Iron (Fe)-based groundwater treatment removes carcinogenic
arsenic
(As) effectively but generates toxic As-rich Fe oxide water treatment
residuals (As WTRs) that must be managed appropriately to prevent
environmental contamination. In this study, we apply life cycle assessment
(LCA) to compare the toxicity impacts of four common As WTR disposal
strategies that have different infrastructure requirements and waste
control: (i) landfilling, (ii) brick stabilization, (iii) mixture
with organic waste, and (iv) open disposal. The As disposal toxicity
impacts (functional unit = 1.0 kg As) are compared and benchmarked
against impacts of current methods to produce marketable As compounds
via As mining and concentrate processing. Landfilling had the lowest
non-carcinogen toxicity (2.0 × 10–3 CTUh),
carcinogen toxicity (3.8 × 10–5 CTUh), and
ecotoxicity (4.6 × 103 CTUe) impacts of the four disposal
strategies, with the largest toxicity source being As emission via
sewer discharge of treated landfill leachate. Although landfilling
had the lowest toxicity impacts, the stored toxicity of this strategy
was substantial (ratio of stored toxicity/emitted As = 13), suggesting
that landfill disposal simply converts direct As emissions to an impending
As toxicity problem for future generations. The remaining disposal
strategies, which are frequently practiced in low-income rural As-affected
areas, performed poorly. These strategies yielded ∼3–10
times greater human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts than landfilling.
The significant drawbacks of each disposal strategy indicated by the
LCA highlight the urgent need for new methods to recover As from WTRs
and convert it into valuable As compounds. Such advanced As recovery
technologies, which have not been documented previously, would decrease
the stored As toxicity and As emissions from both WTR disposal and
from mining As ore.