在低收入热带国家使用泻湖或干燥床进行粪便污泥处理的现场卫生系统的比较生命周期评估。

IF 2.5 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Water Science and Technology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-13 DOI:10.2166/wst.2024.377
Davidson Jean-Baptiste, Frédéric Monette
{"title":"在低收入热带国家使用泻湖或干燥床进行粪便污泥处理的现场卫生系统的比较生命周期评估。","authors":"Davidson Jean-Baptiste, Frédéric Monette","doi":"10.2166/wst.2024.377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Environmental challenges in low-income countries, such as Haiti, persist due to inadequate sanitation infrastructure. This study assesses the environmental impacts of nine on-site sanitation systems to identify those with the least environmental impacts and explore improvement options. Nine scenarios were developed, each representing different systems for managing 1 ton of fecal sludge over 1 year. The 'Impact World + ' and 'IPCC 2013 GWP 100a' methods evaluated impacts on ecosystems, human health, and climate change. Data sources included interviews, weighing records, and scientific publications. Results show that Scenario 8 (Flush Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful on health (1.17 × 10<sup>-2</sup> DALY), while Scenario 1 (Composting Toilet - Evacuation - Unplanted Drying Beds) is least impactful (1.77 × 10<sup>-3</sup> DALY). For ecosystem impacts, Scenario 2 (Container-based Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful (3.81 × 10<sup>3</sup> PDF·m<sup>2</sup>·year), while Scenario 6 (VIP latrine - Evacuation - Lagoons) is least impactful (3.52 × 10<sup>3</sup> PDF·m<sup>2</sup>·year). Key hotspots include toilet paper, wood shavings, GHG emissions, and water use. The study recommends an integrated approach combining environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) with life cycle cost assessment and social LCA for sustainable decision-making on sanitation systems in low-income countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":23653,"journal":{"name":"Water Science and Technology","volume":"90 10","pages":"2842-2856"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative life cycle assessment of on-site sanitation systems using lagoons or drying beds for fecal sludge treatment in low-income tropical countries.\",\"authors\":\"Davidson Jean-Baptiste, Frédéric Monette\",\"doi\":\"10.2166/wst.2024.377\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Environmental challenges in low-income countries, such as Haiti, persist due to inadequate sanitation infrastructure. This study assesses the environmental impacts of nine on-site sanitation systems to identify those with the least environmental impacts and explore improvement options. Nine scenarios were developed, each representing different systems for managing 1 ton of fecal sludge over 1 year. The 'Impact World + ' and 'IPCC 2013 GWP 100a' methods evaluated impacts on ecosystems, human health, and climate change. Data sources included interviews, weighing records, and scientific publications. Results show that Scenario 8 (Flush Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful on health (1.17 × 10<sup>-2</sup> DALY), while Scenario 1 (Composting Toilet - Evacuation - Unplanted Drying Beds) is least impactful (1.77 × 10<sup>-3</sup> DALY). For ecosystem impacts, Scenario 2 (Container-based Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful (3.81 × 10<sup>3</sup> PDF·m<sup>2</sup>·year), while Scenario 6 (VIP latrine - Evacuation - Lagoons) is least impactful (3.52 × 10<sup>3</sup> PDF·m<sup>2</sup>·year). Key hotspots include toilet paper, wood shavings, GHG emissions, and water use. The study recommends an integrated approach combining environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) with life cycle cost assessment and social LCA for sustainable decision-making on sanitation systems in low-income countries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Water Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"90 10\",\"pages\":\"2842-2856\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Water Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2024.377\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Water Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2024.377","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于卫生基础设施不足,海地等低收入国家的环境挑战依然存在。本研究评估了9个现场卫生系统的环境影响,以确定那些对环境影响最小的系统,并探索改进方案。开发了9个方案,每个方案代表1年内管理1吨粪便污泥的不同系统。“Impact World +”和“IPCC 2013 GWP 100a”方法评估了对生态系统、人类健康和气候变化的影响。数据来源包括访谈、称重记录和科学出版物。结果表明,情景8(抽水马桶-疏散-种植干燥床)对健康的影响最大(1.17 × 10-2 DALY),而情景1(堆肥厕所-疏散-未种植干燥床)对健康的影响最小(1.77 × 10-3 DALY)。在生态系统影响方面,情景2(集装箱厕所-疏散-种植干床)影响最大(3.81 × 103 PDF·m2·年),而情景6(贵宾厕所-疏散-泻湖)影响最小(3.52 × 103 PDF·m2·年)。重点热点包括厕纸、木屑、温室气体排放和用水。该研究建议采用一种综合方法,将环境生命周期评估(LCA)与生命周期成本评估和社会生命周期评估相结合,用于低收入国家卫生系统的可持续决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative life cycle assessment of on-site sanitation systems using lagoons or drying beds for fecal sludge treatment in low-income tropical countries.

Environmental challenges in low-income countries, such as Haiti, persist due to inadequate sanitation infrastructure. This study assesses the environmental impacts of nine on-site sanitation systems to identify those with the least environmental impacts and explore improvement options. Nine scenarios were developed, each representing different systems for managing 1 ton of fecal sludge over 1 year. The 'Impact World + ' and 'IPCC 2013 GWP 100a' methods evaluated impacts on ecosystems, human health, and climate change. Data sources included interviews, weighing records, and scientific publications. Results show that Scenario 8 (Flush Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful on health (1.17 × 10-2 DALY), while Scenario 1 (Composting Toilet - Evacuation - Unplanted Drying Beds) is least impactful (1.77 × 10-3 DALY). For ecosystem impacts, Scenario 2 (Container-based Toilet - Evacuation - Planted Drying Beds) is most impactful (3.81 × 103 PDF·m2·year), while Scenario 6 (VIP latrine - Evacuation - Lagoons) is least impactful (3.52 × 103 PDF·m2·year). Key hotspots include toilet paper, wood shavings, GHG emissions, and water use. The study recommends an integrated approach combining environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) with life cycle cost assessment and social LCA for sustainable decision-making on sanitation systems in low-income countries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Water Science and Technology
Water Science and Technology 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.70%
发文量
366
审稿时长
4.4 months
期刊介绍: Water Science and Technology publishes peer-reviewed papers on all aspects of the science and technology of water and wastewater. Papers are selected by a rigorous peer review procedure with the aim of rapid and wide dissemination of research results, development and application of new techniques, and related managerial and policy issues. Scientists, engineers, consultants, managers and policy-makers will find this journal essential as a permanent record of progress of research activities and their practical applications.
×
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