首页> 外文期刊>Environmental Impact Assesment Review >A comparison of different scenarios for on-site reuse of blackwater and kitchen waste using the life cycle assessment methodology
【24h】

A comparison of different scenarios for on-site reuse of blackwater and kitchen waste using the life cycle assessment methodology

机译:使用生命周期评估方法对黑水和厨余垃圾现场回用的不同方案进行比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Decentralized systems for treatment of domestic effluents have been suggested as a sustainable alternative for situations where conventional sanitation has not yet been established. This study compares three possible scenarios for the destination of separated blackwater (BW) and kitchen waste (KW), being: co-digestion of both (BW &KW) in loco with subsequent reuse of sub-products like nutrients and water (scenario 1); discharge of BW into a septic-tank and composting of the KW (scenario 2) and discharge of the BW into a septic-tank and of the KW at a solid waste disposal (scenario 3, actually the most common situation in large part of Brazil). In order to compare the scenarios, the use of equivalent amounts of water and fertilizer was considered in scenarios 2 (septic-tank and composting) and 3 (septic-tank and landfill), in order to maintain functional equivalence with that of scenario 1 (co-digestion and reuse). In scenario 1, treatment of the organic waste in an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor, for a period of 6 (scenario 1A) or 12 days (scenario 1B), with effluent recycling, was considered. In order to verify the effect of the use of energy in scenario 1 and to verify the effect of the degree of treatment realized in scenarios 2 and 3, a sensitivity analysis was realized for the parameters energy use and COD removal. The management of the sub-products in scenario 1 resulted in emission gains, when compared to scenarios 2 and 3, where the need to include amounts of water and fertilizer, to obtain functional equivalence, increased the environmental impacts associated to these scenarios. However the energy consumption increased the impact levels in scenario 1 and, overall, scenario 2 (septic-tank and composting), obtained the lowest impact scores, presenting the most advantageous scenario, among the three scenarios studied, from an environmental point of view, considering the restrictions as defined here, followed by scenarios 3 (septic-tank and landfill), 1A (6-day co-digestion and reuse) and 1B (12-day co-digestion and reuse). After the sensitivity analysis the influence of energy consumption on the impact categories for scenario 1 became evident, whereas, on the other hand, the degree of pollution removal from the blackwater did not change the overall results, making thus minimizing energy consumption during treatment more relevant than improving pollutant removal, in order to minimize the environmental impacts.
机译:对于尚未建立常规卫生设施的情况,有人建议采用分散式系统处理生活污水。这项研究比较了分离的黑水(BW)和厨房垃圾(KW)的三种可能情况,即:在机车中共同消化(BW和KW)以及随后再利用诸如养分和水等副产品的情况(场景1) ;将BW排入化粪池并对KW进行堆肥(方案2),并在固体废物处置中将BW排入化粪池和KW(方案3),实际上是巴西大部分地区最常见的情况)。为了比较方案,在方案2(化粪池和堆肥)和方案3(化粪池和垃圾填埋场)中考虑了等量的水和肥料的使用,以保持与方案1的功能等效(共同消化和重复使用)。在方案1中,考虑将有机废物在上流厌氧污泥覆盖物(UASB)反应器中处理6天(方案1A)或12天(方案1B),并进行废水再循环。为了验证方案1中能源使用的效果并验证方案2和3中实现的处理程度的效果,对参数能源使用和COD去除进行了敏感性分析。与方案2和方案3相比,方案1中子产品的管理导致排放增加,在方案2和方案3中,需要包括水和肥料的量以获得功能等效性,从而增加了与这些方案相关的环境影响。但是,从环境的角度来看,能源消耗增加了方案1的影响程度,总体而言,方案2(化粪池和堆肥)的影响得分最低,是所研究的三种方案中最有利的方案。考虑此处定义的限制,然后是方案3(化粪池和垃圾填埋场),1A(6天共同消化和再利用)和1B(12天共同消化和再利用)。经过敏感性分析后,情景1的能耗对影响类别的影响变得很明显,而另一方面,从黑水中去除污染物的程度并没有改变总体结果,因此使处理过程中的能耗最小化更为相关而不是改善污染物的去除,以最大程度地减少对环境的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号