Life cycle assessment and costing of urine source separation: Focus on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug removal

Kelly A. Landry, Treavor Boyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Urine source separation has the potential to reduce pharmaceutical loading to the environment, while enhancing nutrient recovery. The focus of this life cycle assessment (LCA) was to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic costs to manage nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (i.e., diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen and naproxen) and nutrients in human urine. Urine source separation was compared with centralized wastewater treatment (WWT) (biological or upgraded with ozonation). The current treatment method (i.e., centralized biological WWT) was compared with hypothetical treatment scenarios (i.e., centralized biological WWT upgraded with ozonation, and urine source separation). Alternative urine source separation scenarios included varying collection and handling methods (i.e., collection by vacuum truck, vacuum sewer, or decentralized treatment), pharmaceuticals removal by ion-exchange, and struvite precipitation. Urine source separation scenarios had 90% lower environmental impact (based on the TRACI impact assessment method) compared with the centralized wastewater scenarios due to reduced potable water production for flush water, reduced electricity use at the wastewater treatment plant, and nutrient offsets from struvite precipitation. Despite the greatest reduction of pharmaceutical toxicity, centralized treatment upgraded with ozone had the greatest ecotoxicity impacts due to ozonation operation and infrastructure. Among urine source separation scenarios, decentralized treatment of urine and centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum truck had negligible cost differences compared with centralized wastewater treatment. Centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum sewer and centralized treatment with ozone cost 30% more compared with conventional wastewater treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)487-495
Number of pages9
JournalWater Research
Volume105
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 15 2016

Fingerprint

Source separation
Wastewater treatment
urine
Life cycle
drug
life cycle
Ozonization
Vacuum
Drug products
Nutrients
Sewers
Ozone
Trucks
Environmental impact
struvite
Costs
nutrient
Potable water
environmental impact
ozone

Keywords

  • Ion-exchange
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Life cycle costing
  • Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
  • Urine source separation
  • Wastewater treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecological Modeling
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Waste Management and Disposal
  • Pollution

Cite this

Life cycle assessment and costing of urine source separation : Focus on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug removal. / Landry, Kelly A.; Boyer, Treavor.

In: Water Research, Vol. 105, 15.11.2016, p. 487-495.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d8d2798d8ed44d0a939fe09b088a152f,
title = "Life cycle assessment and costing of urine source separation: Focus on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug removal",
abstract = "Urine source separation has the potential to reduce pharmaceutical loading to the environment, while enhancing nutrient recovery. The focus of this life cycle assessment (LCA) was to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic costs to manage nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (i.e., diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen and naproxen) and nutrients in human urine. Urine source separation was compared with centralized wastewater treatment (WWT) (biological or upgraded with ozonation). The current treatment method (i.e., centralized biological WWT) was compared with hypothetical treatment scenarios (i.e., centralized biological WWT upgraded with ozonation, and urine source separation). Alternative urine source separation scenarios included varying collection and handling methods (i.e., collection by vacuum truck, vacuum sewer, or decentralized treatment), pharmaceuticals removal by ion-exchange, and struvite precipitation. Urine source separation scenarios had 90{\%} lower environmental impact (based on the TRACI impact assessment method) compared with the centralized wastewater scenarios due to reduced potable water production for flush water, reduced electricity use at the wastewater treatment plant, and nutrient offsets from struvite precipitation. Despite the greatest reduction of pharmaceutical toxicity, centralized treatment upgraded with ozone had the greatest ecotoxicity impacts due to ozonation operation and infrastructure. Among urine source separation scenarios, decentralized treatment of urine and centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum truck had negligible cost differences compared with centralized wastewater treatment. Centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum sewer and centralized treatment with ozone cost 30{\%} more compared with conventional wastewater treatment.",
keywords = "Ion-exchange, Life cycle assessment, Life cycle costing, Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Urine source separation, Wastewater treatment",
author = "Landry, {Kelly A.} and Treavor Boyer",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "487--495",
journal = "Water Research",
issn = "0043-1354",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Life cycle assessment and costing of urine source separation

T2 - Focus on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug removal

AU - Landry, Kelly A.

AU - Boyer, Treavor

PY - 2016/11/15

Y1 - 2016/11/15

N2 - Urine source separation has the potential to reduce pharmaceutical loading to the environment, while enhancing nutrient recovery. The focus of this life cycle assessment (LCA) was to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic costs to manage nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (i.e., diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen and naproxen) and nutrients in human urine. Urine source separation was compared with centralized wastewater treatment (WWT) (biological or upgraded with ozonation). The current treatment method (i.e., centralized biological WWT) was compared with hypothetical treatment scenarios (i.e., centralized biological WWT upgraded with ozonation, and urine source separation). Alternative urine source separation scenarios included varying collection and handling methods (i.e., collection by vacuum truck, vacuum sewer, or decentralized treatment), pharmaceuticals removal by ion-exchange, and struvite precipitation. Urine source separation scenarios had 90% lower environmental impact (based on the TRACI impact assessment method) compared with the centralized wastewater scenarios due to reduced potable water production for flush water, reduced electricity use at the wastewater treatment plant, and nutrient offsets from struvite precipitation. Despite the greatest reduction of pharmaceutical toxicity, centralized treatment upgraded with ozone had the greatest ecotoxicity impacts due to ozonation operation and infrastructure. Among urine source separation scenarios, decentralized treatment of urine and centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum truck had negligible cost differences compared with centralized wastewater treatment. Centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum sewer and centralized treatment with ozone cost 30% more compared with conventional wastewater treatment.

AB - Urine source separation has the potential to reduce pharmaceutical loading to the environment, while enhancing nutrient recovery. The focus of this life cycle assessment (LCA) was to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic costs to manage nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (i.e., diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen and naproxen) and nutrients in human urine. Urine source separation was compared with centralized wastewater treatment (WWT) (biological or upgraded with ozonation). The current treatment method (i.e., centralized biological WWT) was compared with hypothetical treatment scenarios (i.e., centralized biological WWT upgraded with ozonation, and urine source separation). Alternative urine source separation scenarios included varying collection and handling methods (i.e., collection by vacuum truck, vacuum sewer, or decentralized treatment), pharmaceuticals removal by ion-exchange, and struvite precipitation. Urine source separation scenarios had 90% lower environmental impact (based on the TRACI impact assessment method) compared with the centralized wastewater scenarios due to reduced potable water production for flush water, reduced electricity use at the wastewater treatment plant, and nutrient offsets from struvite precipitation. Despite the greatest reduction of pharmaceutical toxicity, centralized treatment upgraded with ozone had the greatest ecotoxicity impacts due to ozonation operation and infrastructure. Among urine source separation scenarios, decentralized treatment of urine and centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum truck had negligible cost differences compared with centralized wastewater treatment. Centralized treatment of urine collected by vacuum sewer and centralized treatment with ozone cost 30% more compared with conventional wastewater treatment.

KW - Ion-exchange

KW - Life cycle assessment

KW - Life cycle costing

KW - Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

KW - Urine source separation

KW - Wastewater treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988640167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84988640167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.024

DO - 10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.024

M3 - Article

C2 - 27668993

AN - SCOPUS:84988640167

VL - 105

SP - 487

EP - 495

JO - Water Research

JF - Water Research

SN - 0043-1354

ER -