Life‐Cycle Assessment of Biosolids Processing Options
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19468145 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gregory Peters (0000-0001-8319-168X, Sydney Water, corresponding author), Gregory M Peters, Sven Lundie (University of Technology Sydney) |
| Year | 2001 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 103-121 |
| Publication date | 2001-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1162/10881980152830169 |
| OpenAlex | W2101388368 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 7 |
Biosolids, also known as sewage sludge, are reusable organic materials separated from sewage during treatment. They can be managed in a variety of ways. Different options for biosolids handling in Sydney, Australia, are compared in this study using life‐cycle assessment. Two key comparisons are made: of system scenarios (scenario 1 is local dewatering and lime amendment; scenario 2 is a centralized drying system) and of technologies (thermal drying versus lime amendment). The environmental issues addressed are energy consumption, global warming potential (GWP), and human toxicity potential (HTP). Scenario 2 would consume 24% more energy than scenario 1. This is due to the additional electricity for pumping and particularly the petrochemical methane that supplements biogas in the drier. A centralized system using the same technologies as scenario 1 has approximately the same impacts. The GWP and HTP of the different scenarios do not differ significantly. The assessment of technology choices shows significant differences. The ample supply of endogenous biogas at North Head sewage treatment plant for the drying option allows reductions, relative to the lime‐amendment option, of 68% in energy consumption, 45% in GWP, and 23% in HTP. Technology choices have more significant influence on the environmental profile of biosolids processing than does the choice of system configurations. Controlling variables for environmental improvement are the selection of biogas fuel, avoidance of coalsourced electrical energy, minimization of trucking distances, and raising the solids content of biosolids products
Biogas · Biosolids · Cogeneration · Dewatering · Electricity generation · Greenhouse gas · Life-cycle assessment · Lime · Sewage sludge · Sewage treatment · Waste management · Engineering · Environmental Science · Healthcare and Environmental Waste Management · Municipal Solid Waste Management · Wastewater Treatment and Reuse · Ecology · Environmental Engineering
| Citations per year | 0.08 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2013 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |