Next Article in Journal
Development and Application of a New Auxiliary Diversion Structure for Mountain Ship Lock: A Case Study of Wuqiangxi Lock in China
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of the Bedload Movement with an Acoustic Sensor in the Yangtze River, China
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Analysis of the Effect of the Use of Food Waste Disposers on Wastewater Treatment Plant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Characteristics

Department of Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 01811, Republic of Korea
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(5), 940;
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 7 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 28 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Wastewater Treatment and Reuse)


The introduction of food waste disposers (FWDs) has been discussed in various countries, and in Korea, a method for utilizing FWDs has been considered. The results of the study show that the use of FWDs is more eco-friendly and economical than other forms of food waste (FW) disposal. However, there are also studies showing that FWDs are worse, for example, they aggravate water pollution and deteriorate the function of municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Therefore, this study analyzed the concentration of pollutants of wastewater from FWD and the effect on the operation rate and GHG emission of WWTP when FW was introduced into the sewer by FWD using operation data for each WWTP. As a result of the analysis, when FWD was used, facilities exceeding the appropriate operation rate accounted for 86% of the total WWTP, and net-GHG emissions increased by 58%. Through this, FWD wastewater showed much higher contaminant concentrations than regular wastewater; thus, the introduction of FWD in the current situation will have a negative effect on maintaining the function of WWTP and reducing GHG. To introduce FWDs, improvement in WWTPs regarding pollutant load and discharge characteristics of FW and input of digestion systems through a separate FWD pipe, the introduction of high-efficiency energy facilities, and the recycling of wastewater sludge are necessary to reduce GHG emissions.

1. Introduction

Municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are an integral part of urban systems. They require a significant amount of electricity and cost [1,2]. This energy and cost can be reduced by producing biogas. Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced during anaerobic digestion (AD) [3,4]. Biogas can readily be used as a fuel to generate heat or electricity in WWTPs [5,6]. It should also be noted that wastewater and sludge treatment is associated with significant financial cost and energy for WWTPs. Sludge treatment accounts for 40–60% of total operating costs, and AD helps to reduce the amount of sludge produced [7]. Therefore, there is still a need for solutions that improve the recovery and production efficiency of electrical and thermal energy in WWTPs.
Significant amounts of food waste (FW) are generated worldwide, and typically exhibit the highest methane potential of any MSW component, resulting in significant fugitive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills [8,9]. The landfill has been the most convenient and economical form of waste disposal in many countries around the world. However, increasing environmental regulations aimed at reducing the amount of biodegradable municipal waste and ensuring that FW goes to landfills have introduced alternative methods of managing FW.
To prevent FW from being disposed in landfills, many studies have been conducted worldwide to determine whether food waste disposers (FWDs) can be used [10,11]. They are used with water while grinding to attain efficient and uniform grinding and discharge to the sewer; they are mainly used under the sink. As such, a vast majority of the FW produced at household level enters the wastewater stream and is treated in WWTPs. FWDs are used in many countries around the world, but their implementation as a waste management option has never been fully or appropriately considered.
WWTPs and FWD have a particularly important role to play in implementing circular economy goals. Food wastewater treated with FWDs flows to WWTP along the sewage pipe. Although some are caught on the screen, most are converted to sludge in the settling pond and thickener. This is fed into WWTPs’ AD. FW can increase the biogas yield by increasing the concentration of organic matter in sludge with high organic matter and relatively low organic matter [12]. However, inconsistent and contradictory results have been reported for each study, and opinions on the introduction of FWD are divided around the world. this is due to reasons such as the properties of food, treatment process, and status of WWTP by country [13].
Looking at the positive studies on the introduction of FWD, it is argued that using FWD is a sustainable treatment method, because the amount of FW can be reduced by 42%, and wastewater can be treated in connection with the WWTP [14,15], which can reduce the cost of FW collection and increase biogas production [16]. A study on FWDs has also been conducted in Korea, and the method was found to be almost as sustainable as composting [17].
Looking at the negative studies on the introduction of FWDs, it is argued that introducing FW into the sewer increases the pollution load and may impair the soundness of wastewater treatment (including septic tanks), and is not an eco-friendly treatment method [18]. Household composting had the lowest impact on the environment in all impact categories, while FWDs consume less energy but have the highest eutrophication potential (the emission in WWTP), and water consumption is known to be the highest [19]. In addition, looking at the study on the effect of FWD on the wastewater system, it was reported that the BOD load increased by 17~62% and the SS increased by 1.9~7.1% [20]. In addition, other similar studies are concerned that COD, BOD, and T-N in FW may cause secondary loads [21].
The main cause of these conflicting research results can be seen as being influenced by the FW characteristics and analysis methods of the country concerned reviewing the introduction of FWD. The characteristics of FW and information on the wastewater system in Korea should be reflected and analyzed. However, similar studies conducted in Korea have been conducted on an experimental scale, and studies on the sewage system have not been theoretically reviewed, and only energy consumption has been analyzed for GHG reduction effects.
In Korea, FWDs are highly preferred, but their sale and use were banned in 1995, and manufacturing and importing were banned in 1999, considering the negative sewage impact. However, in recent years, the dissemination of the separated pipe has been expanded along with the claim to allow the use of FWDs. However, only discussions are being conducted on the pros and cons of the introduction, and objective data are needed to resolve this.
The purpose of this study was to assess the existing data on the potential impacts of the use of FWDs on the wastewater system and the environment. Therefore, to analyze, the effect of introducing FWD on the WWTP, an increase in inflow load on WWTPs with a capacity of 500 m3/day or more, and the effects of GHG emission were analyzed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characteristics of Wastewater from Discharged Food Waste Disposer

In Korea, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) are used as organic matter management indicators in effluents from WWTPs.
BOD is a method for measuring biodegradable organic substances among organic substances and has disadvantages in that it takes a lot of time for analysis and it is difficult to accurately quantify the total amount of organic substances in a sample due to a low decomposition rate. In the case of COD, it can be a relatively accurate indicator of organic matter compared to BOD, but the difference in oxidation rate according to the properties of the sample is large and reproducibility is low, so it has been pointed out as a representative indicator [22]. On the other hand, total organic carbon (TOC) can accurately quantify the amount of organic matter in the water body by directly measuring the amount of carbon, reducing measurement errors and making it possible to measure non-degradable organic matter. Therefore, TOC in the water quality of food wastewater was also analyzed [23].
An experiment was conducted to understand the characteristics of the wastewater discharged from the FWD. In the experiment, a total of three types of wastewater were analyzed: wastewater discharged from washing/dehydration (WD), wastewater discharged from grinding (GR), and microbial liquid fermentation (MLF) types.
The WD type is a method used in general households, where the FW is placed in a sink, and natural dehydration is performed by gravity. Most of the FW will end up in the sieve. The GR type is a typical FWD method, but a sieve is installed at the end of the crushing part to recover 80% of the solids in FW. Theoretically, only 20% of the ground FW is discharged to the wastewater. The MLF type is where after grinding, the wastewater is transported to a microbial reactor, which is then decomposed by microorganisms and discharged into the sewage system. It is assumed that all solids are decomposed into water.
A wide range of geodemographic factors, including location, lifestyle, cooking habits, and socioeconomic conditions, can substantially affect the amount of MSW and thus the FW generated. The composition ratio of the sample was artificially produced using the composition ratio of “The national waste statistical survey 5th [24]”, which can be seen in Table 1. A sample of 500 g was used. Water was injected at 3 L/40 s, wastewater was collected using the pipe, homogenized, and then collected and analyzed by 50 mL. However, since the MLF type requires a stabilization period, continuous experiments were conducted for 16 days. After measuring the pH of the collected sample, 10 mL of the sample was diluted 100 times and analyzed for TOC. The remaining filtrate was used to analyze TS and VS.

2.2. Analysis of the Impact on the Operation of WWTP

The use of an FWD increases the amount of wastewater treatment and pollution load in the WWTP, so it may be necessary to expand. The expansion was classified as subject to an expansion only when the utilization rate based on BOD load due to FWD exceeded 80%. Therefore, we reviewed the cost for the expansion and operation of WWTP (679 plants of 500 m3/day or more) [25].
To analyze the effect of FWDs, the theoretical basic unit assuming the generation characteristics of FW and the amount of wastewater was applied. Theoretically, the amount of wastewater by using an FWD was applied at 15 L/day/household (5 L/1 time × 3 times a day in total). The BOD of FW is very different for each previous study [20] because it is desirable to use Korean research; BOD was applied as an average value (140 g/L) of 182.3 g/L [26], 107.9 g/L [27], 132.0 g/L [28], T-N was applied 4665 mg/L [29] (since there is only one study in Korea where wastewater T-N was analyzed).
The amount of FW generation was obtained in the national waste generation and treatment status by the Ministry of Environment [30]. The amount of FW inflow by WWTPs from FWDs was calculated by multiplying the sewage treatment population in the area covered by the WWTP by the amount of FW generated per household in the area. For example, the daily FW generation per household in Seoul is 0.62 kg, and if the number of households charged by WWTP A is 100, then 26 kg/day of FW inflow is applied.

2.3. Analysis of GHG Emissions

For the operation of FWDs, electricity is used and, energy is consumed (the energy consumed by FWDs may depend on the model, type, frequency, and duration of use). In addition, many studies have reported that the GHG caused by using FWD is negligible [19,31]. Therefore, in this study, GHG emissions generated during the FWD use stage were excluded from the analysis.
The effect of FWD on GHG emissions has been ignored in most studies. Increases in BOD, SS, and TKN can certainly increase GHG emissions in wastewater treatment processes, and increases in energy consumption and sludge transport, treatment, and disposal can also contribute to GHG emissions.
The wastewater treatment process includes two stages: mechanical (removal of suspended and suspended solids) and biological treatment (removal of organic contaminants, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds). Mechanical treatment includes screening and removal of minerals and organic solids. Since the treatment process is different for each WWTP, the BOD material balance of the WWTP was used as a standard process in Korea and is shown in Figure 1. The BOD removal rate of the primary settling cell is 35%, and it is fed into the anaerobic digester in the form of concentrated primary sludge. Of the 65% of the BOD introduced into the bioreactor via the primary settling tank, 60% (total input BOD 39%) is oxidized (respiration of microorganisms), and 40% (26% of the total input BOD) is transferred to the secondary settling tank. Of the 26% of BOD, about 5% is discharged as effluent, about 10% is returned to the bioreactor, and the remainder is input to the Anaerobic digester in the form of concentrated surplus sludge from the secondary settling tank as surplus sludge. The BOD removal rate of the anaerobic digester is about 80%. Under this premise, if FW is treated using an FWD, it is brought in together with wastewater and passes through the bioreactor of a WWTP, 39% of the introduced BOD is decomposed, and only about 44.4% flows into the AD.
Assuming that organic matter is glucose (C6H12O6), the amount of methane gas generated per 1 kg of BOD is 0.25 kg, and when converted to standard volume, it is 0.35 m3 [32]. Therefore, the amount of methane gas generated was applied as 0.35 m3 per inlet BOD. Emitted GHG from WWTP can be roughly divided into CO2 generated using energy such as electricity and oil, and CH4 and N2O emitted during water treatment. CH4 is generated in anaerobic conditions during the water treatment process, and N2O is generated during the nitrification process, which is an aerobic condition, and the denitrification process, under anoxic conditions.
GHG can be generated in the water and sludge treatment processes. In the water treatment process, according to the IPCC guidelines (2006, Tier 1) [33], CO2 emitted from wastewater is of biological origin and is excluded from the calculation of emissions, and CH4, CO2 was calculated according to the power required to remove N2O and BOD. IPCC Category 6D was applied as a methodology for calculating the amount of GHG emitted from biological treatment among GHG emitted from WWTP. To calculate, the parameters, the increased amount of wastewater and the pollution load were applied by adding the operation data of 679 WWTP, the amount of FW generated according to the population of each facility, and the amount treated by FWD.
The GHG calculation formula by IPCC is as follows (Table 2).
The amount of FW was input for each WWTP, the increased rate of inflow concentration was applied, and the amount of wastewater generated, and FW input used in the data was prepared using the data used when reviewing the expansion WWTP that had been built as a database. For the analysis, it is assumed that an AD is installed in all domestic WWTPs and that all the generated sludge is incinerated.

3. Results

3.1. Effluent Characteristics Analysis of Food Waste Disposer

The TS of WD was 1.15%, 1.96% for the GR type, and 1.07~5.75% for the MLF type. In the microbial liquid fermentation type, a total of 61.9% of the input solids was liquefied and discharged (Table 3). When comparing the fact that the solids outflow rate of the MLF is 61.9% and the theoretically reviewed rate was 44.4%, some of the input solids seem to be discharged without being decomposed. When compared with the reference values of wastewater, the dehydrated wastewater had higher TS and TOC than the wastewater (70.5~76.6 mg/L) [34]. On the other hand, the MLF type showed high concentrations of TOC other than TS. In the beginning, relatively clean wastewater was discharged, but as the experiment proceeded, the MLF type increased to 14,800 mg/L, and it was identified that the decomposition did not perform well due to the accumulation phenomenon inside the device(Figure 2). Considering that the concentration of TOC generally flowing into the WWTP is 1.7~293.7 [35], it is a very high concentration of wastewater. Increases in TSS and BOD/COD ratios due to the use of FWDs can lead to subsequent increases in sludge and biogas generation rates depending on the treatment processes followed in the WWTP.
Comparing the pH, in the FWD, the MLF type of wastewater was lowered to pH 5.5. Potential increases in H production from a FWD can damage WWTP systems [36]. Sulphides are produced through anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in H wastewater. It is a known corrosive agent that can attack clay pipes, concrete, and metal surfaces, causing deterioration and subsequent leaks in the WWTP [37]. In addition, pH in the influent of WWTP has a great influence on microorganisms in the wastewater treatment process. Microorganisms in the wastewater treatment process are sensitive to pH changes, and in strong acid or alkali conditions, the activity of the microorganisms is reduced, and in severe cases, the cell walls and tissues of the microorganisms are destroyed, thereby destroying the wastewater treatment function [38].
In Figure 3a, the result of sedimentation of wastewater at 25 °C for 2 h is shown, and the degree of sedimentation of the FWD is more pronounced than that of washing and dewatering. Observation of the dry matter of the pulverized effluent for each method visually showed that fat, oil, and grease (FOG), and fine solids remained in the case of WD, and a large amount of organic matter and oil remained in the FWD (Figure 3b). FOG contained in wastewater can solidify and stick to pipes, clogging the system [39]. Through the above experimental results, since wastewater contains pollutants, it seems unreasonable as wastewater.

3.2. Analysis of the Impact on the Operation of WWTP

When a FWD was introduced based on the pollution load (BOD), the total inflow BOD load of domestic WWTP increased by 51.2%, and it was found to increase by 0.8~1.714% depending on the WWTP (Figure 4). Most of the facilities with a high rate of increase in the inflow BOD load were characterized as WWTP of less than 10,000 m3. This is because these facilities are installed to provide only a minimal wastewater treatment function, so it is difficult to respond to an unplanned increase in load. However, WWTP with more than 100,000 m3 often exceeds the design standard of BOD 180 ppm, so it may be difficult to handle FWDs even for a large WWTP.
As the concentration of incoming BOD increased due to FWDs, the average operation rate was to increase by 58%. Only 95 of the total 679 facilities had WWTP with an operation rate of less than 80% after using FWDs (Figure 5). This means that all facilities corresponding to the remaining 86% exceed the appropriate operation rate. If WWTP is operated with an overload, wastewater that has not been treated can be discharged into the river as it is, which can adversely affect the ecosystem. Therefore, it was found that 14% of facilities in Korea can introduce FWDs, and it is possible to introduce FWDs only in areas with lower population density than large cities. Additionally, average data were used in this analysis, but FW occurs intensively at specific times (morning, lunch, and dinner) and seasons, so the deviation will be very large. Due to this, the treatment efficiency is reduced due to the shock load of the bioreactor tank and lack of hydraulic residence time, and the scum and sludge overflow phenomenon may occur due to the lack of residence time of the settling tank [40].

3.3. Analysis of GHG Emissions

Table 4 shows the results of the analysis of the GHG emission impact of the introduction of FWD. GHG emissions are −1854 tCO2eq/day in the process of treating wastewater at a WWTP, and −3468 tCO2eq/day when using FWDs. This is because CO2 emitted from wastewater is an organic source and is excluded from the calculation of emissions and generates energy through anaerobic digestion. In the presence of the co-substrate, the removal efficiency of AD was improved. It improved from 64% (single digestion) to 69–70% (co-digestion) [41].
In terms of energy, additional power is required to remove contaminants flowing in from FW. The electricity required for this was calculated to be 8,718,673 KW/day when only wastewater is treated and 13,800,886 KW/day when FW is treated together. Converting this to the amount of GHG, it was found that 3958 tCO2eq/day and 6266 tCO2eq/day were generated, respectively.
The amount of wastewater sludge generated increased, and it was found that 12,471 tons/day of wastewater treatment alone and 19,263 tons/day of wastewater sludge were generated when FW was treated together. Assuming that it is incinerated, and applying the emission factor and global warming potential, it was found that the GHG emissions were 3482 tCO2eq/day and 5379 tCO2eq/day, respectively.
However, when only wastewater is treated, the net GHG emission is 5586 tCO2eq/day, whereas when FW is treated together, the net GHG emission is 8176 tCO2eq/day, which increases the GHG emission of the WWTP. Carbon neutrality is adversely affected when additional energy used for increased organic matter treatment is considered.
The net GHG emission per ton of FW is 206.1 kgCO2/t-FW. This was higher than the research results of 125 kgCO2eq/t-FW [42] and 121 kgCO2eq/t-FW [17] when FW was treated through the conventional FWD. This is because the above two studies did not even consider the GHG generated during the wastewater sludge treatment process, but only considered the energy used for simple FWD operation and wastewater treatment. In addition, there is also a low difference in the amount of pollution load by the used FW which is 76 g/kg-FW. However, considering that it is lower than 510 kgCO2eq/t-FW (wastewater + FWD co-digestion) [43], if we add up the amount of GHG emitted into the atmosphere during the wastewater treatment process, it can be inferred that more GHGs are emitted.
However, these results do not mean that it is not rational to utilize FWDs. This is because GHG emissions can be reduced by actively installing energy-saving facilities or by composting and drying the fuel of wastewater sludge rather than incineration. If possible, wastewater treated with FWDs is introduced into the AD through a separate pipe and tank; the amount of loss can be reduced and the production of CH4 gas can be increased.

4. Conclusions

FWDs are practical and relatively inexpensive, and their use can effectively reduce the need for separate bins for collection and disposal and provide a more convenient way to dispose of FW. However, the use of these devices is associated with potentially negative impacts that make their sustainability unclear.
This study analyzed the characteristics of wastewater from FWDs, the effect of pollutants on WWTPs, and the effect of GHG generation, and the results are as follows.
As a result of analyzing the characteristics of wastewater from FWD, it was found that the concentration of pollutants was much higher than that of wastewater. Therefore, in the case of using FWDs, it is a cause that it can impose a burden on separate management and WWTPs.
As a result of analyzing the effect of the wastewater system in Korea due to the introduction of FWDs, it was found that the inflow BOD increased by 51.2% based on the total amount of WWTP brought in and that 86% of WWTP exceeded the appropriate operation rate of 80%. It seems that it is difficult to cope with the introduction of FWDs in the current WWTPs.
As a result of analyzing GHG emissions by FWD, the net GHG was found to increase by 58%. In addition, the GHG emission generated by processing 1 ton of FW was found to be 206.1 tCO2eq. Even if methane is recovered by biogas from WWTP using FWD, the emission of GHG is increased, but this does not mean unreasonable FW disposal using FWDs. To reduce GHG emissions from WWTPs, wastewater treated with FWDs is directly injected into the AD to minimize organic matter loss and reduce energy consumption. If high energy efficiency facilities are actively introduced and GHGs such as sludge dry fuel conversion and composting are reduced, the method using FWDs can be considered as a sustainable treatment method for FW.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, D.K.; writing—review and editing, C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry&Technology Institute (KEITI) through “Climate Change R&D Project for New Climate Regime.”, funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2022003570003).

Data Availability Statement

Related data is based on sewerage statistics but was provided by K-eco (Korea Environment Corporation).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Di Fraia, S.; Massarotti, N.; Vanoli, L. A novel energy assessment of urban wastewater treatment plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 163, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Roots, P.; Sabba, F.; Rosenthal, A.F.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Rieger, L.; Yang, F.; Kozak, J.A.; Zhang, H.; Wells, G.F. Integrated shortcut nitrogen and biological phosphorus removal from mainstream wastewater: Process operation and modeling. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 566–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Silvestre, G.; Fernández, B.; Bonmatí, A. Significance of anaerobic digestion as a source of clean energy in wastewater treatment plants. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 101, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. De Vrieze, J.; Smet, D.; Klok, J.; Colsen, J.; Angenent, L.T.; Vlaeminck, S.E. Thermophilic sludge digestion improves energy balance and nutrient recovery potential in full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 218, 1237–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, N.; Moreira, C.; Zhang, Y.; Doan, N.; Yang, S.; Phlips, E.; Svoronos, S.; Pullammanappallil, P. Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Microalgae through Anaerobic Digestion. In Anaerobic Digestion; Banu, J.R., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pellera, F.; Gidarakos, E. Anaerobic digestion of solid agroindustrial waste in semi-continuous mode: Evaluation of mono-digestion and co-digestion systems. Waste Manag. 2017, 68, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Guo, W.Q.; Yang, S.S.; Xiang, W.S.; Wang, X.J.; Ren, N.Q. Minimization of excess sludge production by in-situ activated sludge treatment processes—A comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 1386–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Milbrandt, A.; Seiple, T.; Heimiller, D.; Skaggs, R.; Coleman, A. Wet waste-to-energy resources in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, U.; Han, J.; Wang, M. Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Thota-Radhakrishnan, A.; van Lier, J.; Clemens, F. Rheological characterisation of concentrated domestic slurry. Water Res. 2014, 141, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Moñino, P.A. A new strategy to maximize organic matter valorization in municipalities: Combination of urban wastewater with kitchen food waste and its treatment with AnMBR technology. Waste Manag. 2017, 62, 274–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kiselev, A.; Magaril, E.; Magaril, R.; Panepinto, D.; Ravina, M.; Zanetti, M.C. Towards Circular Economy: Evaluation of Sewage Sludge Biogas Solutions. Resources 2019, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zan, F.; Dai, J.; Hong, Y.; Wong, M.; Jiang, F.; Chen, G. The characteristics of household food waste in Hong Kong and their implications for wastewater quality and energy recovery. Waste Management 2018, 74, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Iacovidou, E.; Ohandja, D.G.; Voulvoulis, N. Food waste disposer units in UK households: The need for policy intervention. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 423, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bernstad Saraiva, A.; Davidsson, A.; Bissmont, M. Lifecycle assessment of a system for food waste disposers to tank–A full-scale system evaluation. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Maalouf, A.; El-Fadel, M. Effect of a food waste disposer policy on solid waste and wastewater management with economic implications of environmental externalities. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ju, M.S.; Bae. S.J.; Lee, D.H.; You, K.Y. Feasibility Study on the Introduction of Food Waste Disposer System in Korea by Assessment of the Cost and Environmental Impact. Soeul Stud. 2012, 13, 263–274. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lin, H.; Wang, Y.; van Lierop, L.; Zamalloa, C.; Furlong, C.; Keleman, M.; Hu, B. Study of food waste degradation in a simulated septic tank. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 1199–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sven, L.; Gregory, M.P. Life cycle assessment of food waste management options. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 275–286. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marashlian, N.; El-Fadel, M. The effect of food waste disposers on municipal waste and wastewater management. Waste Manag. Res. 2005, 23, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tomas, P. The effects of food waste disposers on the wastewater system: A practical study. Water Environ. J. 2011, 25, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Choi, S.H.; Jeong, M.E.; Joo, K.Y.; Choi, Y.J.; Yoon, N.N.; Kwal, J.S.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, Y.R.; Jeon, D.Y. Study on Correlations between Total Organic Carbon and Organic Matter Indexes in Industrial Wastewater from Busan. J. Environ. Anal. Health Toxicol. 2020, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dubber, D.; Gray, N.F. Replacement of chemical oxygen demand (COD) with total organic carbon (TOC) for monitoring wastewater treatment performance to minimize disposal of toxic analytical waste. J. Environ. Sci. Health 2010, 45, 1595–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ministry of Environment. National Survey on Wastes, 5th ed.; Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Republic of Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ministry of Environment. Sewer Statistics; Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Republic of Korea, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ministry of Environment. A Study on the Operation Plan of Integrated Treatment Biogas Facilities Such as Wastewater Waste and the Effect of Pollution Load; Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ministry of Environment. Technical Guidebook for Integrated Treatment Biogasification Facility; Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, K.H.; Son, J.I.; Kwon, Y.H.; Lee, D.J.; Sin, S.K. Study on Air Pollutants Emission from Food Waste Co-incineration in Industrial Waste Incinerators. J. Korea Soc. Waste Manag. 2015, 32, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, J.P.; Kang, H.; Kim, C.Y.; Song, S.H.; Hyun, J.H. Characteristics of Food Wastes and Its Hydrolysis Conditions. New Renew. Energy 2017, 13, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ministry of Environment. National Waste Generation and Treatment Status; Ministry of Environment: Sejong City, Republic of Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bolzonella, D.; Pavan, P.; Battistoni, P.; Cecchi, F. The under sink garbage grinder: A friendly technology for the environment. Environ. Technol. 2003, 24, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Angelidaki, I.; Sanders, W. Assessment of the Anaerobic Biodegradability of Macropollutants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2004, 3, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 5 Waste; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jeong, D.H.; Choi, I.C.; Cho, Y.S.; Ahn, K.H.; Chung, H.M.; Kwon, O.S.; Park, H.W.; Shin, H.S.; Hur, J. Characteristics of TOC in effluent discharge from public wastewater treatment works in Korea. J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 2014, 28, 657–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, G.C.; Park, Y.J.; Kang, K.H.; Jung, M.O.; Ryu, D.H.; Jung, S.S.; Lee, W.T. Distribution of Total Organic Carbon and Correlations between Organic Matters of Sewage Treatment Plants. J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng. 2023, 43, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Local government association. The impact of household food waste disposers; Braille: London, UK, 2015; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
  37. National Clay Pipe Institute. Clay Pipe Engineering Manual; National Clay Pipe Institute: Elkhorn, WI, USA, 1995; pp. 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kim, Y.K.; Moon, Y.T.; Kim, J.Y.; Seo, I.S. Evaluation of COD solubilization and reduction of waste activated sludge by pH control. J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 2007, 21, 551–558. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nielsen, A.H.; Hvitved-Jacobsen, T.; Vollertsen, J. Recent findings on sinks for sulfide in gravity sewer networks. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 54, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Han, S.W. Effect of Food Waste Disposer on the Treatment Capacity of Public Wastewater Treatment Plant. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Masłoń, A.; Czarnota, J.; Szaja, A.; Szulżyk-Cieplak, J.; Łagód, G. The Enhancement of Energy Efficiency in a Wastewater Treatment Plant through Sustainable Biogas Use: Case Study from Poland. Energies 2020, 13, 6056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yi, S.R.; Yoo, K.Y. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Cost Analyses for the Treatment Options of Food Waste and Human Excrement. J. Environ. Protection 2014, 5, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Edwards, J.; Othman, M.; Crossin, E.; Burn, S. Life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of seven contemporary food waste management systems. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 156–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Material flow chart (BOD of wastewater) for wastewater treatment plants. RAS is returned activated sludge, WAS is wasted activated sludge.
Figure 1. Material flow chart (BOD of wastewater) for wastewater treatment plants. RAS is returned activated sludge, WAS is wasted activated sludge.
Water 15 00940 g001
Figure 2. TS and TOC of wastewater from microbial liquid fermentation.
Figure 2. TS and TOC of wastewater from microbial liquid fermentation.
Water 15 00940 g002
Figure 3. Sedimentation photograph of wastewater by FW treatment method (a) and dried photograph (b). (1) is WD, (2) is GR, and (3) is wastewater discharged from MLF type.
Figure 3. Sedimentation photograph of wastewater by FW treatment method (a) and dried photograph (b). (1) is WD, (2) is GR, and (3) is wastewater discharged from MLF type.
Water 15 00940 g003
Figure 4. BOD concentration before and after the introduction of FWD by the capacity of WWTP.
Figure 4. BOD concentration before and after the introduction of FWD by the capacity of WWTP.
Water 15 00940 g004
Figure 5. Changes in the WWTP utilization rate before and after the FWD introduction.
Figure 5. Changes in the WWTP utilization rate before and after the FWD introduction.
Water 15 00940 g005
Table 1. Composition of sample used for analysis.
Table 1. Composition of sample used for analysis.
CategoryProcessed Sample
Weight (g)Ratio (%)
VegetablesKimchi (68), lettuce (34), onion (34), radish kimchi (17) 30.6
CerealsRice (102)20.4
FruitsTomato (17), orange peel (42), apple core (42) 20.2
Fish meatGrilled pork belly (34), grilled fish (51)17
LeachateSoybean paste stew (34)6.8
Etc.Eggshell (17), banana peel (8)5
Total500 g100
Table 2. GHG calculation formula for WWTP(Tier 1).
Table 2. GHG calculation formula for WWTP(Tier 1).
CH 4 Emissions ( B O D i n × Q i n B O D O u t × Q O u t B O U s l × Q s l ) × 10 6 × E F R
Emissions from wastewater treatment (tCH4)
BODInConcentration of influent(BOD5) (mg-BOD/L)
BODoutConcentration of effluent(BOD5) (mg-BOD/L)
BODslConcentration of Sludge(BOD5) (mg-BOD/L)
QinVolume of influent (m3)
QoutVolume of effluent (m3)
QslVolume of sludge (m3)
EFEmission factor (kg CH4/kg-BOD) 0.48
RMethane recovery (tCH4)
N2O Emissions ( T N i n × Q i n T N O u t × Q O u t T N s l × Q s l ) × 10 6 × E F × 1.571
Emissions: emissions from wastewater treatment (tN2O)
TNinConcentration of influent (mg-T-N/L)
TNoutConcentration of effluent (mg-T-N/L)
TNslConcentration of Sludge (mg-T-N/L)
EFEmission factor (kg N2O-N/kg-T-N) 1.571
Table 3. TS and TOC of wastewater.
Table 3. TS and TOC of wastewater.
Type of FWD
Microbial liquid fermentation
TOC (mg/L)168050003724~14,800
Table 4. GHG emissions from wastewater and wastewater + FWD treatment process.
Table 4. GHG emissions from wastewater and wastewater + FWD treatment process.
WastewaterWastewater + FWD
EF-CH4 by WastewaterkgCH4/kgBOD0.18452
EF-N2O by WastewaterkgN2O/kgT-N0.00072
EF-GHG by ElectrickgCO2eq/kW0.454
EF-CH4 by SludgekgCH4/ton0.0097
EF-N2O by SludgekgN2O/ton0.90
CH4 GASm3CH4960,6561,465,568
CH4 emissionstCH4−157−239
N2O emissionstN2O4.7 5.0
GHG emissionstCO2eq/day−1854−3468
Electric energy consumptionElectricKW/day8,718,67313,800,886
GHG emissionstCO2eq/day39586266
Sludge disposalCH4 emissionstCH40.120.19
N2O emissionstN2O11.217.3
GHG emissionstCO2eq/day34825379
Net-GHG emissionstCO2eq/day55868176
Net-GHG emissions per ton of FWkgCO2eq/t-FW-206.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, D.; Phae, C. Analysis of the Effect of the Use of Food Waste Disposers on Wastewater Treatment Plant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Characteristics. Water 2023, 15, 940.

AMA Style

Kim D, Phae C. Analysis of the Effect of the Use of Food Waste Disposers on Wastewater Treatment Plant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Characteristics. Water. 2023; 15(5):940.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Dowan, and Chaegun Phae. 2023. "Analysis of the Effect of the Use of Food Waste Disposers on Wastewater Treatment Plant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Characteristics" Water 15, no. 5: 940.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop