Search

The aim of this study was to compare the environmental performance and sustainability of different management options for livestock waste in Cyprus. The two most common practices in the country, i.e. the use of anaerobic lagoons and conventional biogas plants, were compared with the innovative scheme developed in the LiveWaste project (LIFE12 ENV/CY/000544), which aims not only to produce bioenergy, but also to treat the digestate for nutrient recovery and water reuse. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was combined with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to compare the performance of these alternatives. Four relevant indicators were selected for each dimension of sustainability (environmental, social and economic). The results of the evaluations showed that anaerobic lagoons are not an appropriate option for the sustainable management of livestock waste due to environmental (e.g. climate change, acidification and eutrophication) and social impacts (e.g. noise exposure, visual impact and risk perception for human health). The most important strengths and weaknesses of anaerobic treatment with and without digestate treatment were identified. Compared to conventional anaerobic digestion where digestate is directly applied as an organic fertiliser, the technology proposed in the project entails higher technological complexity due to nitrogen removal and phosphorus recovery. The rise in chemical and electricity requirements increased the impacts on some indicators, such as climate change and operational cost (emissions of greenhouse gases and operation costs were around 50% higher), while reduced impacts in others due to proper nutrient management, as acidification and eutrophication impacts (which were 10 and almost two times lower, respectively). For the specific Cypriot conditions, where the overapplication of nutrients leads to pollution of water bodies, the innovative treatment scheme with higher technological development presents an interesting approach. Nevertheless, the treatment of the digestate should be analysed taking into account the specific characteristics of each scenario.

This study assesses from an environmental perspective two different configurations for the combined treatment of wastewater and domestic organic waste (DOW) in a small and decentralised community having a population of 2000. The applied schemes consist of an upflow anaerobic blanket (UASB) as core treatment process. Scheme A integrates membranes with the anaerobic treatment; while in Scheme B biological removal of nutrients in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is applied as a post treatment to UASB effluent. In energy-related categories, the main contributor is electricity consumption (producing 18–50% of the impacts); whereas in terms of eutrophication-related categories, the discharge of the treated effluent arises as a major hotspot (with 57–99% of the impacts). Scheme B consumes 25% more electricity and produces 40% extra sludge than Scheme A, resulting in worse environmental results for those energy categories. However, the environmental impact due to the discharge of the treated effluent is 75% lower in eutrophication categories due to the removal of nutrients. In addition, the quality of the final effluent in Scheme B would allow its use for irrigation (9.6 mg N/L and 2 mg P/L) if proper tertiary treatment and disinfection are provided, expanding its potential adoption at a wider scale. Direct emissions due to the dissolved methane in the UASB effluent have a significant environmental impact in climate change (23–26%). Additionally, the study shows the environmental feasibility of the use of food waste disposers for DOW collection in different integration rates.

Conventional foams derived from petroleum are extensively used for insulating uses. Research into alternative sources to petroleum based chemicals is attracting a great deal of attention. Softwood bark and in special, maritime pine bark from European forests is an abundant co-product from forest industries. In this study, the production of formaldehyde-free tannin based biofoams to be used as building insulation materials was environmentally assessed using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology (cradle-to-grave approach) as well as their valorisation into bioenergy (electricity and thermal energy) at end of their life cycle by means of their gasification into tar-free syngas and its further combustion in a CHP unit. The production chain was divided into four subsystems: forest activities (SS1), sawmill (SS2), biofoams production (SS3) and bioenergy production (SS4). Wherever possible, primary data from pilot plants were managed. Since two main co-products are obtained, three different approaches were considered and discussed: total allocation of environmental burdens to the electricity (main product), exergy based allocation and system expansion. According to the results, SS3 was identified as the environmental hotspot regardless the impact category considered for assessment. The large requirements of electricity in the tannin extraction unit as well as the production of chemicals required for the biofoam formulation were the responsible factors of these notable contributions. Special attention should also be paid to the uncontrolled pentane emissions associated to the biofoam formulation, specifically in terms of photochemicals oxidant formation. Remarkable environmental benefits were obtained in terms of climate change, fossil fuels depletion as well as in some toxicity related impact categories in comparison with the petroleum based foams, mainly based on the use of an abundant renewable source as raw material to produce the foams. Improvement actions should look at the reduction (or even recovery) of chemicals used, the control of diffuse emissions (e.g. pentane from evaporation unit and CHP unit) as well as the installation of a cogeneration unit to produce the electricity requirements to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

A technical and environmental evaluation of an innovative scheme for the co-treatment of domestic wastewater and domestic organic waste (DOW) was undertaken by coupling an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and a fermentation reactor. Alternative treatment configurations were evaluated with different waste collection practices as well as various schemes for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. All treatment systems fulfilled the required quality of the treated effluent in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations. However, only the configurations performing the short-cut nitrification/denitrification with biological phosphorus removal met the specifications for water reuse. The environmental assessment included the analysis of impacts on climate change (CC), freshwater eutrophication (FE) and marine eutrophication (ME). A functional unit (FU) of 2000 people receiving treatment services was considered. The most relevant sources of environmental impacts were associated to the concentration of dissolved methane in the UASB effluent that is emitted to the atmosphere in the SBR process (accounting for 41% of impacts in CC), electricity consumption, mainly for aeration in the SBR (representing 14% of the impacts produced in CC), and the discharge of the treated effluent in receiving waters (contributing 98% and 57% of impacts in FE and ME, respectively). The scheme of separate waste collection together with biological nitrogen removal and phosphorus uptake via nitrite was identified as the best configuration, with good treated effluent quality and environmental impacts lower than those of the other examined configurations.