{rfName}
Li

Indexed in

License and use

Citations

14

Altmetrics

Analysis of institutional authors

Jimenez-Benitez, ACorresponding AuthorFerrer, JAuthor

Share

Publications
>
Article

Life cycle costing of AnMBR technology for urban wastewater treatment: A case study based on a demo-scale AnMBR system

Publicated to:Journal Of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 11 (3): 110267- - 2023-06-07 11(3), DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2023.110267

Authors: Jiménez-Benítez, A; Ruiz-Martínez, A; Ferrer, J; Ribes, J; Rogalla, F; Robles, A

Affiliations

FCC Aqualia SA, Ave Camino Santiago 40 - Author
Univ Politecn Valencia, Inst Univ Invest Engn Aigua & Med Ambient, Unidad Mixta UV UPV, CALAGUA,IIAMA, Cami Vera S-N - Author
Univ Valencia, Dept Engn Quim, Unidad Mixta UV UPV, CALAGUA, Ave Univ S-N - Author

Abstract

This study aims at assessing the economic performance of a projected full-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) for urban wastewater (UWW) treatment at ambient temperature. To this aim, data from an AnMBR demonstration plant (industrial prototype, TRL 6) was used, which was operated for 3 years treating real UWW, allowing gathering a robust set of information for scaling-up to full scale. The obtained results revealed that reactor mixing (0.056-0.124 kWh center dot kgCOD(rem)(-1); 34-57%), and membrane scouring (0.048-0.120 kWh center dot kgCOD(rem)(-1); 22-48%) were the main contributors to the total energy demand; while net energy productions between 0.210 and 0.645 kWh center dot kgCOD(rem)(-1) were achieved. Capital expenditure was highly influenced by UF membranes ((sic)0.029-0.073 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 31-49%), combined heat and power technology for energy recovery ((sic)0.012-0.023 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 8-24%), and reactor construction ((sic)0.07-0.014 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 8-13%); while the main contributors to operating expenditure were energy requirements ((sic)0.042-0.069 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 41-46%), membrane replacement ((sic)0.011-0.028 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 9-17%), and discharge fee ((sic)0.010-0.020 kgCOD(rem)(-1); 9-12%). Total annualized costs showed high variability, between (sic) -0.003 and 0.188 kgCOD(rem)(-1). Results presents AnMBR as a competitive technology for UWW treatment compared to conventional aerobic technologies (e.g., CAS). Membrane fouling control; hydraulic retention time; biogas requirements for reactor mixing and membrane stirring; and energy recovery efficiency were identified as key parameters for improving economic sustainability of AnMBR technology.

Keywords

Anaerobic membrane bioreactorBioreactorsCostsEconomic analysisEconomic assessmentEconomic assessmentsEfficiencyEnergy-consumptionFood wasteIndustrial scale systemsIndustrial water treatmentLife cycleLife cycle assessmentLife cycle costingMbrMembrane bioreactor technologyMembrane foulingMembranesMixingMunicipal wastewater treatmentPrototype anerobic membrane bioreactorPrototype anmbrRecoverySemi-industrial scale systemSewageStrategiesSustainability assessmentTreatment plantsUrban wastewaterWastewater treatmentWwtp

Quality index

Bibliometric impact. Analysis of the contribution and dissemination channel

The work has been published in the journal Journal Of Environmental Chemical Engineering due to its progression and the good impact it has achieved in recent years, according to the agency WoS (JCR), it has become a reference in its field. In the year of publication of the work, 2023, it was in position 18/170, thus managing to position itself as a Q1 (Primer Cuartil), in the category Engineering, Chemical. Notably, the journal is positioned above the 90th percentile.

From a relative perspective, and based on the normalized impact indicator calculated from World Citations from Scopus Elsevier, it yields a value for the Field-Weighted Citation Impact from the Scopus agency: 1.16, which indicates that, compared to works in the same discipline and in the same year of publication, it ranks as a work cited above average. (source consulted: ESI Nov 14, 2024)

This information is reinforced by other indicators of the same type, which, although dynamic over time and dependent on the set of average global citations at the time of their calculation, consistently position the work at some point among the top 50% most cited in its field:

  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR) from Dimensions: 1.88 (source consulted: Dimensions Jun 2025)

Specifically, and according to different indexing agencies, this work has accumulated citations as of 2025-06-29, the following number of citations:

  • WoS: 6
  • Scopus: 8

Impact and social visibility

From the perspective of influence or social adoption, and based on metrics associated with mentions and interactions provided by agencies specializing in calculating the so-called "Alternative or Social Metrics," we can highlight as of 2025-06-29:

  • The use of this contribution in bookmarks, code forks, additions to favorite lists for recurrent reading, as well as general views, indicates that someone is using the publication as a basis for their current work. This may be a notable indicator of future more formal and academic citations. This claim is supported by the result of the "Capture" indicator, which yields a total of: 28 (PlumX).

With a more dissemination-oriented intent and targeting more general audiences, we can observe other more global scores such as:

    Leadership analysis of institutional authors

    There is a significant leadership presence as some of the institution’s authors appear as the first or last signer, detailed as follows: First Author (Jiménez Benítez, Antonio Luis) and Last Author (Robles, A).

    the author responsible for correspondence tasks has been Jiménez Benítez, Antonio Luis.