Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRashedin, Muradur
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-21T02:20:11Z
dc.date.available2023-08-21T02:20:11Z
dc.date.issued2023-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11122/13247
dc.descriptionThesis (M.S.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2023en_US
dc.description.abstractUnderlying permafrost in rural and remote Alaskan communities creates difficulties in connecting these communities to the electrical grid, resulting in the import of fuel from nearby cities by air or barge for electricity generation. During the winter months, a large amount of fuel and electricity is required for water treatment and distribution in these communities to keep the water temperature above freezing. Furthermore, domestic wastewater in rural Alaska is treated within wastewater lagoons, which lose their treatment efficiency during the freezing winter months. In contrast, the biological aerated filter (BAF), which has become an efficient alternative for domestic wastewater treatment in off-grid houses, consumes higher energy in the form of continuous aeration. As a result, residents living in rural Alaska pay significantly higher utility costs compared to the national average. This study is designed with two goals, to determine the factors contributing to higher energy consumption for water treatment and distribution and to evaluate energy consumption and BAF performance for wastewater treatment at different aeration regimes. The overall study is based on the following two hypotheses: (i) factors including seasonal changes, geographical regions, population size, and water distribution system (WDS) types influence energy consumption for water treatment and distribution, and (ii) intermittent aeration saves energy without impacting BAF performance for wastewater treatment. After analyzing energy audit data from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for 78 rural Alaskan communities, we found that average per capita energy consumption was highest in interior Alaska (1826 kWh), followed by Northern (917 kWh), Southwestern (660 kWh), Gulf Coast (492 kWh), and Southeastern (136 kWh) regions. Among the water distribution system (WDS) types, piped circulating systems showed the highest energy consumption (1100 kWh), followed by washeteria (1000 kWh), closed hauling (800 kWh), individual wells (550 kWh), and piped pressure (300 kWh) systems. In the BAF experiment, we operated a bench-scale BAF at continuous and intermittent aeration regimes (1 hour on/1 hour off, and 2 hours on/2 hours off) using synthetic wastewater and evaluated the treatment efficiency in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal. The results showed similar COD removal rates for continuous aeration (67.6%), 1 hour on/1 hour off (66.5%), and 2 hours on/2 hours off (63.4%) aeration regimes. Additionally, we found that intermittent aeration regimes consumed significantly less energy than continuous aeration. This research helps to understand energy consumption for water treatment and distribution in rural Alaskan communities and provides a potential energy-saving approach for treating wastewater in Arctic communities.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsChapter 1. General introduction -- 1.1. Introduction to water and sanitation services in rural Alaska -- 1.2. Challenges in providing water and sanitation services in rural Alaska -- 1.3. Types of water and wastewater distribution systems in rural Alaska -- 1.4. Energy consumption for water treatment and distribution in rural Alaska -- 1.5. Wastewater treatment in rural Alaska -- 1.6. Research hypotheses -- 1.7. Research objectives -- 1.8. Organizational overview. Chapter 2 Rural Alaska water treatment and distribution systems incur high energy costs: identifying energy drivers using panel data analysis for 78 communities -- Abstract -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Data and methods -- 2.3 Results and discussion -- 2.4 Conclusions. Chapter 3: Investigating the impact of intermittent aeration on energy consumption and performance of biological aerated filter for wastewater treatment -- Abstract -- 3.1. Introduction -- 3.2. Methods -- 3.3. Results -- 3.4. Discussion -- 3.5. Conclusions. Chapter 4. General conclusion -- Funding source -- References.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectRural sanitationen_US
dc.subjectSanitationen_US
dc.subjectEnergy conservationen_US
dc.subjectWater treatment plantsen_US
dc.subjectCold weather conditionsen_US
dc.subjectSewageen_US
dc.subjectPurificationen_US
dc.subjectRural water-supplyen_US
dc.subjectWater-supplyen_US
dc.subject.otherMaster of Science in Civil Engineeringen_US
dc.titleInvestigating factors affecting energy consumption in rural Alaskan water treatment and distribution systems, and exploring energy-saving strategies for wastewater treatment in cold climatesen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.degreemsen_US
dc.identifier.departmentDepartment of Civil, Geological, and Environmental Engineeringen_US
dc.contributor.chairAggarwal, Srijan
dc.contributor.chairDev, Subhabrata
dc.contributor.committeeSchiewer, Silke
dc.contributor.committeeHuang, Daisy


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Rashedin_M_2023.pdf
Embargo:
2025-05-02
Size:
5.746Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record