| Literature DB >> 29800857 |
Aikaterini Anastasopoulou1, Athanasios Kolios2, Tosin Somorin3, Ayodeji Sowale4, Ying Jiang5, Beatriz Fidalgo6, Alison Parker7, Leon Williams8, Matt Collins9, Ewan McAdam10, Sean Tyrrel11.
Abstract
In many developing countries, including South Africa, water scarcity has resulted in poor sanitation practices. The majority of the sanitation infrastructures in those regions fail to meet basic hygienic standards. This along with the lack of proper sewage/wastewater infrastructure creates significant environmental and public health concerns. A self-sustained, waterless "Nano Membrane Toilet" (NMT) design was proposed as a result of the "Reinvent the Toilet Challenge" funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A "cradle-to-grave" life cycle assessment (LCA) approach was adopted to study the use of NMT in comparison with conventional pour flush toilet (PFT) and urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT). All three scenarios were applied in the context of South Africa. In addition, a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) was used to reflect the impact of the pathogen risk on human health. LCA study showed that UDDT had the best environmental performance, followed by NMT and PFT systems for all impact categories investigated including human health, resource and ecosystem. This was mainly due to the environmental credits associated with the use of urine and compost as fertilizers. However, with the incorporation of the pathogen impact into the human health impact category, the NMT had a significant better performance than the PFT and UDDT systems, which exhibited an impact category value 4E + 04 and 4E + 03 times higher, respectively. Sensitivity analysis identified that the use of ash as fertilizer, electricity generation and the reduction of NOx emissions were the key areas that influenced significantly the environmental performance of the NMT system.Entities:
Keywords: Conventional sanitation systems; Environmental assessment; Nano-membrane toilet; Quantitative microbial risk assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29800857 PMCID: PMC6021597 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Total Environ ISSN: 0048-9697 Impact factor: 7.963
Fig. 1System boundaries of the Nano Membrane Toilet (NMT) for Scenario A and B.
Fig. 2System boundaries of the Pour Flush Toilet (PFT).
Fig. 3System boundaries of the Urine Diverting Dry Toilet (UDDT) for Scenario A and B.
Input material and energy flow data for the LCA study per functional unit.a
| Process | NMT | PFT | UDDT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faeces (kg) | 2.00E+00 | 2.00E+00 | 2.00E+00 |
| N (kg) | 1.10E-02 | 1.10E-02 | 1.10E-02 |
| P (kg) | 5.48E-03 | 5.48E-03 | 5.48E-03 |
| K (kg) | 1.10E-02 | 1.10E-02 | 1.10E-02 |
| Urine (kg) | 1.42E+01 | 1.42E+01 | 1.42E+01 |
| N (kg) | 8.22E-02 | 8.22E-02 | 8.22E-02 |
| P (kg) | 8.22E-03 | 8.22E-03 | 8.22E-03 |
| K (kg) | 3.29E-02 | 3.29E-02 | 3.29E-02 |
| Polystyrene - toilet seat (kg) | 9.39E-04 | 3.65E-04 | 3.65E-04 |
| Polystyrene - cistern (kg) | 1.64E-03 | - | - |
| Glass fibre - membrane (kg) | 1.45E-05 | - | - |
| Alloy steel - combustor (kg) | 3.32E-04 | - | - |
| Alloy steel – screw (kg) | 4.20E-04 | - | |
| Injection moulding (kg) | 3.33E-03 | 3.65E-04 | 3.65E-04 |
| Sanitary ceramics - toilet bowl (kg) | 8.45E-03 | 3.29E-03 | 3.29E-03 |
| Transportation (t-km) | 1.11E-02 | 3.43E-03 | 3.43E-03 |
| Glass fibre (kg) | 6.17E-04 | - | - |
| Water (kg) | - | 1.50E+02 | - |
| Ash (kg) | 8.00E-02 | - | - |
| P (kg) | 1.10E-02 | - | - |
| K (kg) | 1.21E-02 | - | - |
| NOx-emissions (kg) | 1.10E-02 | ||
| Transportation (t-km) | - | 3.82E+00 | 5.00E-02 |
| Electricity (kWh) | 6.80E-02 | 6.60E-03 | |
| Diesel (kg) | - | - | 1.11E-02 |
| Lime (kg) | - | 2.00E-03 | - |
| Polymer (kg) | - | 2.14E-05 | - |
| Iron chloride (FeCl3) (kg) | - | 1.42E-05 | - |
| NH3-emissions (kg) | - | - | 1.42E-03 |
| CH4-emissions(kg) | - | - | 8.00E-03 |
| N2O-emissions (kg) | - | 7.32E-04 | 4.80E-04 |
| Transportation | 2.72E-03 | 3.60E-04 | 4.80E-01 |
| N-Fertilizer (kg) | - | 1.85E-02 | 7.88E-02 |
| P-Fertilizer (kg) | 1.04E-02 | 8.63E-03 | 1.33E-02 |
| K-Fertilizer (kg) | 1.21E-02 | - | 4.30E-02 |
| Electricity (kWh) | 4.62E-02 | - | - |
| Treated wastewater (kg) | 9.56E+00 | 1.50E+02 | - |
(Hanak et al., 2016).
(Rose et al., 2015) for a densityUrine=1.002 g/cm3.
(Jönsson and Vinnerås, 2004).
(Genty et al., 2014)
Estimations from NMT-Project.
P and K content estimated as a percentage of 13.7% and 15.1% of total ash, respectively (Onabanjo et al., 2017).
Energy consumption of 590.69 kwh/Ml for an activated sludge treatment plant (Scheepers and van Der Merwe-Botha, 2012).
Data adopted from a WWTP with capacity of 50,000–100,000 IE treating nitrogen and/or phosphorus for a total influent volume of 1.15E-01 m3 [massfaecal sludge = 166.21 kg; densityfaecal sludge = 1443.1 kg/m3(Niwagaba et al., 2014)] (Lassaux et al., 2007).
Eq. 6.8 (Doorn et al., 2006).
(van Haaren, 2009).
Estimated as 13% of the total input N content (Hao and Benke, 2008).
Estimated based on the Eq. (4.1), for an EF = 4 g CH4/kg waste treated [composting; on wet weight basis; Mi = amount of faeces expressed in Gg and R = 0 (without gas recovery)] (Pipatti et al., 2006).
Estimated based on the eq. (4.2), for an EF = 0.24 g N2O/kg waste treated [composting on wet weight basis and Mi = amount of faeces expressed in Gg] (Pipatti et al., 2006).
Estimated for a sewage sludge of 2.76E-02 kg [sewage sludge production rate of 0.24 kg·m3 of treated wastewater](Gurjar and Tyagi, 2017).
Estimated for a compost weight of 50% of the faecal matter (Miller and Jones, 1995).
N, P and K fertilizers for ash and compost application estimated as a percentage of 45%, 95% and 100% of the applied nutrient content, respectively [average value of mid-term period values] (Lazcano et al., 2014).
N and P content in sewage sludge estimated as a percentage of 40% and 90% of the influent nutrient content (From wastewater to eco-friendly fertilizer, 2016).
N and P fertilizers estimated as a percentage of 50% and 70% of the respective applied nutrient content (Hospido et al., 2008).
N fertilizer from urine application estimated as 90% of the urine N content (Karak and Bhattacharyya, 2011).
P and K fertilizers from urine application estimated as 100% of the respective urine nutrient content (Kirchmann and Pettersson, 1995).
Pathogen concentration in faeces and river water expressed in [# of pathogens/mg faeces or ml water].
| Pathogen | Faecal concentration | Water concentration (River) |
|---|---|---|
| Enterotoxigenic | 1.00E+04 - 1.00+05 | 3.36E+02 - 3.36E+03 |
| 1.00E+01 - 1.00E+02 | 3.36E–01 - 3.36E+00 | |
| 1.00E+00 - 1.00E+04 | 3.36E–02 - 3.36E+02 | |
| Norovirus | 1.00E+04 - 1.00E+05 | 3.36E+02 - 3.36E+03 |
| Rotavirus | 1.00E+02 - 1.00E+07 | 3.36E+00 - 3.36E+05 |
Fig. 4Contribution of life-cycle phases to human health impact category expressed in DALYs per functional unit (PFU).
Fig. 5Contribution of life-cycle phases to resources impact category expressed in $ per functional unit (PFU).
Fig. 6Contribution of life-cycle phases to ecosystems impact category expressed in Species.yr per functional unit (PFU).
Fig. 7Impact of a) transportation and b) electricity on the LCIA profiles of the sanitation systems (sensitivity scenarios normalized against initial conditions of each sanitation system).
Fig. 8Impact of c) nutrients content and d) NOX gases on the LCIA profiles of the sanitation systems (sensitivity scenarios normalized against initial conditions of each sanitation system).
Pathogen risk estimated in DALYs for each examined exposure route from Monte Carlo Simulations (median values).
| Pathogen | Route 1 | Route 2 | Route 3 | Route 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterotoxigenic | 8.36E-05 | 5.32E-06 | 5.26E-05 | 7.84E-05 |
| 3.62E-05 | 7.99E-06 | 2.98E-05 | 3.53E-05 | |
| 6.10E-04 | 6.10E-04 | 6.10E-04 | 6.10E-04 | |
| Norovirus | 2.43E-04 | 1.96E-04 | 2.32E-04 | 2.41E-04 |
| Rotavirus | 1.35E-04 | 1.34E-04 | 1.35E-04 | 1.35E-04 |
| Total risk (per person) | 1.11E-03 | 9.52E-04 | 1.06E-03 | 1.10E-03 |
| Total risk (affected population) | 2.22E-03 | 9.52E-03 | 1.06E-02 | 2.20E-03 |
Fig. 9Normalized percentage contribution of environmental credits, burdens and pathogen risk to human health impact category for the NMT (w/ ash), UDDT (w/ compost) and PFT systems (absolute values are presented in the table under the relevant graph).