4.6 Article

Carbon footprint of sludge treatment reed beds

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 44, Issue -, Pages 298-302

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.04.020

Keywords

Climate change; Constructed wetlands; Methane; Nitrous oxide; Global Warming Potential

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Environment (MMARM) [087/PC08]
  2. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech
  3. CUR of DUIE of Generalitat de Catalunya [BE-DGR2009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sludge treatment reed beds (STRBs) performance has become a popular solution to dewater and stabilize surplus sludge from wastewater treatment systems because of the low investment, operational and maintenance costs of the systems. The environmental impact associated with this technology has, however, to be assessed in order to evaluate the appropriateness of the technology. The goal of this study is to determine the carbon footprint of STRBs. To this end, a Life Cycle Assessment was performed using methane and nitrous oxide emissions quantified in two full-scale STRBs located in Northern and Southern Europe (Denmark and Spain). Methane emissions ranged between 1000 and 3700 mg CH4/m(2) d, while nitrous oxides ranged between 200 and 750 mg N2O/m(2) d. Thus, greenhouse gas emissions correspond to 0.09 and 0.25 kg CO2eq/m(2) d for the Danish and Spanish system, respectively. The treatment of 1 ton of sludge (wet weigh) in the Spanish system corresponds to 2.1 kg CO2eq, while in the Danish system it corresponds to 1.0 kg CO2eq. The contribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the carbon footprint is insignificant in comparison with raw materials and energy consumption. However, the results put forward the relevance of STRB design in the environmental impact of the technology. Thus, the excavation of basins or the use of recycled concrete are recommended to guarantee a low carbon footprint of this technology. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available