Life cycle assessment of biostimulant production from algal biomass grown on piggery wastewater

被引:5
作者
Rojo, Elena M. [1 ,2 ]
Rossi, Simone [3 ]
Bolado, Silvia [1 ,2 ]
Stampino, Paola Gallo [4 ]
Ficara, Elena [3 ]
Dotelli, Giovanni [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Valladolid, Inst Sustainable Proc, Valladolid 47011, Spain
[2] Univ Valladolid, Sch Ind Engn, Dept Chem Engn & Environm Technol, Valladolid 47011, Spain
[3] Politecn Milan, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Piazza Leonardo Vinci 32, I-20133 Milan, Italy
[4] Politecn Milan, Dept Chem Mat & Chem Engn Giulio Natta, Piazza Leonardo Vinci 32, I-20133 Milan, Italy
关键词
Microalgae; Agricultural product; Biomass valorisation; Life cycle assessment; Climate change; CAPTURE; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168083
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Piggery wastewater has become a large source of pollution with high concentrations of nutrients, that must be managed and properly treated to increase its environmental viability. Currently, the use of microalgae for treating this type of wastewater has emerged as a sustainable process with several benefits, including nutrient recovery to produce valuable products such as biostimulants, and CO2 capture from flue gases. However, the biostimulant production from biomass grown on piggery wastewater also has environmental impacts that need to be studied to identify possible hotspots. This work presents the life cycle assessment by IMPACT 2002+ method of the production of microalgae-based biostimulants, comparing two different harvesting technologies (membrane in scenario 1 and centrifuge in scenario 2) and two different technologies for on-site CO2 capture from flue gases (chemical absorption and membrane separation). The use of membranes for harvesting (scenario 1) reduced the environmental impact in all categories (human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources) by 30 % on average, compared to centrifuge (scenario 2). Also, membranes for CO2 capture allowed to decrease environmental impacts by 16 %, with the largest reduction in the resource category (similar to 33 %). Thus, the process with the best environmental viability was achieved in scenario 1 using membranes for CO2 capture, with a value of 217 kg CO2 eq/FU. In scenario 2 with centrifugation, the high contribution of the cultivation sub-unit in all impacts was highlighted (>75 %), while in scenario 1 the production sub-unit also had moderate contribution in the human health (similar to 35 %) and climate change (similar to 30 %) categories due to the lower concentration and high flow rates. These results were obtained under a worst-case situation with pilot scale optimized parameters, with limited data which would have to be further optimized at industrial-scale implementation. The sensitivity analysis showed a little influence of the parameters that contribute the most to the impacts, except for the transportation of the piggery wastewater to the processing plant in scenario 2. Because of the relevant impact of biostimulant transportation in scenario 1, centrifugation becomes more favourable when transportation distance is longer than 321 km.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   Life cycle impact assessment of a seaweed product obtained from Gracilaria edulis - A potent plant biostimulant [J].
Anand, K. G. Vijay ;
Eswaran, K. ;
Ghosh, Arup .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 170 :1621-1627
[2]   Life-cycle impact assessment methods for physical energy scarcity: considerations and suggestions [J].
Arvidsson, Rickard ;
Svanstrom, Magdalena ;
Harvey, Simon ;
Sanden, Bjorn A. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2021, 26 (12) :2339-2354
[3]   Comparative life cycle assessment of a commercial algal multiproduct biorefinery and wild caught fishery for small pelagic fish [J].
Barr, William J. ;
Landis, Amy E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2018, 23 (05) :1141-1150
[4]   Recycling CO2 from flue gas for CaCO3 nanoparticles production as cement filler: A Life Cycle Assessment [J].
Batuecas, E. ;
Liendo, F. ;
Tommasi, T. ;
Bensaid, S. ;
Deorsola, F. A. ;
Fino, D. .
JOURNAL OF CO2 UTILIZATION, 2021, 45
[5]   Life cycle assessment of microalgae-derived biodiesel [J].
Bradley, Tom ;
Rajaeifar, Mohammad Ali ;
Kenny, Andrew ;
Hainsworth, Chris ;
del Pino, Victoria ;
Inclan, Yago del Valle ;
Povoa, Ines ;
Mendonca, Pedro ;
Brown, Laura ;
Smallbone, Andrew ;
Roskilly, Anthony Paul ;
Joyce, Sharon ;
Heidrich, Oliver .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2023, 28 (05) :590-609
[6]  
Caetano NS, 2022, Algal Biorefineries and the Circular Bioeconomy, P341, DOI [10.1201/9781003195429-10, DOI 10.1201/9781003195429-10]
[7]   Microalgae based biofertilizer: A life cycle approach [J].
Castro, Jackeline de Siqueira ;
Calijuri, Maria Lucia ;
Ferreira, Jessica ;
Assemany, Paula Peixoto ;
Ribeiro, Vinicius Jose .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 724
[8]   Reduction in water consumption during the production of microalgae using diluted pig slurry in thin-layer cascade photobioreactors [J].
Ciardi, Martina ;
Gomez-Serrano, Cintia ;
Lafarga, Tomas ;
Acien, Gabriel ;
Llamas, Bernardo ;
Bolado, Silvia ;
Maria Fernandez-Sevilla, Jose .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYCOLOGY, 2022, 34 (06) :2905-2916
[9]   The life cycle assessment of subsurface drainage performance under rice-canola cropping system [J].
Darzi-Naftchali, Abdullah ;
Motevali, Ali ;
Keikha, Mahdi .
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2022, 266
[10]   Life cycle assessment of anaerobic digestion of pig manure coupled with different digestate treatment technologies [J].
Duan, Na ;
Khoshnevisan, Benyamin ;
Lin, Cong ;
Liu, Zhidan ;
Liu, Hongbin .
ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 137