Feasibility of alternative sewage sludge treatment methods from a lifecycle assessment (LCA) perspective

Monitoring of Heavy Metals, Eox and Las in Sewage Sludge for Agricultural Use: A Case Study

“…Teoh and Li (2020) studied alternative sludge treatment methods applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); the investigated aspects were sludge volume, pollutants, global warming and toxicity. It was concluded that anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and supercritical water oxidation were the best-performing treatment methods (Teoh and Li, 2020), suggesting that a differentiated approach is highly recommended in sludge treatment and valorization, enhancing the recovery of both energy and material, whilst at the same time reducing environmental contamination hazards.…”

Characterization of organic compounds and drugs in sewage sludge aiming for agricultural recycling

“…Different sludge treatment methods can be used, such as biological, chemical, thermal, and thermochemical. Teoh and Li (2020) gathered studies that allowed to conclude that the biological sludge treatment methods, such as anaerobic digestion, compost and swamps, are the most effective to reduce organic compounds and medicines, but do not degrade heavy metals. Considering the SS life cycle, the same authors concluded that anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) are the most effective treatments for both weight/volume reduction and toxicity reduction and still have less Global Warming Potential (GWP) in the SS degradation process.…”

“…Although anaerobic digestion has been considered one of the best treatments among the compared treatments, as it degrades about 30% of some drugs and reduces the level of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in SS by up to 32% in 21 days, this method does not reduce levels of metals in the soil. Pyrolysis was able to reduce Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin and Dibenzofuran (PCDD/F) and metals, and SCWO reduced by 95% Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and 99% the metals chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe) (Teoh and Li, 2020).…”

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of a New Sewage Treatment Plant in China Based on Infrastructure Construction and Operation Phases Emergy Analysis

“…The results illustrate that (1) the infrastructure construction process emergy (approximate 92.6%) is more critical than sewage treatment process emergy; (2) nonrenewable resource is the primary factor for the emergy analysis, followed by energy (23.5%) and purchased supply (7%); (3) cement, steel, and gravel have dominant impacts on the nonrenewable resource emergy; (4) the emergy sustainability index is 0.001101, which displays weak environmental sustainability; (5) the unit emergy value (UEV) of the new sewage treatment plant is 3.40 × 10 12 sej/m 3 ; (6) sensitivity analysis results of the hypothesis demonstrate that nonrenewable resources have significant fluctuations (6.903%) while, for the indicators, emergy sustainability index (ESI) (4.8072%) has the most significant impact; and (7) wastewater is a major contributor. In light of comprehensive discussions, two positive measures are proposed in order to ameliorate the environmental sustainability.Water 2020, 12, 484 2 of 23 between the environment in the sewage treatment industry using biological perspective analysis [5][6][7][8], lifecycle assessment (LCA) perspective [9], ecology models perspective [10], energy and economy performances [11], sewage treatment and water supply efficiency [12], chemical and physical angles [13,14], construction in the wastewater treatment plants [15], integrating wastewater treatment and incineration plants for energy-efficient study [16], sampling strategy for the sewage sludge survey [17], soil and the treatment of sewage treatment plant [18], and systematic assessment framework [19].However, these studies have the following drawbacks: (1) for the isolated angles analysis, only one or some perspectives are chosen to demonstrate the interaction between environmental issues and the sewage treatment industry, resulting in a few unilateral conclusions; (2) ignorance of natural resources assessment leads to a negative impact on sustainability in the sewage treatment industry; (3) undifferentiated contribution degrees from different resource types could cause deviation inaccuracy to some extent; (4) there is a lack of a unified platform to evaluate sustainability in the sewage treatment industry, for example, an integrated method assessment should comprise resources, energy, labor, and others; and (5) some studies are unable to consider multiple pollutant emissions simultaneously, such as exhaust gas, wastewater, and solid waste. It will have a harmful effect on sustainability in the sewage treatment industry.…”

“…Water 2020, 12, 484 2 of 23 between the environment in the sewage treatment industry using biological perspective analysis [5][6][7][8], lifecycle assessment (LCA) perspective [9], ecology models perspective [10], energy and economy performances [11], sewage treatment and water supply efficiency [12], chemical and physical angles [13,14], construction in the wastewater treatment plants [15], integrating wastewater treatment and incineration plants for energy-efficient study [16], sampling strategy for the sewage sludge survey [17], soil and the treatment of sewage treatment plant [18], and systematic assessment framework [19].…”