Life cycle assessment of the mesophilic, thermophilic, and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60461373%3A22320%2F20%3A43920416" target="_blank" >RIV/60461373:22320/20:43920416 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/11/3140" target="_blank" >https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/11/3140</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w12113140" target="_blank" >10.3390/w12113140</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Life cycle assessment of the mesophilic, thermophilic, and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In this study the environmental impact of the anaerobic digestion (AD) of sewage sludge within an activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was investigated. Three alternative AD systems (mesophilic, thermophilic, and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD)) were compared to determine which system may have the best environmental performance. Two life cycle assessments (LCA) were performed considering: (i) the whole WWTP (for a functional unit (FU) of 1 m3 of treated wastewater), and (ii) the sludge line (SL) alone (for FU of 1 m3 of produced methane). The data for the LCA were obtained from previous laboratory experimental work in combination with full-scale WWTP and literature. According to the results, the WWTP with TPAD outperforms those with mesophilic and thermophilic AD in most analyzed impact categories (i.e., Human toxicity, Ionizing radiation, Metal and Fossil depletion, Agricultural land occupation, Terrestrial acidification, Freshwater eutrophication, and Ozone depletion), except for Climate change where the WWTP with mesophilic AD performed better than with TPAD by 7%. In the case of the SL alone, the production of heat and electricity (here accounted for as avoided environmental impacts) led to credits in most of the analyzed impact categories except for Human toxicity where credits did not balance out the impacts caused by the wastewater treatment system. The best AD alternative was thermophilic concerning all environmental impact categories, besides Climate change and Human toxicity. Differences between both LCA results may be attributed to the FU. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Life cycle assessment of the mesophilic, thermophilic, and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge

Popis výsledku anglicky

In this study the environmental impact of the anaerobic digestion (AD) of sewage sludge within an activated sludge wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was investigated. Three alternative AD systems (mesophilic, thermophilic, and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD)) were compared to determine which system may have the best environmental performance. Two life cycle assessments (LCA) were performed considering: (i) the whole WWTP (for a functional unit (FU) of 1 m3 of treated wastewater), and (ii) the sludge line (SL) alone (for FU of 1 m3 of produced methane). The data for the LCA were obtained from previous laboratory experimental work in combination with full-scale WWTP and literature. According to the results, the WWTP with TPAD outperforms those with mesophilic and thermophilic AD in most analyzed impact categories (i.e., Human toxicity, Ionizing radiation, Metal and Fossil depletion, Agricultural land occupation, Terrestrial acidification, Freshwater eutrophication, and Ozone depletion), except for Climate change where the WWTP with mesophilic AD performed better than with TPAD by 7%. In the case of the SL alone, the production of heat and electricity (here accounted for as avoided environmental impacts) led to credits in most of the analyzed impact categories except for Human toxicity where credits did not balance out the impacts caused by the wastewater treatment system. The best AD alternative was thermophilic concerning all environmental impact categories, besides Climate change and Human toxicity. Differences between both LCA results may be attributed to the FU. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

20801 - Environmental biotechnology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

R - Projekt Ramcoveho programu EK

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Water

ISSN

2073-4441

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

12

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

11

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

20

Strana od-do

1-20

Kód UT WoS článku

000594171700001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85096358873