Abstract
The availability of many technological alternatives for the biological treatment of wastewater, ranging from conventional treatment options to advanced technologies, introduces the requirement for scrutiny to select the most appropriate technology for the treatment of wastewater for any specific project. Use of cost function may be an approach to compare the costs of alternatives for the biological treatment of wastewater. It enables better engineering decisions and suitable selection of the appropriate treatment scheme based on parametric criteria, requirement of space, construction cost and annual cost of operation as well as maintenance. The literatures available in the context of selection of appropriate technology for biological treatment of wastewater on the basis of engineering economics and other issues are limited, and in most of the studies, the cost functions for wastewater treatment plants have been derived from region-specific historic cost data collected. The objective of this paper is to highlight the importance of initiatives to develop the cost functions and present a methodology for its development by the application of modelled algorithms for process design as well as cost estimation and the use of different statistical regression techniques. This research initiative is believed to be useful in the planning of new facilities by the stakeholders of assets.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ASP:
-
Activated sludge process
- BOD5:
-
Five-day biochemical oxygen demand
- BODu:
-
Ultimate biochemical oxygen demand
- CAPEX :
-
Total bare construction cost
- CMAS:
-
Complete-mix activated sludge
- COD :
-
Chemical oxygen demand
- EA:
-
Extended aeration
- FAB:
-
Fluidized aerobic bioreactor
- MAPE:
-
Mean absolute percentage error
- MBBR:
-
Moving bed biofilm reactor
- MLD:
-
Million litres per day
- MLSS :
-
Mixed liquor suspended solids
- MLVSS:
-
Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
- NH4-N:
-
Ammonia nitrogen
- NO3-N:
-
Nitrate nitrogen
- ON:
-
Organic nitrogen
- OP:
-
Oxidation pond
- OPEX :
-
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance
- SBR:
-
Sequential batch reactor
- TKN:
-
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
- TP:
-
Total phosphorous
- TSS:
-
Total suspended solids
- UASB:
-
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
- VSS:
-
Volatile suspended solids
- WSP:
-
Waste stabilization pond
- WWTP :
-
Wastewater treatment plant
References
G. Acampa, M.G. Giustra, C.M. Parisi, Water treatment emergency: cost evaluation tools’ MDPI – 07 May. Sustainability 11, 2609, 1–18 (2019)
A.U.A. Arif, M.T. Sorour, S.A. Aly, Cost analysis of activated sludge and membrane bioreactor WWTPs using CapdetWorks simulation program: case study of Tikrit WWTP (middle Iraq). Alex. Eng. J. Hosted by ELSEVIER – Alexandria University, 1–9 (2020)
P. Balmer, B. Mattson, Wastewater treatment plant operation costs. Wat. Sci. Technol. 30(4), 7–15 (1994)
E. Doherty, Development of new benchmarking systems for wastewater treatment facilities. A thesis submitted to the College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland, Galway, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (2017)
L.R. Dysert, An introduction to parametric estimating. AACE Int. Trans. EST.03, 1–7 (2008)
E. Friedier, E. Pisanty, Effects of design flow and treatment level on construction and operation costs of municipal wastewater treatment plants and their implications on policy making. Water Res. 40(2), 3751–3758 (2006)
S. Gautam, S. Ahmed, A. Dhingra, Z. Fatima, Cost-effective treatment technology for small size sewage treatment plants in India. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 76(April 2017), 249–254 (2017)
S. Gillot, B. De Clercq, D. Defour, F. Simoens, K. Gernaey, P.A. Vanrolleghem, Optimization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Design and Operation Using Simulation and Cost Analysis (Biomath Department, University of Gent/Biotim, Gent/Wilrijk, 1999), pp. 1–9
M.K. Gratziou, M. Tsalkatidou, N.E. Kotsovinos, Economic evaluation of small capacity sewage processing units. Glob. Nest J. 8(1), 52–60 (2006)
R.C. Gumerman, R.L. Culp, S.P. Hanesan, Estimating Cost for Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Efficiency (USEPA (EPA-600/2-78-182), 1978)
S.F. Hernandez, M.M. Senante, R.S. Garrido, Cost modeling in wastewater treatment processes. Desalination 268, 1–5 (2011)
S. Jafarinejad, Cost estimation and economical evaluation of three configurations of activated sludge process for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) using simulation. Appl. Water Sci. Springer, 1–9 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0446-8
A. Koul, S. John, A life cycle cost approach for evaluation of sewage treatment plants. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. (IJIRAE) 2(7), 105–109 (2015) ISSN: 2349-2163
R. Martins, A. Fortunato, F. Fernando Coelho, Cost structure of the Portuguese water industry: a cubic cost function application. Estudos do GEMF, 1–33 (2006)
G. McNamara, Economic and environmental cost assessment of wastewater treatment systems: a life cycle perspective. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Dublin City University, 2018
J.P.R. Miranda, C.A.G. Ubaque, J.C.P. Londoño, Analysis of the investment costs in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Cundinamarca. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín. Dyna 82(192), 230–238 (2015)
R. Nogueira, I. Ferreira, P. Janknecht, J.J. Rodriguez, P. Oliveria, A.G. Brito, Energy-saving wastewater treatment systems: formulation of cost functions. Water Sci. Technol. 56(3), 85–92 (2007)
M. Panaitescu, F.V. Panaitescu, I.A. Anton, Theoretical and experimental researches on the operating costs of a wastewater treatment plant. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 95, 012131, 1–7 (2015)
B. Papadopoulos, P. Konstantinos, Tsagarakis, A. Yannopoulos, Cost and land functions for wastewater treatment projects: typical simple linear regression versus fuzzy linear regression. ASCE. J. Environ. Eng. 133, 581 (2007)
O.J. Prado, D. Gaabriel, J. Lafuente, Economical assessment of the design, construction and operation of open-bed bio filters for waste gas treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 90(8), 2515–2523 (2009)
S.R. Qasim, S.W. Lim, E.M. Motley, K.G. Heung, Estimating costs for treatment plant construction. J. Am. Water Work. Assoc. 84, 56–62 (1992)
N. Sato, T. Okubo, T. Onodera, L.K. Agrawal, A. Ohashi, H. Harada, Economic evaluation of sewage treatment processes in India. J. Environ. Manag. 84, 447–460 (2007)
A.W. Sekandari, Cost comparison analysis of wastewater treatment plants. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Eng. 6(1), 65–72 (2019)
M.M. Senante, F.H. Sancho, R.S. Garrido, Economic feasibility study for new technological alternatives in wastewater treatment processes: a review. Water Sci. Technol. 65(5), 896–906 (2012)
W. Singhirunnusorn, M.K. Stenstrom, A critical analysis of economic factors for diverse wastewater treatment processes: case studies in Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res. 20(4), 263–268 (2010)
K.P. Tsagarakis, D.D. Mara, A.N. Angelakis, Application of cost criteria for selection of municipal wastewater treatment systems. Water Air Soil Pollut. 142(January), 187–211 (2003)
USEPA, An Analysis of Construction Cost Experiences for Wastewater Treatment Plants (EPA 430-9-76-002, 1976)
USEPA, Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-98-016, 1998)
P.A. Vanrolleghem, U. Jeppsson, J. Carstensen, B. Carlsson, G. Olsson, Integration of wastewater treatment plant design and operation – a systematic approach using cost functions. Wat. Sci. Technol. 34, 159–171 (1996)
C.G. Wen, C.S. Lee, Development of cost functions for wastewater treatment system with fuzzy regression. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 106, 143–153 (1999)
R.J.Z. Yengejeh, K. Davideh, A. Baqeri, Cost/benefit evaluation of wastewater treatment plant types (SBR, MLE, Oxidation Ditch), case study: Khouzestan, Iran. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 4(1), 55–60 (2014)
Central Pollution Control Board – Government of India, National Inventory of Sewage Treatment Plant (2021)
Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization in collaboration with JICA, Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems (2013)
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc, Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse, 4th edn
USEPA, Process Design and Cost Estimating Algorithms for the Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET) (USEPA, 1982)
Public Works Department (PWD), Government of India, Schedule of Rates (2021)
Acknowledgement
The research for the development of cost functions with reference to space-saving modern technologies available for biological treatment is under progress and is at an advanced stage. I would like to thank all the members of the Environmental Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India, for their support and assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix I: Medium-range WWTPs with MBBR
Appendix I: Medium-range WWTPs with MBBR
Design summary for moving bed biofilm reactor basins | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOD removal | |||||||||||
Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | ||
5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | ||
Design parameter | Unit | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value |
Average wastewater flow rate | m3/d | 5000.00 | 10000.00 | 15000.00 | 20000.00 | 25000.00 | 30000.00 | 35000.00 | 40000.00 | 45000.00 | 50000.00 |
Influent flow rate to reactor basins | m3/d | 5723.75 | 11447.50 | 17171.25 | 22895.00 | 28618.75 | 34342.50 | 40066.25 | 45790.00 | 51513.75 | 57237.50 |
Average BOD load | kg/d | 1198.90 | 2397.80 | 3596.70 | 4795.60 | 5994.50 | 7193.40 | 8392.30 | 9591.20 | 10790.10 | 11989.00 |
Average TKN load | kg/d | 275.25 | 550.50 | 825.75 | 1101.00 | 1376.25 | 1651.50 | 1926.75 | 2202.00 | 2477.25 | 2752.50 |
Two stages for BOD removal | |||||||||||
Number of tanks for stage 1 (for preliminary BOD removal) | Number | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Volume of each tank for stage 1 (for preliminary BOD removal) | m3 | 99.91 | 133.21 | 149.86 | 199.82 | 249.77 | 299.73 | 233.12 | 266.42 | 299.73 | 333.03 |
Concentration of BOD in effluent from stage 1 | g/m3 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 | 47.13 |
Number of tanks for stage 2 (for final BOD removal) | Number | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Volume of each tank for stage 2 (for final BOD removal) | m3 | 97.74 | 130.32 | 146.60 | 195.47 | 244.34 | 293.21 | 228.05 | 260.63 | 293.21 | 325.79 |
Concentration of BOD in effluent from stage 2 | g/m3 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 | 2.98 |
Design features | |||||||||||
MLSS (XMLSS) | g TSS/m3 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 | 5000.00 |
MLVSS (XMLVSS) | g VSS/m3 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 | 2832.63 |
F/M | (g BOD/d)/g VSS | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 | 1.27 |
Volumetric BOD loading | (kg BOD/d)/m3 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 | 3.61 |
Total sludge (TSS) purged per day | kg TSS/d | 1145.43 | 2290.86 | 3436.29 | 4581.72 | 5727.15 | 6872.58 | 8018.01 | 9163.44 | 10308.87 | 11454.30 |
Observed yield based on VSS | g bVSS/g bCOD | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
g bVSS/g BOD | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.55 | |
Observed yield based on TSS | g TSS/g bCOD | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.61 |
g TSS/g BOD | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.97 | |
Overall oxygen demand | kg oxygen/h | 45.65 | 91.31 | 136.96 | 182.62 | 228.27 | 273.93 | 319.58 | 365.24 | 410.89 | 456.55 |
Air flow rate at average wastewater flow rate | m3/min | 38.92 | 77.83 | 116.75 | 155.66 | 194.58 | 233.50 | 272.41 | 311.33 | 350.24 | 389.16 |
RAS recycle ratio | Number | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
Quality of effluent | |||||||||||
Concentration of BOD of effluent | g/m3 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 | 9.99 |
Concentration of TSS of effluent | g/m3 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
Concentration of NH4-N of effluent | g/m3 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 | 34.19 |
Concentration of NO3-N of effluent | g/m3 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 |
Equipment summary for moving bed biological reactor-based system | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOD removal | |||||||||||
Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | ||
5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | ||
Description | Unit | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value |
Primary clarifiers | |||||||||||
Number of primary clarifiers | Number | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Diameter of each primary clarifier | m | 10.00 | 13.50 | 16.60 | 19.10 | 21.40 | 23.40 | 25.30 | 19.10 | 20.30 | 21.40 |
Side water depth of each primary clarifier | m | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
Primary clarifier sludge sump | |||||||||||
Number of sludge sumps | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Length of each sludge sump | m | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 |
Width of each sludge sump | m | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 |
Depth of each sludge sump | m | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 |
Primary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house | |||||||||||
Number of pump-houses | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total number of pumps provided in each pump-house | Number | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Design capacity for each pump | m3/h | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 30.00 | 30.00 |
Head to be developed by each pump | mlc | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 |
Stage 1 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories | |||||||||||
Number of reactor basins | Number | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Length of each reactor basin | m | 5.50 | 6.30 | 6.70 | 7.70 | 8.60 | 9.40 | 8.30 | 8.90 | 9.40 | 10.00 |
Width of each reactor basin | m | 4.60 | 5.30 | 5.60 | 6.50 | 7.20 | 7.90 | 7.00 | 7.50 | 7.90 | 8.40 |
Depth of each reactor basin | m | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 |
Stage 2 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories | |||||||||||
Number of reactor basins | Number | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Length of each reactor basin | m | 5.30 | 6.10 | 6.50 | 7.40 | 8.40 | 9.20 | 8.10 | 8.60 | 9.20 | 9.60 |
Width of each reactor basin | m | 4.60 | 5.30 | 5.60 | 6.50 | 7.20 | 7.90 | 7.00 | 7.50 | 7.90 | 8.40 |
Depth of each reactor basin | m | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 | 4.57 |
Secondary clarifiers | |||||||||||
Number of secondary clarifiers | Number | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Diameter of each secondary clarifier | m | 20.90 | 28.10 | 34.50 | 39.80 | 44.50 | 48.70 | 37.20 | 39.80 | 42.20 | 44.50 |
Side water depth of each secondary clarifier | m | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 | 4.50 |
Secondary clarifier sludge sump | |||||||||||
Number of sludge sumps | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Length of each sludge sump | m | 10.99 | 21.98 | 32.97 | 43.97 | 54.96 | 65.95 | 76.94 | 43.97 | 49.46 | 54.96 |
Width of each sludge sump | m | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 | 6.10 |
Depth of each sludge sump | m | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 |
Secondary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house | |||||||||||
Number of pump-houses | Number | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total number of pumps provided in each pump-house | Number | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Design capacity for each pump | m3/h | 170.00 | 340.00 | 510.00 | 680.00 | 840.00 | 1010.00 | 1180.00 | 1350.00 | 1510.00 | 1680.00 |
Head to be developed by each pump | mlc | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 |
Estimated cost summary for moving bed biological reactor-based system | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOD removal | |||||||||||
Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | ||
5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | ||
Description | Unit | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value |
Primary clarifiers | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 1.05 | 1.40 | 1.71 | 1.97 | 2.22 | 2.44 | 2.65 | 3.95 | 4.20 | 4.44 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of primary clarifiers (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.31 | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.89 | 0.95 | 1.01 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 1.36 | 1.77 | 2.18 | 2.51 | 2.83 | 3.11 | 3.38 | 4.84 | 5.16 | 5.45 |
Primary clarifier sludge sump | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of primary clarifier sludge sump (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.19 |
Primary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.73 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of primary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.28 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
Stage 1 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.51 | 0.95 | 1.50 | 1.90 | 2.31 | 2.71 | 3.24 | 3.60 | 3.95 | 4.30 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of stage 1 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 2.58 | 4.81 | 7.05 | 9.23 | 11.41 | 13.56 | 15.74 | 17.87 | 20.00 | 22.12 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 3.09 | 5.75 | 8.56 | 11.13 | 13.72 | 16.27 | 18.98 | 21.48 | 23.95 | 26.42 |
Stage 2 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.32 | 0.54 | 0.86 | 1.02 | 1.19 | 1.35 | 1.64 | 1.79 | 1.96 | 2.11 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of stage 2 of double-stage BOD removal reaction basins & accessories (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.35 | 0.37 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 0.42 | 0.68 | 1.06 | 1.25 | 1.44 | 1.62 | 1.95 | 2.12 | 2.30 | 2.48 |
Blowers and blower-building | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 2.13 | 3.03 | 3.75 | 4.38 | 4.94 | 5.35 | 5.82 | 6.27 | 6.69 | 7.09 |
Secondary clarifiers | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 2.21 | 3.04 | 3.85 | 4.56 | 5.25 | 5.89 | 8.41 | 9.13 | 9.82 | 10.49 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of secondary clarifiers (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.60 | 0.83 | 1.04 | 1.24 | 1.42 | 1.59 | 1.94 | 2.10 | 2.26 | 2.41 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 2.81 | 3.87 | 4.89 | 5.81 | 6.67 | 7.48 | 10.35 | 11.23 | 12.07 | 12.90 |
Secondary clarifier sludge sump | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.52 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of secondary clarifier sludge sump (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 0.35 | 0.37 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 0.22 | 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.45 | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 0.82 | 0.89 |
Secondary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.92 | 1.06 | 1.16 | 1.25 | 1.33 | 1.41 | 1.50 | 1.65 | 1.80 | 1.96 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of secondary clarifier sludge transfer pumps & pump-house (OPEX) | Crore ₹ | 0.69 | 1.14 | 1.58 | 2.02 | 2.43 | 2.87 | 3.31 | 3.75 | 4.17 | 4.61 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 1.61 | 2.20 | 2.75 | 3.28 | 3.76 | 4.27 | 4.80 | 5.40 | 5.97 | 6.57 |
Estimated consolidated costs | |||||||||||
Total bare construction cost (CAPEX) | Crore ₹ | 7.94 | 10.87 | 13.74 | 16.05 | 18.28 | 20.26 | 24.42 | 27.58 | 29.66 | 31.70 |
Levelized cost based on energy requirement, operation and maintenance for 25 years of life of WWTP | Crore ₹ | 4.76 | 7.80 | 10.89 | 13.82 | 16.74 | 19.61 | 22.70 | 25.65 | 28.49 | 31.30 |
Overall cost inclusive of CAPEX & OPEX | Crore ₹ | 12.70 | 18.67 | 24.63 | 29.87 | 35.02 | 39.87 | 47.12 | 53.23 | 58.15 | 63.00 |
Cost of land | |||||||||||
Cost of land | Crore ₹ | 3.70 | 5.65 | 7.90 | 9.82 | 11.72 | 13.57 | 16.23 | 18.57 | 20.45 | 22.36 |
Overall cost | |||||||||||
Overall cost | Crore ₹ | 16.39 | 24.32 | 32.52 | 39.69 | 46.74 | 53.44 | 63.35 | 71.80 | 78.60 | 85.36 |
Overall cost | Million $ | 2.05 | 3.04 | 4.07 | 4.96 | 5.84 | 6.68 | 7.92 | 8.97 | 9.83 | 10.67 |
Regression analysis and determination of MAPE | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BOD removal | |||||||||||
Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | Capacity in mld | ||
5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | ||
Design parameter | Unit | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value | Value |
Predicted value (as per exponential cost function) | 20.94 | 24.90 | 29.60 | 35.19 | 41.84 | 49.74 | 59.13 | 70.30 | 83.58 | 99.37 | |
Value of R2 | 0.9488 | ||||||||||
Absolute percentage error | 27.77 | 2.38 | 8.98 | 11.32 | 10.49 | 6.93 | 6.66 | 2.08 | 6.33 | 16.40 | |
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) | 9.94 | ||||||||||
Predicted value (as per linear cost function) | 16.45 | 24.18 | 31.91 | 39.63 | 47.36 | 55.08 | 62.81 | 70.54 | 78.26 | 85.99 | |
Value of R2 | 0.9988 | ||||||||||
Absolute percentage error | 0.39 | 0.57 | 1.89 | 0.13 | 1.32 | 3.07 | 0.86 | 1.75 | 0.43 | 0.73 | |
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) | 1.12 | ||||||||||
Predicted value (as per logarithmic cost function) | 5.39 | 26.42 | 38.73 | 47.46 | 54.23 | 59.76 | 64.44 | 68.49 | 72.06 | 75.26 | |
Value of R2 | 0.9032 | ||||||||||
Absolute percentage error | 67.14 | 8.64 | 19.08 | 19.58 | 16.01 | 11.82 | 1.71 | 4.61 | 8.32 | 11.83 | |
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) | 16.87 | ||||||||||
Predicted value (as per polynomial cost function) | 16.55 | 24.21 | 31.88 | 39.57 | 47.27 | 54.99 | 62.72 | 70.47 | 78.23 | 86.01 | |
Value of R2 | 0.9988 | ||||||||||
Absolute percentage error | 0.99 | 0.45 | 1.97 | 0.29 | 1.13 | 2.89 | 1.00 | 1.85 | 0.48 | 0.75 | |
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) | 1.18 | ||||||||||
Predicted value (as per power cost function) | 15.13 | 25.11 | 33.77 | 41.68 | 49.06 | 56.05 | 62.74 | 69.17 | 75.39 | 81.42 | |
Value of R2 | 0.9918 | ||||||||||
Absolute percentage error | 7.69 | 3.25 | 3.85 | 5.01 | 4.95 | 4.88 | 0.97 | 3.66 | 4.09 | 4.62 | |
Mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) | 4.30 | ||||||||||
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sengupta, B., Mukherjee, S. (2023). Importance of Cost Functions for Biological Treatment of Wastewater. In: Mazumder, D. (eds) Sustainable Advanced Technologies for Industrial Pollution Control. ATIPC 2022. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37596-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37596-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-37595-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-37596-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)