Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland; Institute of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland.
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
J Environ Manage. 2021 Feb 15;280:111785. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111785. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
To prioritise sustainable sanitation systems in strategic sanitation planning, indicators such as local appropriateness or resource recovery have to be known at the pre-planning phase. The quantification of resource recovery remains a challenge because existing substance flow models require large amounts of input data and can therefore only be applied for a few options at a time for which implementation examples exist. This paper aims to answer two questions: How can we predict resource recovery and losses of sanitation systems ex-ante at the pre-planning phase? And how can we do this efficiently to consider the entire sanitation system option space? The approach builds on an existing model to create all valid sanitation systems from a set of conventional and emerging technologies and to evaluate their appropriateness for a given application case. It complements the previous model with a Substance Flow Model (SFM) and with transfer coefficients from a technology library to quantify nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), total solids (as an indicator for energy and organics), and water flows in sanitation systems ex ante. The transfer coefficients are based on literature data and expert judgement. Uncertainties resulting from the variability of literature data or ignorance of experts are explicitly considered, allowing to assess the robustness of the model output. Any (future) technologies or additional products can easily be added to the library. The model is illustrated with a small didactic example showing how 12 valid system configurations are generated from a few technologies, and how substance flows, recovery ratios, and losses to soil, air, and water are quantified considering uncertainties. The recovery ratios vary between 0 and 28% for phosphorus, 0-10% for nitrogen, 0-26% for total solids, and 0-12% for water. The uncertainties reflect the high variability of the literature data but are comparable to those obtained in studies using a conventional post-ante material flow analysis (generally about 30% variability at the scale of a an urban area). Because the model is fully automated and based on literature data, it can be applied ex-ante to a large and diverse set of possible sanitation systems as shown with a real application case. From the 41 technologies available in the library, 101,548 systems are generated and substance flows are modelled. The resulting recovery ratios range from nothing to almost 100%. The two examples also show that recovery depend on technology interactions and has therefore to be assessed for all possible system configurations and not at the single technology level only. The examples also show that there exist trade-offs among different types of reuse (e.g. energy versus nutrients) or different sustainability indicators (e.g. local appropriateness versus resource recovery). These results show that there is a need for such an automated and generic approach that provides recovery data for all system configurations already at the pre-planning phase. The approach presented enables to integrate transparently the best available knowledge for a growing number of sanitation technologies into a planning process. The resulting resource recovery and loss ratios can be used to prioritise resource efficient systems in sanitation planning, either for the pre-selection or the detailed evaluation of options using e.g. MCDA. The results can also be used to guide future development of technology and system innovations. As resource recovery becomes more relevant and novel sanitation technologies and system options emerge, the approach presents itself as a useful tool for strategic sanitation planning in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
为了在战略卫生规划中优先考虑可持续的卫生系统,必须在规划前期阶段了解地方适宜性或资源回收等指标。资源回收的量化仍然是一个挑战,因为现有的物质流模型需要大量的输入数据,因此一次只能应用存在实施示例的少数几种方案。本文旨在回答两个问题:我们如何在规划前期阶段预先预测卫生系统的资源回收和损失?我们如何高效地做到这一点,以考虑整个卫生系统的方案空间?该方法基于现有的模型,从一系列常规和新兴技术中创建所有有效的卫生系统,并评估它们在给定应用案例中的适宜性。它通过物质流模型 (SFM) 和技术库中的传递系数来补充之前的模型,以量化卫生系统中的养分(磷和氮)、总固体(作为能量和有机物的指标)和水通量。传递系数基于文献数据和专家判断。明确考虑文献数据的可变性或专家的无知所产生的不确定性,从而可以评估模型输出的稳健性。任何(未来)技术或附加产品都可以轻松添加到库中。该模型通过一个小型教学示例进行说明,展示了如何从几种技术中生成 12 种有效系统配置,以及如何考虑不确定性来量化物质流、回收比和土壤、空气和水的损失。回收比在磷为 0 至 28%之间,氮为 0 至 10%之间,总固体为 0 至 26%之间,水为 0 至 12%之间。不确定性反映了文献数据的高度可变性,但与使用传统的事后物质流分析(一般在城市地区的规模上约有 30%的可变性)获得的不确定性相当。由于该模型是完全自动化的,并且基于文献数据,因此可以在规划前期阶段应用于大量多样化的可能卫生系统,如实际应用案例所示。从库中可用的 41 种技术中,生成了 101548 种系统,并对物质流进行了建模。由此产生的回收比从无到接近 100%不等。这两个示例还表明,回收取决于技术的相互作用,因此必须评估所有可能的系统配置,而不仅仅是单个技术水平。示例还表明,不同类型的再利用(例如能源与养分)或不同的可持续性指标(例如地方适宜性与资源回收)之间存在权衡。这些结果表明,需要这种自动化和通用的方法,以便在规划前期阶段为所有系统配置提供回收数据。所提出的方法使能够将越来越多的卫生技术的最佳可用知识透明地集成到规划过程中。回收和损失比可用于在卫生规划中优先考虑资源高效的系统,无论是在预选还是使用多准则决策分析(MCDA)等方法对选项进行详细评估时。结果还可以用于指导技术和系统创新的未来发展。随着资源回收变得越来越重要,以及新型卫生技术和系统方案的出现,该方法本身就是符合可持续发展目标(SDGs)的战略卫生规划的有用工具。