Class A Biosolids Production Using Conventional and Low-Cost, Low-Tech Processes at Small Water Resource Recovery Facilities: A Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment

Janna L. Brown, Robert M. Handler (), Eric A. Seagren and Jennifer G. Becker
Additional contact information
Janna L. Brown: Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
Robert M. Handler: Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
Eric A. Seagren: Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA
Jennifer G. Becker: Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geospatial Engineering, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Dr., Houghton, MI 49931, USA

Resources, 2025, vol. 14, issue 8, 1-23

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.

Keywords: biosolids; sustainability assessment; wastewater treatment; water resource recovery facilities; life-cycle cost; social impacts (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/14/8/130/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/14/8/130/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jresou:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:130-:d:1726805

Access Statistics for this article

Resources is currently edited by Ms. Donchian Ma

More articles in Resources from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().