Anaerobic digestion or composting? Small-scale plants design and holistic evaluations in a Sub-Saharan African context

IF 4.7 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Pietro Castellani , Navarro Ferronato , Jacopo Barbieri , Vincenzo Torretta
{"title":"Anaerobic digestion or composting? Small-scale plants design and holistic evaluations in a Sub-Saharan African context","authors":"Pietro Castellani ,&nbsp;Navarro Ferronato ,&nbsp;Jacopo Barbieri ,&nbsp;Vincenzo Torretta","doi":"10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In small developing settings, is it worth building anaerobic digestion (AD) or composting plants? This study explores the economic, management, and environmental dimensions of two small-scale alternatives for organic fraction municipal solid waste (OFMSW) treatment within the context of Lacor Hospital (Uganda): aerated static pile composting (S1) and AD with digestate composting (S2), both designed to manage approximately 347.5 t<sub>OFMSW</sub> annually. In the optimistic scenario, S1 achieves a cost savings of about −2.9 USD t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>, while S2 incurs costs of 2.1 USD t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>. In the pessimistic scenario, S1's costs rise to 3.9 USD t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>, while S2 becomes more expensive at 9.5 USD t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>. Management analysis underlines S2's complexity due to AD operations and digestate drying. Total normalized environmental impacts of S1 can be quantified with about 0.125 mPt t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>, whereas S2 is equal to about −6.163 mPt t<sub>OFMSW</sub><sup>−1</sup>. However, in an optimistic scenario, climate change endpoint category results are similar. On balance, the LCA analysis indicates that AD can be better than standalone composting. However, in developing settings serving approximately 3000 inhabitants, it is crucial to prioritize economic and management sustainability that can be obtained only by small-scale composting plants. These findings provide definite insights for small-scale waste management projects in low-income regions, offering valuable data and references for plant design and their replicability. The study sets the ultimate definition of the most feasible option to treat OFMSW in low-income settings: community composting. Unfortunately, economic barriers remain the main challenge: citizens should pay for the service and landfill management fees should be set by local governments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54269,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Development","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 101008"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464524000460/pdfft?md5=ea83c82c346affa08eb365c7b918810f&pid=1-s2.0-S2211464524000460-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Development","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464524000460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In small developing settings, is it worth building anaerobic digestion (AD) or composting plants? This study explores the economic, management, and environmental dimensions of two small-scale alternatives for organic fraction municipal solid waste (OFMSW) treatment within the context of Lacor Hospital (Uganda): aerated static pile composting (S1) and AD with digestate composting (S2), both designed to manage approximately 347.5 tOFMSW annually. In the optimistic scenario, S1 achieves a cost savings of about −2.9 USD tOFMSW−1, while S2 incurs costs of 2.1 USD tOFMSW−1. In the pessimistic scenario, S1's costs rise to 3.9 USD tOFMSW−1, while S2 becomes more expensive at 9.5 USD tOFMSW−1. Management analysis underlines S2's complexity due to AD operations and digestate drying. Total normalized environmental impacts of S1 can be quantified with about 0.125 mPt tOFMSW−1, whereas S2 is equal to about −6.163 mPt tOFMSW−1. However, in an optimistic scenario, climate change endpoint category results are similar. On balance, the LCA analysis indicates that AD can be better than standalone composting. However, in developing settings serving approximately 3000 inhabitants, it is crucial to prioritize economic and management sustainability that can be obtained only by small-scale composting plants. These findings provide definite insights for small-scale waste management projects in low-income regions, offering valuable data and references for plant design and their replicability. The study sets the ultimate definition of the most feasible option to treat OFMSW in low-income settings: community composting. Unfortunately, economic barriers remain the main challenge: citizens should pay for the service and landfill management fees should be set by local governments.

厌氧消化还是堆肥?撒哈拉以南非洲地区的小型工厂设计和整体评估
在小型发展中环境中,是否值得建造厌氧消化(AD)或堆肥厂?本研究以乌干达拉科尔医院为背景,探讨了处理城市有机固体废弃物(OFMSW)的两种小规模替代方案的经济、管理和环境方面的问题:充气静态堆肥(S1)和厌氧消化与沼渣堆肥(S2),这两种方案的设计目标都是每年处理约 347.5 吨城市有机固体废弃物(OFMSW)。在乐观情况下,S1 可节约成本约 -2.9 美元 tOFMSW-1,而 S2 的成本为 2.1 美元 tOFMSW-1。在悲观情况下,S1 的成本上升到 3.9 美元 tOFMSW-1,而 S2 则变得更加昂贵,达到 9.5 美元 tOFMSW-1。管理分析强调了 S2 因厌氧发酵操作和沼渣干燥而产生的复杂性。S1 对环境的总归一化影响可量化为约 0.125 mPt tOFMSW-1,而 S2 则相当于约 -6.163 mPt tOFMSW-1。不过,在乐观情况下,气候变化终点类别的结果是相似的。总的来说,生命周期评估分析表明,厌氧消化(AD)比独立堆肥更好。不过,在为大约 3000 名居民服务的发展中环境中,必须优先考虑经济和管理的可持续性,而这只有小型堆肥厂才能实现。这些发现为低收入地区的小型废物管理项目提供了明确的见解,为工厂设计及其可复制性提供了宝贵的数据和参考。这项研究最终确定了在低收入环境中处理外源有害物质的最可行方案:社区堆肥。遗憾的是,经济障碍仍是主要挑战:公民应为服务付费,垃圾填埋场管理费应由地方政府制定。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Development
Environmental Development Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
62
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Development provides a future oriented, pro-active, authoritative source of information and learning for researchers, postgraduate students, policymakers, and managers, and bridges the gap between fundamental research and the application in management and policy practices. It stimulates the exchange and coupling of traditional scientific knowledge on the environment, with the experiential knowledge among decision makers and other stakeholders and also connects natural sciences and social and behavioral sciences. Environmental Development includes and promotes scientific work from the non-western world, and also strengthens the collaboration between the developed and developing world. Further it links environmental research to broader issues of economic and social-cultural developments, and is intended to shorten the delays between research and publication, while ensuring thorough peer review. Environmental Development also creates a forum for transnational communication, discussion and global action. Environmental Development is open to a broad range of disciplines and authors. The journal welcomes, in particular, contributions from a younger generation of researchers, and papers expanding the frontiers of environmental sciences, pointing at new directions and innovative answers. All submissions to Environmental Development are reviewed using the general criteria of quality, originality, precision, importance of topic and insights, clarity of exposition, which are in keeping with the journal''s aims and scope.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信