Dataset Supporting Deliverable 1.4 New approaches and best practices for closing the energy cycle within symbiosis clusters The full deliverable is available under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14967781 Case Study 5 (Lleida, Spain) - Anaerobic treatment of brewery and food industry wastewater to recover biogas in Lleida Table 5.1 Energy consumption before and after ELSAR implementation Figure 5.1 Methane, CO2 and H2S contents in the produced biogas Figure 5.2 Total suspended solid (TSS) content in the equalization tank, after the lamella clarifier and after the ELSAR treatment Figure 5.3 Total chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentrations in the equalisation tank, after the lamella clarifier and after the ELSAR treatment as well as the COD removal rate Case Study 6 (Karmiel, Israel) - Biogas production from anaerobic pre-treatment of municipal and/or industrial wastewater in Karmiel Table 6.1 Typical ranges of selected parameters for operating conditions Figure 6.1 (a) Total COD as a function of time for the influent AAT and the effluent at the Karmiel system and (b) total COD removal as a function of temperature for the influent AAT and the effluent at the Karmiel system; (c) soluble COD as a function of time for the influent AAT and the effluent at the Karmiel system; (d) soluble COD removal as a function of temperature for the influent AAT and the effluent at the Karmiel system. Figure 6.2 OLR and %CODT removal as a function of time for the influent AAT and the effluent at the Karmiel system. Figure 6.3 Biogas flow and temperature as a function of time from the AAT at Karmiel system, the average OLR of each operational period is presented at the upper part of the figure. Figure 6.4 Methane flow rate over average OLR as a function of time and temperature of the AAT system at Karmiel Figure 6.5 (a) Methane yield based on CODt as a function of time and temperature of the AAT system at Karmiel; (b) methane yield based on CODs as a function of time and temperature of the AAT system at Karmiel Figure 6.6 Methane flow rate of the AAT system as a function of OLR and temperature Figure 6.7 Total polyphenols concentration as a function of time for the influent AAT and the effluent at Karmiel system Figure 6.8 pH changes during the AAT operation Figure 6.9 Total COD in the influent and effluent of the Shafdan demonstration plant Table 6.2 Typical ranges for selected parameters during operation Figure 6.10 (A) COD total over the time (days) (B) methane production rate over time of the anaerobic digestion (AD) chambers for the new Ex-situ configuration at GS. Figure 6.11 Average COD total of the ex-situ lab systems, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD) chambers and the AnMBRs. Figure 6.12 (A) Average COD total of the ex-situ lab system1 containing 6.5 gr GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD1) chambers and GAC. (B) Average COD total of the ex-situ lab system2 containing 20 gr GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD2) chambers and GAC. Figure 6.13 (A) Average polyphenols concentrations of the ex-situ lab system1 containing 6.5 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD1) chambers and GAC. (B) Average polyphenols concentrations of the ex-situ lab system2 containing 20 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD2) chambers and GAC. Figure 6.14 Biogas yield of the first lab scale AAT system containing 6.5 g GAC named AD1 and biogas yield of the second lab scale AAT system containing 20 g GAC named AD2. Figure 6.15 Methane yield of the first lab scale AAT system containing 6.5 g GAC named AD1 and methane yield of the second lab scale AAT system containing 20 g GAC named AD2 Figure 6.16 TMP profile of PES membranes (A) 6.5 g GAC was added to AnMBR1. (B) 20 g GAC was added to AnMBR2. Operational conditions: HRT= 18 h,10 LMH, working with gas circulation. Figure 6.17 TMP profile of PES membranes (A) 6.5 g GAC was added to AnMBR1. (B) 20 g GAC was added to AnMBR2. Operational conditions: fluxes of 10, 14 and 15 LMH, working with gas circulation. Figure 6.18 TMP profile of PES membranes (A) 6.5 g GAC was added to AnMBR1. (B) 20 g GAC was added to AnMBR2. Operational conditions: fluxes of 10 LMH, working with and without biogas circulation Figure 6.19 TMP profile of PES membranes (A) 6.5 g GAC was added to AnMBR1. (B) 20 g GAC was added to AnMBR2. Operational conditions: fluxes of 6 and 10 LMH, working without biogas circulation. Figure 6.20 (A) Average total COD of the AnMBR1 containing 6.5 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD1) chamber, GAC addition after AD1 and permeate of the AnMBR1. (B) Average COD total of AnMBR2 containing 20 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD2) chamber, GAC addition after AD2 and permeate of the AnMBR2. Figure 6.21 (A) Average polyphenols concentrations of the AnMBR1 containing 6.5 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD1) chamber, GAC addition after AD1 and permeate of the AnMBR1. (B) Average polyphenols concentrations of AnMBR2 containing 20 g GAC, including the inlet, the anaerobic digestion (AD2) chamber, GAC addition after AD2 and permeate of the AnMBR2. Figure 6.22 Biogas yield of the first lab scale AnMBR system containing 6.5 g GAC named AnMBR1 and biogas yield of the second lab scale AAT system containing 20 g GAC named AnMBR 2. Figure 6.23 Methane yield of the first lab scale AnMBR system containing 6.5 g GAC named AnMBR1 and biogas yield of the second lab scale AAT system containing 20 g GAC named AnMBR 2. Case Study 7 (Tain, UK) - Heat recovery and reuse from treated (AnMBR) distillery wastewater Table 7.1 Characteristics of the concentrates and permeates obtained from the RO membrane trials with the real distillery AnMBR effluent at temperatures of 20, 30 and 40 ºC. Figure 7.1 Impact of temperature on the removal efficiencies of the phosphorus (as PO4-P) and the ammonia (as NH4-N) by struvite precipitation from the real distillery wastewater Figure 7.2 Impact of temperature and pH on the ammonia removal efficiency by stripping of the real distillery wastewater in the demonstration scale unit. Case Study 8 (Roussillon, France) - Feasibility study for heat recovery from flue gas washing water at the Chemical Platform Roussillon Figure 8.1 Typical curves of heat exchangers Figure 53 Monotonic of heat sources of one incineration line of plant Table 8.1 Results of study “heat pump applied to cooling water” Case Study 9 (Kalundborg, Denmark) - Increase energy efficiency through a symbiotic and joint controlled operation of two WWTPs in Kalundborg Figure 9.1 Data from BioTector for TN concentration (), the running average of Eq.2 () and organic nitrogen fraction (): the grey coloured ranges were not used for correlation, because the BioTector was not in regular operation. For the correlation of TN concentrations below 25 mg/L, data in the grey hatched areas were excluded. Table 9.1 Results for correlation coefficients using the time periods without sensor failure (time periods of 128-131; 135-139; 151-164 were not considered) and for TN con­cen­tra­tions ≤ 25 mg/L Table 9.2 Correlation analysis (R2, NSE, L) between the model outputs of COD, TSS, TN, NHX-N, NOX-N, TP, PO4-P under steady state conditions and concentrations determined in 24h-mixed samples Table 9.3 Comparisson of measured and simulated mean concentrations for the selected model outputs (COD, TSS, TN, NHx-N, NOx – N, TP and PO4-P) Figure 9.2 Left: linear equations for the interpolation of the oxygen setpoint within the aeration controller. Linear eq. TN normal = actual settings for controller in real world. Linear eq. TN optimised = optimised controller setting within ASM. Linear eq. JCS = controller settings for high TN concentrations triggered by JCS. Right: Influence comparison of the different controller setting Figure 9.3 Comparison of the COD and TN loads before and after the implementation of the joint control system as well as the corresponding COD/E and N/E-ratios. Average values from one year of operation were used for the results without JCS. For the results, when the JCS was in operation, average values of three months were used and extrapolated to one year. Due to different average flow rates, the COD/E and N/E-ratios were linearly normalised.