Sustainability assessment of faecal sludge treatment technologies for resource recovery in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Chea Eliyan, Jennifer McConville, Christian Zurbrügg, Thammarat Koottatep, Kok Sothea, Björn Vinnerås
{"title":"Sustainability assessment of faecal sludge treatment technologies for resource recovery in Phnom Penh, Cambodia","authors":"Chea Eliyan, Jennifer McConville, Christian Zurbrügg, Thammarat Koottatep, Kok Sothea, Björn Vinnerås","doi":"10.1016/j.eti.2023.103384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Selection of appropriate sustainable treatment technologies involves satisfying user requirements, quality standards on treatment and products, and specific socio-technical constraints in the intended context. Using locally adapted multi-criteria assessment (MCA), this study investigated faecal sludge treatment technologies that enable resource recovery in Phnom Penh. A four-step structured approach was applied, involving i) identification of available options, ii) prerequisite screening, iii) MCA and iv) stakeholder discussions and ranking. Data were collected in a literature review, stakeholder interviews and an online survey. Lists of suitable primary (n=7) and secondary (n=13) treatment technologies were compiled based on the literature. Four secondary treatment technologies (solar drying, co-composting, vermicomposting, black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) composting) were retained after prerequisite screening and subjected to MCA. Co-composting was ranked highest in MCA, since it performed well in multiple aspects, especially for health criteria. However, when economic return on investment was prioritised and a lower treatment class was accepted, e.g. WHO Class B biosolids, the highest ranking was achieved by vermicomposting or BSFL composting. If institutional criteria were included in the assessment, solar drying would likely be the highest-ranked option, since this simple technology requires less logistically complex stakeholder arrangements than co-composting. These results show that the ranking obtained for different sludge treatment options depends on criteria weighting and trade-offs. Considering secondary treatment options is crucial during early planning for faecal sludge management in a city of low-and-middle income countries, as the primary treatment must yield appropriate feedstock quality for the secondary treatment step.","PeriodicalId":11899,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Technology and Innovation","volume":"302 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Technology and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103384","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Selection of appropriate sustainable treatment technologies involves satisfying user requirements, quality standards on treatment and products, and specific socio-technical constraints in the intended context. Using locally adapted multi-criteria assessment (MCA), this study investigated faecal sludge treatment technologies that enable resource recovery in Phnom Penh. A four-step structured approach was applied, involving i) identification of available options, ii) prerequisite screening, iii) MCA and iv) stakeholder discussions and ranking. Data were collected in a literature review, stakeholder interviews and an online survey. Lists of suitable primary (n=7) and secondary (n=13) treatment technologies were compiled based on the literature. Four secondary treatment technologies (solar drying, co-composting, vermicomposting, black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) composting) were retained after prerequisite screening and subjected to MCA. Co-composting was ranked highest in MCA, since it performed well in multiple aspects, especially for health criteria. However, when economic return on investment was prioritised and a lower treatment class was accepted, e.g. WHO Class B biosolids, the highest ranking was achieved by vermicomposting or BSFL composting. If institutional criteria were included in the assessment, solar drying would likely be the highest-ranked option, since this simple technology requires less logistically complex stakeholder arrangements than co-composting. These results show that the ranking obtained for different sludge treatment options depends on criteria weighting and trade-offs. Considering secondary treatment options is crucial during early planning for faecal sludge management in a city of low-and-middle income countries, as the primary treatment must yield appropriate feedstock quality for the secondary treatment step.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
柬埔寨金边粪便污泥处理技术资源回收的可持续性评估
选择适当的可持续处理技术涉及满足用户要求、处理和产品的质量标准以及预期环境中的具体社会技术限制。使用适合当地的多标准评估(MCA),本研究调查了能够在金边实现资源回收的粪便污泥处理技术。采用了四步结构化方法,包括i)确定可用选项,ii)先决条件筛选,iii) MCA和iv)利益相关者讨论和排名。通过文献综述、利益相关者访谈和在线调查收集数据。根据文献编制了适合的一级(n=7)和二级(n=13)处理工艺清单。经过条件筛选,保留太阳能干燥、共堆肥、蚯蚓堆肥、黑虻幼虫(BSFL)堆肥4种二级处理技术,并进行MCA处理。共同堆肥在MCA中排名最高,因为它在多个方面表现良好,特别是在健康标准方面。然而,当优先考虑经济投资回报并接受较低的处理等级时,例如WHO B类生物固体,蚯蚓堆肥或BSFL堆肥获得的排名最高。如果将制度标准纳入评估,太阳能干燥可能是排名最高的选择,因为与共同堆肥相比,这种简单的技术需要较少的后勤复杂的利益相关者安排。这些结果表明,不同污泥处理方案的排名取决于标准加权和权衡。在低收入和中等收入国家的城市进行粪便污泥管理的早期规划时,考虑二级处理方案至关重要,因为一级处理必须为二级处理步骤提供适当的原料质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emission characteristics of typical gas pollutants during oxygen-enriched waste incineration process Assessing the ecological impact and microbial restoration of quinclorac-contaminated paddy fields through high-throughput sequencing technology Enhancing biofilm growth in an integrated fixed-film activated sludge process through modification of polypropylene carriers Curcumin-loaded hydroxyapatite nanoparticles for enriched removal of organic pollutants and inhibition of dual-species biofilm formation Influences of lithium on soil microbial biomass, bacterial community structure, diversity, and function potential
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1