, tracer gases, pressure measurements, or gas conditioning units. The main objective pursued was to reduce the equipment list required and, therefore, to cut costs. Simultaneously, we aimed to simplify the design of the OFC by reducing the number of connections needed, enhancing overall versatility and ease of operation. The underlying concept of the method is to use a simple mass balance approach to characterize the target gas concentration within the OFC during the transient period observed from the moment the OFC is deployed until it reaches a steady state. During that period, the target gas concentration will pass from values close to atmospheric concentration to the concentration of the off-gas at the reactor surface. The rate and magnitude of this change provide information about the off-gas flow rate and its composition, respectively.
The testable hypothesis of the present work is that gas emissions from aerated reactors can be measured in a simpler manner than the standard methods previously described. The method was tested for CH4 and CO2 emissions in a full-scale activated sludge plant, specifically in two aeration tanks, hereafter referred to as aerated reactors. Both reactors treated the same wastewater and were operated under a plug-flow configuration. One reactor was equipped with coarse-bubble aeration involving high and heterogeneous gas flow rates, while the other was operated with fine-bubble aeration, with a relatively lower and more homogeneous gas flow rate. Two OFCs were specifically designed for these two scenarios; their details are presented in this report (supplementary material). As demonstrated in this work, the developed method effectively measured GHG emissions from aerated reactors. Importantly, its potential significance extends beyond GHG to include the ability to measure various target gases, pending the integration of a suitable detector. This expanded list encompasses ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and off-gas oxygen measurements, offering valuable insights into the functioning of the reactor.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Simplified open flux chamber




Both and
, will then change over time from an initial value to a final value equal to CG. To maintain a consistent chamber volume, a vent allows for continuous gas extraction at a rate equivalent to the inflow rate, ensuring pressure equilibration. A gas analyzer, connected to the chamber, samples a small flow rate from the chamber headspace for analysis and returns it to the chamber.



Experimental setup
Several chamber designs were tested. A chamber with a relatively standard shape (Figure S2) was proven effective for reactors with fine-bubble aeration. That chamber (OFCA) was self-made from a steel sheet to ensure a significant weight to offer stability (weight, 6 kg; AC, 0.071 m2; VC, 0.011 m3), and a tire tube was used as a floater. In moderately agitated reactors, the OFCA chamber had a draft of 12 cm, which was sufficient to prevent contact between the atmosphere and the chamber headspace. The chamber was maintained at a fixed position with two cords controlled from the perimeter path of the reactor. In reactors with coarse-bubble aeration, the strong mixing and intense water currents caused OFCA to flip and tilt easily. From assay/errors, a tubular OFC chamber (OFCB) was designed (Figure S3; total weight, 10 kg; AC, 0.035 m2; VC, 0.009 m3). This chamber included a relatively long tube, a draft of 81 cm, and a 4 kg counterweight made of stones packed in a plastic tissue bag. The OFCB floaters were made of three cylindrical foam tubes (pool noodles), closely encircling the chamber. To ensure that the OFCB remained in a fixed position and to prevent flipping or excessive tilting, three cords were secured to the top of the chamber, and three more cords were fixed at the bottom, operated from the reactor's perimeter path.
The chambers were connected in a closed circuit to an ultraportable greenhouse gas analyzer (UGGA, model 915-0011, Los Gatos Research, USA) that measured CH4 and CO2 concentration at a frequency of 1 Hz, with data acquisition in an internal hard drive. The closed-circuit configuration ensured that the gas flow rate sampled was returned to the chamber after measurement without affecting the gas mass balance. This analyzer is equipped with an internal pump (1 L min−1) and has a limit of detection (LOD) of 10 ppb (parts per billion) for CH4 and 300 ppb for CO2. It is worth noting that the UGGA also measured water vapor so that the off-gas CO2 and CH4 concentrations were provided per unit of dry air. It is also important to mention that no gas treatment was required, except the use of a hydrophobic filter (Acrovent 0.22 μm, Pall Corp, Mexico) placed at the input of the UGGA to prevent liquid water entrance. The connection between the chambers and the UGGA was made with a 6 mm external diameter, 4 mm internal diameter polyurethane dual tubing (PUN-6X1-DUO, Festo, Mexico), with a variable length (5, 10, or 15 m) depending on the measurement location selected.
Wastewater treatment plant
The simplified OFC method was thoroughly tested in the ‘San Juan de Aragon’ wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), which is a conventional activated sludge plant with two independent treatment trains, differing only in the type of aeration used in the biological reactors (secondary treatment), i.e., one train operated with coarse-bubble aeration and one train operated with a recently installed fine-bubble aeration system. This WWTP is located within Mexico City (lat. 19.4575; long. −99.0975) and treats primarily urban wastewater with some industrial effluents at a mean flow rate of 12,500 m3 day−1. The WWTP includes primary settlers, aerobic reactors, and secondary settlers with a final chlorination unit. The biological reactors have a plug-flow U-shaped configuration with a total length of 66 m and a total volume of 3,124 m3 each. During the measurement campaign, the hydraulic residence time of the reactors (θH) was 5.98 ± 0.74 h.
Experimental protocol
The simplified OFC method was tested in both reactor types of the WWTP. The UGGA was operated continuously. Before starting flux measurements, , and
were measured in the compressor room for 5 min. For each flux measurement, the chamber was suspended above the desired position using the cords and then submerged in a vertical position for about 5 min. Each measurement was repeated three times, and between each measurement, the chamber was ventilated for 1 min above the water surface. A total of 90 measurements were conducted within each reactor, involving triplicate measurements at 10 specific locations on 3 different dates. This comprehensive approach covered the entire length of the reactors. In this study, measurement locations were correlated with the water residence time, using the ratio t θH−1 where 0≤t θH−1 ≤ 1.
Data treatment and sensitivity analysis
Data provided by the UGGA were treated according to the following protocol. Data corresponding to each measurement were extracted, considering the measurement delay, i.e., the time required for the sampled gas from the chamber to reach the detector, typically 15 s. For each CH4 and CO2 dataset, Equation (6) was adjusted to the experimental data, using CG and θG as calibration parameters, minimizing the root mean square error (RMSE) with the Excel solver function.
According to Ritter & Muñoz-Carpena (2013), the model adjustment was categorized as excellent for nt > 2.2, good for nt in the range of 1.2–2.2, acceptable for nt in the range of 0.7–1.2, and unacceptable for nt < 0.7. From this classification, all data with a nt < 0.7 were discarded. It is worth noting that, after calibration of Equation (6), both and
datasets provided a CG and θG value for each gas (CH4 and CO2). In the latter case,
and
are analogous and were averaged. Our strategy for averaging θG values involved considering the mean of
and
if both values were determined to be acceptable, with a nt greater than 1.2. In any other case, we selected the θG values determined with the best nt, and only if greater than 0.7.
To investigate whether CG and θG can be independently estimated from a single experiment, we performed a numerical sensitivity analysis of Equation (6). First, we generated a theoretical dataset of CC values with fixed CG and θG parameters, spanning a time range of 0 − 10 times θG with increments of 0.1 θG. Next, we perturbed each CC value by 10% and re-estimated CG and θG for each perturbed dataset. We computed the impact on CG and θG for each perturbation by determining the ratios ΔCC/ΔCG and ΔCC/ΔθG, respectively.
Statistical comparisons among results were determined according to Tukey's honest significance test. Most variables exhibited a positive skew, which was corrected by log-transforming them to achieve normality for the analysis of variance (ANOVA). This analysis was performed with Origin(Pro) software (Version 2016, Northampton, USA).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Method sensitivity
Numerical sensitivity analysis; ΔCC/ΔP, sensitivity parameter where P is either the parameter θG or CG; t θG−1, time expressed as a fraction of θG.
Numerical sensitivity analysis; ΔCC/ΔP, sensitivity parameter where P is either the parameter θG or CG; t θG−1, time expressed as a fraction of θG.
Method deployment
The stability and operability of the chambers were tested in both reactor types, i.e., a fine-bubble reactor and a coarse-bubble reactor. The first chamber (OFCA) demonstrated stability and easy operation in the reactor with fine bubbles. That simpler and lighter chamber design, compared to OFCB, was easily operated by two operators from the perimeter path of the reactor, which were able to maintain the chamber in a fixed position and lift it above the water surface for 1 min, between measurements, for ventilation purposes. However, OFCA was not operable in the coarse-bubble reactor: flipping over, excessive tilting, and difficulty maintaining a fixed position. In that coarse-bubble reactor, the tubular chamber (OFCB) operated well. However, it required three operators, using two cords each (fixed at the top and bottom of the chamber), to ensure a fixed location and reasonable vertical orientation of the chamber. Due to the heavier weight of that chamber, OFCB could not be lifted above water between measurements for ventilation. Thus, the chamber was approximated to one operator that could lift it above water for 1 min, and then the chamber was placed back in position, which took 10–20 s. It is worth mentioning that the OFCB was also working well in the moderately agitated fine-bubble reactor, but in that reactor, the OFCA chamber was preferred, being lighter and easier to operate.


Examples of CC patterns experimentally observed during triplicate measurements of CH4 (a,c) and CO2 (b,d) and best Equation (6) fit in an aerated reactor with fine bubbles (a,b) and coarse bubbles (c,d).
Examples of CC patterns experimentally observed during triplicate measurements of CH4 (a,c) and CO2 (b,d) and best Equation (6) fit in an aerated reactor with fine bubbles (a,b) and coarse bubbles (c,d).





Range and mean nt values (goodness-of-fit) observed during chamber deployment, separated in all data, fine-bubble reactor only, and coarse-bubble reactor only; n = total number of nt measurements
. | . | CH4 . | CO2 . |
---|---|---|---|
All data | Range of nt | 0.065–9.86 | 0.02–42.15 |
Mean nt | 4.53 ± 2.19 (A) | 7.3 ± 8.9 (B) | |
N | 180 | 180 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 36.2% | 58.6% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 24.1% | 24.1% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 39.7% | 17.2% | |
Fine bubbles | Range of nt | 0.25–9.86 | 0.9–42.15 |
Mean nt | 3.5 ± 2.9 (A) | 13.04 ± 9.5 (B) | |
N | 90 | 90 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 46.7% | 83.2% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 10.0% | 10.1% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 43.3% | 6.7% | |
Coarse bubbles | Range of nt | 0.05–4.57 | 0.02–6.26 |
Mean nt | 1.46 ± 1.33 (A) | 1.7 ± 1.45 (B) | |
N | 90 | 90 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 25.0% | 32.2% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 39.3% | 39.2% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 35.7% | 28.6% |
. | . | CH4 . | CO2 . |
---|---|---|---|
All data | Range of nt | 0.065–9.86 | 0.02–42.15 |
Mean nt | 4.53 ± 2.19 (A) | 7.3 ± 8.9 (B) | |
N | 180 | 180 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 36.2% | 58.6% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 24.1% | 24.1% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 39.7% | 17.2% | |
Fine bubbles | Range of nt | 0.25–9.86 | 0.9–42.15 |
Mean nt | 3.5 ± 2.9 (A) | 13.04 ± 9.5 (B) | |
N | 90 | 90 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 46.7% | 83.2% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 10.0% | 10.1% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 43.3% | 6.7% | |
Coarse bubbles | Range of nt | 0.05–4.57 | 0.02–6.26 |
Mean nt | 1.46 ± 1.33 (A) | 1.7 ± 1.45 (B) | |
N | 90 | 90 | |
% of nt > 1.2 (Good/excellent) | 25.0% | 32.2% | |
% of 0.7 ≤ nt ≤ 1.2 (Acceptable) | 39.3% | 39.2% | |
% of nt< 0.7 (unacceptable) | 35.7% | 28.6% |
Letters in parentheses indicate significant differences between parameters (p < 0.05), with the same letter signifying no significant difference.
CH4 concentration (a), air flow rate (b), and the resulting flux (c) of the gas escaping the coarse-bubble reactor and the fine-bubble reactor. For clarity, only error bars above each data point are shown (one standard deviation, triplicate measurements). Please note the logarithmic (a,c) and decimal (b) scales.
CH4 concentration (a), air flow rate (b), and the resulting flux (c) of the gas escaping the coarse-bubble reactor and the fine-bubble reactor. For clarity, only error bars above each data point are shown (one standard deviation, triplicate measurements). Please note the logarithmic (a,c) and decimal (b) scales.
Regarding , the goodness-of-fit of Equation (6) (Figure 3(b) and 3(d)) was generally better, and nt was significantly higher for
than for
(Table 1). We also observed a generally better fit in the fine-bubble reactor than in the coarse-bubble reactor, but, on contrary to
measurements, we did not observe a decrease in nt from the upstream region to the downstream region. We assume that the latter is caused by the lower observed decrease of
, along the residence time, compared to
(data not shown).
The main results of CH4 parameters are shown in Figure 4, revealing clear trends in both the coarse-bubble and the fine-bubble reactors. It should be recalled that both reactors were operating in plug-flow mode with a θH of approximately 5.98 ± 0.74 h, meaning that the observed trends represent the evolution of water exposition to continuous aeration. As a first result of the exposition to aeration, a rapid decrease in by a factor of approximately 14 in the coarse-bubble reactor and 104 in the fine-bubble reactor was observed. This decrease can be attributed to the stripping of CH4 presents the influent water, and it is worth noting that
was close to atmospheric air in both reactors, for t θH−1 ≥ 0.55. This asymptotic trend is a clear indicator that CH4 emissions were most certainly caused by the stripping of the dissolved CH4 accumulated during the previous steps of the treatment train.
The features of the method presented here include measuring the air flow rate without using an actual flowmeter. The results in Figure 4(b) indicate that the OFC method is a convenient tool for characterizing and optimizing aeration in activated sludge reactors. The results indicate notable differences between the reactors with fine- and coarse-bubble aeration. The coarse-bubble reactor had a significantly higher air flow rate, at 2,561 ± 1,574 m3 h−1 (coefficient of variation; CV = 61%), more than 3.1 times higher than in the fine-bubble reactor, where it was 809 ± 432 m3 h−1 (CV = 53%). Moreover, the fine-bubble aeration system, which was recently installed in the WWTP, had a more homogeneous airflow, indicating optimization of the aeration system. These differences between coarse- and fine-bubble aeration systems are what was previously reported, i.e., a better air distribution at a lower energy cost (Amaral et al. 2017, 2019; Rosso et al. 2023).
Regarding CH4 emissions (Figure 4(c)), a noticeable decay was observed in the upstream region of both reactors. For instance, over the first third of the water residence time (t θH−1 < 0.3), in the coarse-bubble reactor, declined from 15,251 ± 5,980 to 5,492 ± 1,355 mg m−2 h−1, representing a 64% decrease. In the fine-bubble reactor,
dropped more sharply, decreasing from 7,904 ± 3,455 to 166 ± 25 mg m−2 h−1, signifying a 98% decrease. According to the mass transfer theory, this discrepancy indicates that fine bubbles are more effective in stripping out the CH4 contained in the influent water.
Comparing the CH4 fluxes observed in this study to existing literature poses a complex challenge. This complexity arises not only from the prevalence of reporting plant-scaled emission factors in prior works, expressed as CH4 emitted per unit of wastewater treated or pollutant removed, but also due to the substantial variations in influent characteristics, treatment train configurations, and operational regimes across these earlier reports. Emissions reported by Bao et al. (2016) were in the range of 255 − 8,944 mg m−2 h−1, and those reported by Masuda et al. (2015) were in the range of 389 − 1,650 mg m−2 h−1, both in the oxic reactor of an anoxic–oxic train. Yan et al. (2014) and Ren et al. (2013) reported ranges of CH4 emissions of 500 − 1,500 and 590 − 1,048 mg m−2 h−1, respectively, both in the aerobic reactor of an anaerobic–anoxic–oxic (A2O) treatment train. Lastly, Aboobakar et al. (2014) reported a higher range, i.e., 58,823 − 70,588 mg m−2 h−1 in the aerated reactor of a conventional wastewater plant, similar to the reactors that were characterized in the present work. In this study, values were observed to range from 154 to 21,603 mg m−2 h−1 (mean of 4,995 mg m−2 h−1) in the coarse-bubble reactor and from 57 to 12,774 mg m−2 h−1 (mean of 865 mg m−2 h−1) in the fine-bubble reactor. The mean emissions observed in the present work are 1–2 magnitude orders lower than those reported by Aboobakar et al. (2014) and closer to those observed in more complex treatment trains reported here above. A potential reason for that is that the treatment plant selected to test our method has a relatively limited removal efficiency (82 ± 8%, in chemical oxygen demand units) compared to 95%, reported in Aboobakar et al. (2014).




measured in the coarse-bubble reactor and the fine-bubble reactor. For clarity, only error bars above each data point are shown (one standard deviation, triplicate measurements). Please note the logarithmic scale.
measured in the coarse-bubble reactor and the fine-bubble reactor. For clarity, only error bars above each data point are shown (one standard deviation, triplicate measurements). Please note the logarithmic scale.
This observation aligns with the understanding that, unlike ,
results from stripping but also from heterotrophic activity. These findings imply that the suggested OFC method could be a valuable tool for estimating metabolic activity within the reactor. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that the relationship between metabolic activity and off-gas measurements is intricate. This complexity arises from the involvement of various factors, including stripping, heterotrophic respiration, and the physicochemical carbonate equilibrium, which has been the subject of previous studies (Flores-Alsina et al. 2011; Lizarralde et al. 2015, 2018; Le et al. 2018).
Strengths, weaknesses, and perspectives of the method
The combination of straightforwardly designed floating chambers and a gas analyzer allowed the segregated determination of the gas flow rate and the concentration of the target gas emitted to the atmosphere. As demonstrated, this method proved successful in determining GHG emissions from aerated reactors, whether operated with fine bubbles or coarse bubbles. This capability is crucial for establishing the GHG budget of these specific process units, making it a potent tool to enhance our current understanding of GHG emissions. Moreover, it supports a migration from Tier 1 to Tier 2 or Tier 3 methods by allowing to incorporate, in a simpler manner, unique characteristics of process units, sites, facilities, and regions. Our research underscores the method's accuracy in determining methane and carbon dioxide emissions from aerated reactors, making it potentially applicable to other gases emitted in wastewater treatment plants. Its cost-effectiveness, versatility, and simplified measurement process position it as a valuable tool for assessing and managing greenhouse gas emissions in wastewater treatment plants.
Moreover, the OFC method allowed us to determine the spatial distribution of the gas flow rate. It might be a profitable tool to optimize or verify the effectiveness of the aeration system. A key advantage of our method, compared to previously reported OFC methods, is eliminating the need for additional equipment beyond an OFC and a gas analyzer, i.e., flowmeters, tracer gases, pressure measurements, or gas conditioning units. Notably, the need for a gas conditioning unit is a characteristic inherent to the gas analyzer rather than a specificity of our method. Thus, it cannot be considered a potential benefit of our proposed approach.
Regarding cost, assuming no significant differences among the gas analyzers used, our approach would be more economical compared to more standard methods using flowmeters, with or without pressure transducers, or tracer gases. In terms of accuracy and precision, no notable differences should exist between our method and standard ones in terms of the concentration CG, as this is a variable that is analyzer-specific. However, notable differences might exist between measuring gas flow rates through a flowmeter or adjustment of the CG data, as in our method. However, elucidating differences in the accuracy of gas flow rate would require a focused experimental demonstration.
In this study, two distinct chamber designs were developed through iterative testing until proven effective in both reactor types. The chambers, detailed in the supplementary material, were self-made using readily available materials, and their design is easily modifiable if needed, according to specific requirements. For instance, a higher ratio would enhance the determination of flow rate by extending the transient period and providing a more precise determination of θG. However, it may pose challenges in terms of operational convenience due to a heavier weight. This aspect introduces a trade-off that operators must carefully consider based on their specific objectives. Importantly, it is noteworthy that the volume/area ratio does not impact the final concentration observed in the chamber.
Importantly, although the focus of this study centered on CH4 and CO2, it is crucial to note that the developed method is not confined to these gases. Pending experimental confirmation, by integrating an appropriate detector, the methodology could extend its applicability to measure any target gas. This expanded gas list encompasses nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has garnered increasing attention in wastewater plants (Czepiel et al. 1995; Foley et al. 2010; Daelman et al. 2013; Mampaey et al. 2015; Hwang et al. 2016; de Haas & Andrews 2022). Moreover, the scope may encompass ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – compounds known for their odoriferous, toxic, and corrosive properties – or volatile organic compounds (Mihelcic et al. 1993; Tata et al. 2003; Kurwadkar et al. 2022), as long as real-time analyzers for these compounds are available. Finally, off-gas oxygen measurements have been suggested (Pasini et al. 2021). The consideration of oxygen is distinctive from other gases, as off-gas measurements provide insights into the fraction of oxygen unconsumed within the reactor rather than indicating a proper emission.
Meanwhile, there has been a significant increase in studies investigating polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) originating from wastewater treatment plants and their persistence in the hydrological cycle. Although, to the best of our current knowledge, real-time monitors for volatile PFAs are not available. Nonetheless, adaptations to this method should be explored and experimentally validated for this particular purpose.
Furthermore, like previously described OFC methods, it is important to highlight that the method presented in this study may serve objectives beyond emission reporting. Among its various applications, it has the potential to yield valuable insights into the metabolic activity of the reactor. This is, for instance, the case of off-gas oxygen measurements, since the difference from the injected oxygen informs the operator about the oxygen uptake rate of the treatment plant, the oxygen uptake efficiency, and the point-specific respiration process, which have been the object of several previous works (Weissenbacher et al. 2007; Amaral et al. 2017; Lizarralde et al. 2018). Moreover, if the dissolved oxygen concentration is known, the oxygen mass balance transfer can be established offering a valuable tool for the experimental determination of the oxygen mass transfer coefficient (KLa), and the oxygen transfer capacity (Schwarz et al. 2021, 2022; Le et al. 2022). The same strategy can be used with other gases, gaining valuable insights on production/uptake processes.
Notably, the method presented here also exhibited a notable limitation. The method worked well for CO2 emissions in any reactor cell. However, its effectiveness in quantifying could have been more robust with CH4, mostly because was relatively low in the downstream region of the reactor. Under these conditions, the magnitude of the transient state, which is the underlying principle of the method, is reduced, and a more significant error in flux determination is therefore expected. As previously mentioned, in simpler terms, the method works better when emissions are higher. In this regard, it should be emphasized that if multiple gases are measured, as in the present work, determining the gas flow rate can be done with any measured gas, thus reducing the risk of not getting results.
In terms of the LOD for the simplified OFC method, employing a typical arbitrary limit set at three times the gas analyzer's LOD (i.e., 10 ppb for CH4), we can assume that the method is capable of detecting CH4 concentrations that are 30 ppb above the atmospheric level. This detectable concentration, when multiplied by the mean gas flow rates of 2,561 and 809 m3 h−1 observed in the coarse- and fine-bubble reactors, respectively, translates to a flux detection limit of 12.9 − 41.0 mg m−2 h−1. These values represent 0.3 − 1.5% of the mean observed in the present study. Consequently, we confidently conclude that the LOD of the present method would have a negligible impact on the accuracy of the total emission measurements. As for CO2, the emissions consistently exceeded any LOD and were, therefore, not a concern.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed simplified OFC method for determining the air flow rate and composition was successfully applied in aerated reactors with fine and coarse bubbles. The method's strength lies in its uncomplicated and versatile design using straightforward floating chamber designs, eliminating the need for a gas flowmeter and additional peripheral equipment. Considering the cost, the simplified method ensures that equipment expenses include only the essential gas analyzer and the chambers made from readily available materials. The simplicity of operation is enhanced not only by measuring just one variable (gas concentration) but also by the connection of the chamber to the gas analyzer, which requires only small-diameter flexible tubing to transfer a low sampled air flow rate. This eliminates the need to transport the complete off-gas flow rate to the reactor's perimeter path, where the gas analyzer and flowmeter are usually located. A notable feature of this method is its ability to determine point-specific flow rates and their spatial distribution, which is crucial for optimizing and verifying aeration system effectiveness. Regarding gas emissions determination, the method performed well for CO2 under all conditions. In the case of CH4, some limitations were observed in sections with low emissions, which are of minimal significance as they pertain to very low or negligible emissions. This showcases the method's robustness in accurately measuring emissions when detectable. Theoretically, the method could be extended to encompass other gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, and oxygen, among others, pending experimental confirmation. Additionally, if coupled with the determination of dissolved oxygen concentration, the method could serve as a valuable tool for determining oxygen uptake rate, efficiency, mass transfer coefficient, and transfer capacity. This same strategy can be applied to other gases, providing valuable insights into production and uptake processes. While these features are not inherent to the simplified OFC method presented here, they become more accessible through a more straightforward, cheaper, and more versatile approach.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We thank the ‘Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (Conacyt)’ for the financial support received (project A3-S-75824), as well as for the support to Pablo Morales-Rico, Jessica Ramos-Diaz, Estefani Mendoza-León, (#703565, #1008375 and #721344, respectively). The authors thank Mr David Flores Rojas, M.Sc. Victoria Teresita Velázquez Martínez and Mr Aaron Vazquez Martínez for their technical support. The authors acknowledge the field support received and the personal of the ‘San Juan de Aragón’ WWTP. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.