4.7 Article

Life cycle cost and environmental assessment for resource-oriented toilet systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 196, 期 -, 页码 1188-1197

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.129

关键词

Toilet; Resource recovery; Forward osmosis; Cost-benefit analysis; Life cycle assessment

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA [OPP1051913]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rich content of nutrients in human waste provides an outlook for turning it from pollutants to potential resources. The pilot-scale resource-oriented toilet with forward osmosis technology was demonstrated to have advantages to recover clean water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, biogas, and heat from urine and feces. For the possibility of further full-scale implementation in different scenarios, six resource-oriented toilet systems and one conventional toilet system were designed in this study. The methodology of cost-benefit analysis and life cycle assessment were applied to analyze the life cycle economic feasibility and environmental sustainability of these systems. As results indicated, resource-oriented toilets with forward osmosis technology concentrating urine proved to have both economic and environmental benefit. The economic net present value results of new resource-oriented toilets were much better than conventional toilet. The energy consumption in resource-oriented toilets contributes a lot to the environmental impacts while resource recovery such as the fertilizer production and fresh water harvest in resource-oriented toilet systems offsets a lot. Taking both life cycle economic feasibility and environmental sustainability into consideration, the partial resource-oriented toilet (only recovering nutrients from urine) is the best choice, and the totally independent resource-oriented toilet could be applied to replace conventional toilets in areas without any external facilities such as sewer and water supply system etc. (C) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据