École de technologie supérieure, Montréal, QC, Canada; Faculty of Science, Université d'État d'Haïti, Port-au-Prince, Haïti E-mail:
École de technologie supérieure, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Water Sci Technol. 2024 Jun;89(12):3237-3251. doi: 10.2166/wst.2024.184. Epub 2024 Jun 6.
Low-income tropical regions, such as Haiti, grapple with environmental issues stemming from inadequate sanitation infrastructure for fecal sludge management. This study scrutinizes on-site sanitation systems in these regions, evaluating their environmental impacts and pinpointing improvement opportunities. The focus is specifically on systems integrating excreta valorization through composting and/or anaerobic digestion. Each system encompasses toilet access, evacuation, and sludge treatment. A comparative life cycle assessment was undertaken, with the functional unit managing one ton of excreta in Haiti over a year. Six scenarios representing autonomous sanitation systems were devised by combining three toilet types (container-based toilets (CBTs), ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines, and flush toilets (WC)) with two sludge treatment processes (composting and biomethanization). Biodigester-based systems exhibited 1.05 times higher sanitary impacts and 1.03 times higher ecosystem impacts than those with composters. Among toilet types, CBTs had the lowest impacts, followed by VIP latrines, with WCs having the highest impacts. On average, WC scenarios were 3.85 times more impactful than VIP latrines and 4.04 times more impactful than those with CBTs regarding human health impact. Critical variables identified include the use of toilet paper, wood shavings, greenhouse gas emissions, and construction materials.
低收入热带地区,如海地,面临环境卫生问题,原因是粪便污泥管理的卫生基础设施不足。本研究仔细研究了这些地区的现场卫生系统,评估了它们的环境影响,并确定了改进机会。重点是专门整合粪便肥料化和/或厌氧消化的系统。每个系统都包括厕所使用、粪便清运和污泥处理。采用生命周期评估方法,以海地一年管理一吨粪便为功能单位。通过将三种厕所类型(基于容器的厕所(CBT)、通风改良坑(VIP)厕所和冲水厕所(WC))与两种污泥处理工艺(堆肥和生物甲烷化)相结合,设计了六个代表自主卫生系统的方案。基于生物消化器的系统在卫生方面的影响比堆肥系统高 1.05 倍,在生态系统方面的影响高 1.03 倍。在厕所类型中,CBT 对环境的影响最小,其次是 VIP 厕所,WC 的影响最大。平均而言,WC 方案在人类健康影响方面比 VIP 厕所高出 3.85 倍,比 CBT 高出 4.04 倍。确定的关键变量包括卫生纸、木屑、温室气体排放和建筑材料的使用。