| Literature DB >> 32890889 |
Liangliang Wei1, Fengyi Zhu2, Qiaoyang Li2, Chonghua Xue3, Xinhui Xia2, Hang Yu2, Qingliang Zhao2, Junqiu Jiang2, Shunwen Bai2.
Abstract
This study statistically reported the current state of sludge treatment/disposal in China from the aspects of sources, technical routes, geographical distribution, and development by using observational data after 1978. By the end of 2019, 5476 municipal wastewater treatment plants were operating in China, leading to an annual sludge productivity of 39.04 million tons (80% water content). Overall, 29.3% of the sludge in China was disposed via land application, followed by incineration (26.7%) and sanitary landfills (20.1%). Incineration, compost, thermal hydrolysis and anerobic digestion were the mainstream technologies for sludge treatment in China, with capacities of 27,122, 11,250, 8342 and 6944 t/d in 2019, respectively. Incineration and drying were preferentially constructed in East China. In contrast, sludge compost was most frequently used in Northeast China (46.5%), East China (22.4%) and Central China (12.8%), while anaerobic digestion in East China, North China and Central China. The capacities of sludge facilities exhibited a sharp increase in 2009-2019, with an overall greenhouse gas emissions in China in 2019 reached 108.18 × 108 kg CO2-equivaient emissions, and the four main technical routes contributed as: incineration (45.11%) > sanitary landfills (23.04%) > land utilization (17.64%) > building materials (14.21%). Challenges and existing problems of sludge disposal in China, including high CO2 emissions, unbalanced regional development, low stabilization and land utilization levels, were discussed. Finally, suggestions regarding potential technical and administrative measures in China, and sustainable sludge management for developing countries, were also given.Entities:
Keywords: China; Future perspectives; GHG emission; Management; Sludge; Technical routes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32890889 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Int ISSN: 0160-4120 Impact factor: 9.621