4.8 Article

Life-Cycle Cost and Environmental Assessment of Decentralized Nitrogen Recovery Using Ion Exchange from Source-Separated Urine through Spatial Modeling

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 21, Pages 12061-12071

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02244

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CBET-0853512]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nitrogen standards for discharge of wastewater effluent into aquatic bodies are becoming more stringent, requiring some treatment plants to reduce effluent nitrogen concentrations. This study aimed to assess, from a life-cycle perspective, an innovative decentralized approach to nitrogen recovery: ion exchange of source-separated urine. We modeled an approach in which nitrogen from urine at individual buildings is sorbed onto resins, then transported by truck to regeneration and fertilizer production facilities. To provide insight into impacts from transportation, we enhanced the traditional economic and environmental assessment approach by combining spatial analysis, system-scale evaluation, and detailed last-mile logistics modeling using the city of San Francisco as an illustrative case study. The major contributor to energy intensity and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was the production of sulfuric acid to regenerate resins, rather than transportation. Energy and GHG emissions were not significantly sensitive to the number of regeneration facilities. Cost, however, increased with decentralization as rental costs per unit area are higher for smaller areas. The metrics assessed (unit energy, GHG emissions, and cost) were not significantly influenced by facility location in this high-density urban area. We determined that this decentralized approach has lower cost, unit energy, and GHG emissions than centralized nitrogen management via nitrification-denitrification if fertilizer production offsets are taken into account.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available