Scaling sustainable pig manure treatment: Life cycle assessments for small to large piggeries in China

被引:1
|
作者
Ji, Aimin [1 ]
Guo, Hongyan [2 ]
Li, Ningzhou [3 ]
Zhang, Ning [4 ]
Cheng, Shikun [5 ]
Guan, Jinghua [2 ]
Li, Haiying [2 ]
Hu, Xinting [2 ]
Zhang, Zhenying [6 ]
机构
[1] Tangshan Normal Univ, Ocean Coll, Tangshan 063210, Peoples R China
[2] North China Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Met & Energy, Tangshan 063210, Peoples R China
[3] Tech Univ Berlin, Inst Environm Technol, Fac Proc Sci 3, D-10623 Berlin, Germany
[4] Huazhong Univ Sci & Technol HUST, Sch Environm Sci & Engn, Wuhan 430074, Peoples R China
[5] Univ Sci & Technol Beijing, Sch Energy & Environm Engn, Beijing Key Lab Resource Oriented Treatment Ind Po, Xueyuan Rd 30, Beijing 100083, Peoples R China
[6] North China Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Chem Engn, Tangshan 063210, Peoples R China
关键词
Piggery scale; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle cost; Fermentation; Provincial environmental benefits; Carbon emission; MANAGEMENT; WASTE; TECHNOLOGIES; SEWAGE; SLURRY;
D O I
10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.023
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Over 50 % of pig stockpiling and slaughtering in China is attributed to medium and large piggeries. The diverse scales and distributions of these piggeries present significant challenges for the sustainable management of pig manure, with a research gap in assessing the environmental benefits of treatment technologies across different farm sizes. Therefore, the environmental and economic performances of ten pig manure treatment technologies for small, medium and large piggeries were evaluated via life cycle assessment and life cycle costing methods. The black membrane biogas pool (BMBP) technology for medium-scale piggeries demonstrates superior environmental performance, reducing emissions by 44.00 kg CO2 equivalent, 0.36 kg SO2 equivalent, and 0.05 kg PM2.5 equivalent per ton of dry pig manure treated. Additionally, the products generated from this process can offset 2.93 GJ of energy consumption and 0.25 tons of water consumption. Meanwhile, the ectopic microbial fermentation bed technology provides the best economic efficiency, at the cost of only $17.88 per ton. Significant disparities in the scale of piggeries and manure production across provinces necessitate region-specific policies. The estimated global warming potential (GWP) from pig manure treatment nationwide was 5.31 million tons of CO2 equivalent, with Henan, Sichuan, and Hunan provinces accounting for a combined 28.3 % of this total in 2020. Scenario analysis indicates that by 2025, achieving a pig manure utilization rate of 90 % could reduce GWP by 9.1 % (0.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent) compared to an 80 % utilization rate, with reductions ranging from 1.78 % to 22.36 % across other environmental indicators. Promoting technologies such as BMBP and transitioning 5 % of aerobic processes to anaerobic processes could reduce emissions by 2.9 %, while also lowering other environmental indicators by 12.8 % to 20.1 %. The utilization of anaerobic technology, coupled with enhanced utilization rates, can prove more efficacious in mitigating carbon emissions and pollutants.
引用
收藏
页码:166 / 178
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Life cycle assessment of a large water treatment plant in Turkey
    Saad, Alaa
    Elginoz, Nilay
    Babuna, Fatos Germirli
    Iskender, Gulen
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2019, 26 (15) : 14823 - 14834
  • [32] Life cycle assessment of a large water treatment plant in Turkey
    Alaa Saad
    Nilay Elginoz
    Fatos Germirli Babuna
    Gulen Iskender
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019, 26 : 14823 - 14834
  • [33] Environmental evaluation of transfer and treatment of excess pig slurry by life cycle assessment
    Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago
    van der Werf, Hayo
    Paillat, Jean Marie
    Le Bris, Bertrand
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2009, 90 (02) : 1296 - 1304
  • [34] Reclaimed water treatment life cycle inventory dataset for China
    Cai, Zimeng
    Chang, Huimin
    Xu, Changqing
    Lin, Wei
    Guo, Jing
    Li, Nan
    Xu, Ming
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2025, 212
  • [35] Environmental life cycle comparisons of pig farming integrated with anaerobic digestion and algae-based wastewater treatment
    Wu, Wei
    Cheng, Liang-Chiung
    Chang, Jo-Shu
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2020, 264
  • [36] Comparison of life cycle assessment of large-scale biogas projects with different raw materials in China
    Sun, Jiazheng
    Qu, Youpei
    Lyu, Xiaoyi
    Ding, Xinjie
    Miao, Xinying
    Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar
    Qu, Jingbo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2024, 17 (02) : 268 - 279
  • [37] Assessment and projection of environmental impacts of food waste treatment in China from life cycle perspectives
    Liu, Min
    Ogunmoroti, Abiodun
    Liu, Wei
    Li, Muyang
    Bi, Mengyan
    Liu, Wenqiu
    Cui, Zhaojie
    SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2022, 807
  • [38] Life-cycle energy use and GHG emissions of waste television treatment system in China
    Song, Xiaolong
    Zhang, Chenglong
    Yuan, Wenyi
    Yang, Dong
    RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2018, 128 : 470 - 478
  • [39] Establishment of an Environmental Impact Factor Database for Building Materials to Support Building Life Cycle Assessments in China
    Jang, Hyeong-Jae
    Wang, Seong-Jo
    Tae, Sung-Ho
    Zheng, Peng-Fei
    BUILDINGS, 2024, 14 (01)
  • [40] Sustainable framework for buildings in cold regions of China considering life cycle cost and environmental impact as well as thermal comfort
    Wang, Ran
    Lu, Shilei
    Feng, Wei
    Zhai, Xue
    Li, Xinhua
    ENERGY REPORTS, 2020, 6 : 3036 - 3050