| Literature DB >> 29725147 |
Athanasios Kolios1, Ying Jiang1, Tosin Somorin1, Ayodeji Sowale1, Aikaterini Anastasopoulou1, Edward J Anthony1, Beatriz Fidalgo1, Alison Parker1, Ewan McAdam1, Leon Williams1, Matt Collins1, Sean Tyrrel1.
Abstract
A probabilistic modelling approach was developed and applied to investigate the energy and environmental performance of an innovative sanitation system, tEntities:
Keywords: Artificial neural network; Energy recovery; Nano Membrane Toilet; Probabilistic performance assessment; Reinvent the Toilet Challenge
Year: 2018 PMID: 29725147 PMCID: PMC5907802 DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Energy Convers Manag ISSN: 0196-8904 Impact factor: 9.709
Fig. 1Overview of the probabilistic performance assessment framework.
Fig. 2An optimised energy and water recovery system for the Nano Membrane Toilet.
Human excreta composition.
| Settled Solids | Supernatant | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Component | Dry Basis (wt.%) | Component | As received (wt.%) |
| Proximate Analysis | Mass concentration | ||
| Fixed carbon | 0 | Water | 97.2 |
| Volatile matter | 82.6 | Urea | 1.38 |
| Ash | 17.4 | Sodium chloride | 0.82 |
| Moisture (as received basis (wt.%)) | 77.0 | Potassium chloride | 0.17 |
| Dry Basis (wt.%) | Potassium sulphate | 0.27 | |
| Ultimate analysis | Magnesium sulphate | 0.08 | |
| Carbon | 50.8 | Magnesium carbonate | 0.01 |
| Hydrogen | 6.8 | Potassium bicarbonate | 0.07 |
| Oxygen | 20.9 | Lysine | 0.01 |
| Nitrogen | 4.1 | Asparagine | 0.01 |
| Ash | 17.4 | Phenol | 0.03 |
Initial design conditions for the revised energy and water recovery system.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Equivalent ratio (ER) | 1.1 |
| Specific power requirement for screw conveyor (J/kgsettledsolids) | 200 |
| Auxiliary power requirement (J/kgsettledsolids) | 1643 |
| Isentropic efficiency of air fan (%) | 90.0 |
| Mechanical efficiency of air fan (%) | 99.8 |
| Sweep Air Mass Flow (kg/day) | 54.9 |
| Combustor Restricted Approach Temperature (°C) | 600 |
| Dryer Temperature (°C) | 105 |
| Fraction of Exhaust Vented (%) | 60 |
| Exhaust Temperature (°C) | 280 |
| Desired moisture content of dried solids (wt.%) | 20 |
| Air preheater approach temperature (°C) | 25 |
| Settled solids per cap per day (g) | 210 |
| Supernatant per cap per day (dm3) | 1.46 |
| Supernatant outlet temperature (°C) | 55 |
| Stirling Engine Working Fluid Temperature/Heater Temperature (°C) | 600 |
| Stirling Engine Cooler Temperature (°C) | 50 |
Stochastic variables and their distribution.
| Variable | Nominal value | Variation |
|---|---|---|
| Faeces per capita per day | 210 g/cap/day | 15% |
| Urine per capita per day | 1.46 dm3/cap/day | 15% |
| Equivalence Ratio (ER) | 1.1 | 5% |
| Desired moisture content of dried solids | 20% | 10% |
| Stirling engine working fluid temperature | 600 °C | 5% |
| Stirling engine cooler temperature | 50 °C | 5% |
| Combustion Temperature | 600 °C | 10% |
| Preheated Air Supply | 25 °C | 10% |
| Faeces Ash/Volatile Matter Ratio | 0.21 | 10% |
| Fraction of Exhaust Vented | 60% | 10% |
| Dryer Temperature | 105 °C | 10% |
| Exhaust Temperature | 280 °C | 10% |
| Sweep Air Mass Flow | 54.86 kg/day | 10% |
Deterministic performance indicators of the conceptual energy and water recovery systems of the NMT.
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| Adiabatic Flame Temperature (oC) | 1367.2 |
| Exhaust Gas Temperature (oC) | 280 |
| Dryer Temperature (oC) | 105 |
| Stirling Engine Power Output (W) | 65.8 |
| Stirling Engine Power Consumption (W) | 397 |
| Stirling Engine Efficiency (%) | 16.8 |
| Dryer Heat Requirement (W) | 41.2 |
| NMT Net Power Output (W) | 22.3 |
| NMT Heat Input (W) | 88.8 |
| NMT Net Efficiency (%) | 25.1 |
| Water Recovery Efficiency (%) | 74.1 |
| Total CO2 and CO emissions (kg/kgsettled solids) | 0.42 |
| Total NOx (kg/kgsettled solids) | 0.02 |
Fig. 3ANN training performance.
Fig. 4Assessment of thermodynamic performance.
Fig. 5Probability distribution of water recovery efficiency.
Fig. 6Probability distribution of net emissions.
Fig. 7Percentage contributions of the input variables to power outputs.
Fig. 8Percentage contributions of the input variables to water recovery efficiency.
Fig. 9Percentage contributions of the input variables to emissions.