Document Type
Article
Publication Date
8-18-2025
Department
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering; Department of Chemical Engineering
Abstract
Producing Class A biosolids is a beneficial way to reuse wastewater treatment solids, but most conventional processes are energy-intensive and expensive. There is growing interest in the use of low-cost, low-tech (LCLT) Class A biosolids treatment processes, especially at small water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs). This study used a holistic sustainability assessment to examine the environmental, economic, and social sustainability of conventional and LCLT processes at small WRRFs. The technologies studied were Direct Heat Drying, Composting, Lagoon Storage, Air Drying, and Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD). Environmental impacts were determined by conducting life-cycle assessments for all technologies, which is described in detail in prior published work. Economic impacts were quantified with a life-cycle cost assessment approach over a 25-year time horizon. Potential social impacts of each process were assessed by investigating case studies and surveys of social response to biosolids and estimating a relative impact score in a number of categories reported to be important to stakeholders in this technical domain. Impacts were normalized and compared to assess the best processes under a range of weighting scenarios. TPAD and Air Drying were the most sustainable processes when all domains were weighted equally. TPAD was projected to have low environmental and social impacts, which made up for its relatively high lifetime cost. Air Drying was the least expensive process in our analysis and had a modest environmental footprint, but there is potential for higher social impacts if the process is not sited and maintained properly. Because different communities are likely to prioritize or weight environmental, economic, and social impacts differently, a three-component mixing diagram was used to illustrate that Air Drying (economic), TPAD (environmental), or Direct Heat Drying (social) could become the preferred biosolids treatment process depending on which of the three sustainability domains was prioritized in the analysis.
Publication Title
Resources
Recommended Citation
Brown, J.,
Handler, R.,
Seagren, E.,
&
Becker, J.
(2025).
Class A Biosolids Production Using Conventional and Low-Cost, Low-Tech Processes at Small Water Resource Recovery Facilities: A Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment.
Resources,
14(8).
http://doi.org/10.3390/resources14080130
Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/michigantech-p2/2582
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Version
Publisher's PDF
Publisher's Statement
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Publisher’s version of record: https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14080130