| Literature DB >> 31707178 |
Benedict C Krueger1, Geoffrey D Fowler2, Michael R Templeton2, Berta Moya3.
Abstract
Unsafe disposal of faecal sludge from onsite sanitation in low-income countries has detrimental effects on public health and the environment. The production of biochar from faecal sludge offers complete destruction of pathogens and a value-added treatment product. To date, research has been limited to the laboratory. This study evaluates the biochars produced from the co-treatment of faecal sludge from septic tanks and agricultural waste at two full-scale treatment plants in India by determining their physical and chemical properties to establish their potential applications. The process yielded macroporous, powdery biochars that can be utilised for soil amendment or energy recovery. Average calorific values reaching 14.9 MJ/kg suggest use as solid fuel, but are limited by a high ash content. Phosphorus and potassium are enriched in the biochar but their concentrations are restricted by the nutrient-depleted nature of septic tank faecal sludge. High concentrations of calcium and magnesium led to a liming potential of up to 20.1% calcium carbonate equivalents, indicating suitability for use on acidic soils. Heavy metals present in faecal sludge were concentrated in the biochar and compliance for soil application will depend on local regulations. Nevertheless, heavy metal mobility was considerably reduced, especially for Cu and Zn, by 51.2-65.2% and 48.6-59.6% respectively. Co-treatment of faecal sludge with other carbon-rich waste streams can be used to influence desired biochar properties. In this case, the addition of agricultural waste increased nutrient and fixed carbon concentrations, as well as providing an additional source of energy. This study is a proof of concept for biochar production achieving full-scale faecal sludge treatment. The findings will help inform appropriate use of the treatment products as this technology becomes more commonly applied.Entities:
Keywords: Biochar; Co-treatment; Faecal sludge; Sanitation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31707178 PMCID: PMC6961206 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Water Res ISSN: 0043-1354 Impact factor: 11.236
Fig. 1Conceptual diagram of biochar production for faecal sludge treatment.
Advantages and disadvantages of biochar production as FS treatment.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
Complete destruction of pathogens Low space requirement for continuous processes Net energy surplus depending on FS water content Co-treatment with other waste fractions Containerised design possible Storage, transport and disposal of outputs simplified through reduced volume and biochemical stability Biochar applications including soil amendment, fuel, adsorption media and C sequestration Phosphorus and potassium are retained in biochar Biochar may improve physiochemical soil properties | Limited availability of research data Little to no experience at scale Relatively complex process control High operational temperatures Energy-intensive drying required before pyrolysis Need for flue gas treatment Inadequate design may lead to harmful air emissions Nitrogen is largely lost to the vapour phase Potential formation of organic contaminants in biochars such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins and furans |
Fig. 2Long section (a) and plan view (b) of the reactor design.
Characterisation of feedstock material.
| Parameter | Unit | N-FS | W-FS | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatile matter | [%] | 63.7 | 47.4 | 77.3 |
| Fixed carbon | [%] | 11.2 | 5.3 | 14.4 |
| Ash | [%] | 25.1 | 47.3 | 8.3 |
| C | [% w/w] | 41.11 | 28.42 | 44.85 |
| H | [% w/w] | 4.95 | 3.40 | 5.58 |
| N | [% w/w] | 4.36 | 2.55 | 0.58 |
| S | [% w/w] | 1.57 | 1.66 | 1.11 |
| P | [g/kg] | 0.81 | 1.54 | 0.01 |
| Ca | [g/kg] | 32.86 | 56.68 | 5.40 |
| Mg | [g/kg] | 4.28 | 4.84 | 0.93 |
| K | [g/kg] | 1.58 | 2.63 | 5.16 |
| HHV | [MJ/kg] | 18.3 | 12.3 | 17.6 |
Fig. 3TG and DTG results from N-FS (a), N-CBC (b), W-FS (c), W-CBC (d) and PF (e).
Physical and chemical biochar properties, comparative literature values and international guidelines.
| Parameter | Unit | N-BC | N-CBC | W-BC | W-CBC | Uganda | Ethiopia | IBI | EBC | EU | USEPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 12 | 1 | 12 | 1 | |||||||
| Volatile matter | [%] | 20.3 | 21.1 | 14.2 | 13.3 | 6.7–26.1 | |||||
| Fixed carbon | [%] | 34.1 | 28.6 | 17.2 | 6.1 | 18.8–23.3 | |||||
| Ash | [%] | 45.6 | 50.3 | 60.8 | 80.6 | 54.5–73.8 | |||||
| HHV | [MJ/kg] | 14.9 | 13.9 | 9.7 | 4.9 | 8.8–12.4 | |||||
| pH | [ ] | 10.5 | 9.4 | 10.8 | 12 | 9.1–11.2 | 8.23 | ||||
| CaCO3-equ. | [%] | 13.8 | 16.9 | 20.1 | 23.7 | ||||||
| Ca | [g/kg] | 56.4 | 63.3 | 89.4 | 103.4 | 32.8 | |||||
| Mg | [g/kg] | 7.8 | 8.9 | 9.6 | 12 | 28.9 | |||||
| K total | [g/kg] | 8.1 | 8.1 | 11.7 | 8.8 | 8.21 | |||||
| K available | [% of total] | 77.7 | 78.3 | 71.9 | 58.1 | ||||||
| P total | [g/kg] | 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 31–42 | 42.7 | ||||
| P available | [% of total] | 61.0 | 52.1 | 53.7 | 41.5 | 75.3–98.3 | |||||
| Cd | [mg/kg] | 13.5 | 15.1 | 12.4 | 15.5 | 1.23 | 1.4–39 | 1.5 | 20–40 | 85 | |
| Cr | [mg/kg] | 56.1 | 92 | 54.3 | 98.6 | 113.7–194.2 | 39.5 | 93–1200 | 90 | 3000 | |
| Cu | [mg/kg] | 463.0 | 541.1 | 310.3 | 370.7 | 81.8–113.2 | 214 | 143–6000 | 100 | 1000–1750 | 4300 |
| Ni | [mg/kg] | 122.7 | 100.3 | 164.1 | 184.9 | 57.4–96.5 | 84.4 | 47–420 | 50 | 300–400 | 420 |
| Pb | [mg/kg] | 395.3 | 552.9 | 241.7 | 311.9 | <5–21.5 | 502 | 121–300 | 150 | 750–1200 | 840 |
| Zn | [mg/kg] | 1516.9 | 2173.2 | 1072.9 | 1385.2 | 872.9–1116 | 28400 | 416–7400 | 400 | 2500–4000 | 7500 |
(Gold et al., 2018).
(Woldetsadik et al., 2016).
Maximum thresholds for biochar (IBI, 2015).
Basic quality biochar (EBC, 2019).
Limit values in sludge for use in agriculture (EEC, 1986).
Ceiling concentrations for biosolids applied to land (Walker et al., 1994).
Fig. 4Relationship between CCE and cumulative Ca and Mg concentrations of all studied biochars.
Fig. 5Mobility of heavy metals in FS and their derived biochars. Error bars denote standard deviations.
Comparison of leachable heavy metals fractions between FS and control samples.
| Parameter | Unit | N-FS | N-CBC | W-FS | W-CBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cr | [%] | 31.4 | 12.8 | 42.4 | 19.1 |
| Cu | [%] | 86.5 | 42.2 | 60.9 | 21.2 |
| Mn | [%] | 98.3 | 74.4 | 96.0 | 73.9 |
| Ni | [%] | 56.6 | 54.6 | 47.1 | 50.9 |
| Zn | [%] | 101.4 | 41.0 | 103.5 | 53.2 |
Fig. 6Particle size distribution of N-BC and W-BC. Error bars denote standard deviations.
Fig. 7SEM images of N-FS (a,b), N-BC (c,d), W-BC (e,f).