This study suggested environmental and economic evaluations by developing a scenario according to the various treatment options of food waste in Korea. In particular, the study evaluated the possibility about the combined treatment of food waste and human excrement after using food waste disposers (FWDs). The scenario including only composting (133 kg CO2 equiv./ton-household organic waste) or only FWDs (125 kg CO2 equiv./ton-household organic waste) was superior to the other scenarios in the environmental aspect and the scenario including only composting (101 USD/ton-household organic waste) was superior to the other scenarios in the economic aspect. However, the study discovered that 52% of greenhouse gas emission was reduced when sewage pretreatment was conducted in houses after using FWDs and also when biogas was collected on site and utilized in the private power station. Furthermore, the energy saving effect due to recovery of biogas has found to be larger in the environment aspect than in the economic aspect.
Food waste and human excrement, i.e., human biological waste is household organic waste which is highly valued as the production of biomass such as biosolids, biogasification, and bioethanol [
Since food waste was collected separately from the municipal solid waste, unsanitary problems, including unpleasant odors, germs, insects, and feeling of aversion from curbside waste, have increased. Due to these problems, many households tend to install food waste disposal units (FWDs or food waste decomposers by using drying system) such that food waste can be treated before it is taken out [
Seoul has already carried out pilot studies in order to treat food waste in the public WWTPs. The studies were conducted by introducing domestic in-sink FWDs to 447 households in apartment houses with the sewage pretreatment facilities and 538 households in apartment houses with the sewage pretreatment facilities combined with human excrement. The result of the pilot studies has found that the combined treatment of food waste with human excrement lowers the effluent biological oxidation demand (BOD) concentration (food waste: 1055.1 mg/L, food waste and human excrement mixture: 804.1 mg/L), and increases SS concentration (respectively, 905.7 mg/L, 1564.4 mg/L) and n-Hexane concentration (respectively, 195.9 mg/L, 240.5 mg/L), more than the food waste treatment [
Meanwhile, food waste has shown various environmental and economic evaluation results according to the treatment methods [
Therefore, this study suggested environmental and economic evaluations about the various treatment methods of food waste and the combined treatment of food waste with human excrement after installing domestic in-sink FWDs. The environmental evaluation indicated as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by methane gas production and the energy equivalent and net energy consumption, which is required in the treatment. The economic
evaluation is indicated as construction and operation costs, which are required in the treatment. Further, the additional social cost considering the value of domestic labor of separating and handling food waste.
This study analyzed the properties of food waste and human excrement and the characteristics of the handling process and treatment of the household organic waste; scenarios which reflected the characteristics were developed. The functional unit is a measure of the function of the studied system and it provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related. In this study, the functional unit of food waste was set to 1 ton of food waste from 6667 persons, which was based on 0.15 kg/person∙day, in order to calculate the parameter. Further, the functional unit of human excrement was set to 0. 6667 ton (= 0.7 ton in the text below) from 6667 persons, because one human produces 0.1 kg of human excrement per day.
To evaluate GHG emissions and cost for the treatment options of food waste and human excrement mixture, the functional units set the quantity of human excrement per population (6667 persons) that handles 1 ton of food waste. Therefore, the functional unit for calculating parameters is 1.7 tons of household organic waste, which is the total amount of about 1 ton of food waste and 0.7 ton of human excrement. It is necessary in order to compare the scenarios of 1 ton of food waste and 0.7 ton of human excrement, which are transferred and treated in the different processes, with the scenarios of 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture, which are combined and treated in one system. The parameters based on 1 ton of food waste were calculated in order to reflect the social cost of separating and putting out the food waste for collection.
Net energy consumption (= Energy consumption in process minus energy recovery in process) was reflected in energy use. The GHG evaluation calculated the emissions from each process as well as the saved effect due to the recovery of biogas (the alternative effect based on the Korean power plants using LNG). The economic evaluation calculated the costs per each process and the saved effect due to the recovery of biogas.
As it was assumed that public sewer is the combined system and human excrement is treated in a separate sanitary treatment plant by collecting from the septic tanks, most of the scenarios did not include the use of energy, GHG emissions, and the costs according to the public wastewater treatment on human excrement. For the scenarios including the combined treatment, treated wastewater is flowed into public WWTPs; however, the part of public WWTPs of human excrement was ignored, according to the mass balance which had been applied before.
There are big differences in the amount of food waste generation change to according to the building types or sources. Generally, the amount of generation from residential and commercial (restaurants) sectors is 0.33 kg/person/day [
Food waste is treated by dividing it into public and private facilities. In the public facilities, the following occurs: animal feed (26.1%), composing (65.4%), and others (biogasification) (8.5%). Animal feed are of great importance in the private facilities because they make up more than half of total amount: animal feed 58.8%, composing 38.2%, and others 3.2%.
The result from the survey of this research reveals that 20.7% of total respondents in Seoul are now using food waste disposal units: FWDMs (9.1%); compost bins (8.0%); FWDs (2.1%); and others (1.5%). Further, 62.2% of total respondents plan to use them: FWDMs (26.0%); FWDs (24.3%); compost bins (6.8%); and others (0.4%) in the future.
Human excrement is generated in blair and flush toilets in Korea. The excrement in blair toilets is referred to as raw human excrement; the one from the flush toilet is processed through the septic tank sludge. Men expel urine and feces seven times throughout the day, including one time of feces and six times of urine per day. Human excrement, when calculated, is 1 L/person/day; feces account for 0.1 L/person/day. BOD of expelled human excrement is more than 20000 mg/L and SS is 27,500 mg/L [
Composition (%) | Korea | Seoul | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Residential | Residential | Apartment houses | |||
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
Cereals | 19.5 | 19.5 | 15.0 | 15.7 | ||
Vegetables | 55.5 | 60.5 | 49.3 | 75.0 | 44.8 | 65.7 |
Fruits | 25.7 | 20.9 | ||||
Fish meats | 6.6 | 4.4 | 7.5 | 6.9 | ||
Others | 18.5 | 15.6 | 2.5 | 11.9 |
As shown in
A total of six scenarios were suggested by applying the applicable conditions that were most practical in Seoul City; the contents of the concrete scenarios are shown in
This study included the options to install FWDMs or FWDs in individual houses because there were intentions to purchase FWDMs or FWDs in the previous survey. The AVWC systems, which have been recently distributed to housing complexes, were added in the transport option.
In the developed scenarios, household organic waste is divided into food waste, human excrement, and food waste and human excrement mixture (
This study evaluated the characteristics of anaerobic digestion and biogas generation on mixed liquids of grinded food waste and human excrement mixture by the biochemical methane production (BMP) test.
The characteristics of the used samples are shown in
The ingredient content in gas, which was calculated based on this formula, was 66.7% of CH4 and 33.3% of CO2. The early ingredient content of gas in headspace, which was corrected by considering the solubility of gas ingredients, was 84% of CH4 and 16% of CO2. The amount of accumulated methane generation was largest when grinded food waste was 94 mL, and non-thickened human excrement with flush water was 51 mL. The amount of methane generation based on inflow of CODCr for grinded food waste and for non-thickened human excrement with flush water was 0.342 L CH4/g COD and 0.423 L CH4/g COD, respectively.
The existing study showed the range of 0.333 to 0.347 L/g CODCr [
Location | Type | BOD (mg/L) | COD (mg/L) | TS (mg/L) | VS* (%) | TN (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Korea | Jungnang | Septic tank sludge | 11343 | 9812 | 19761 | 85.9 | 1510 | 175 |
Raw human excrement | 13638 | 12044 | 34178 | 76.4 | 2655 | 298 | ||
Seonam | Septic tank sludge | 7209 | 3236 | 6558 | - | - | - | |
Raw human excrement | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
Nanji | Septic tank sludge | 8674 | - | 8000 | - | - | - | |
Raw human excrement | 16059 | - | 19000 | - | - | - | ||
US | Septic tank sludge | 6480 | - | 12862 | 70.2 | 588 | 210 | |
Raw human excrement | - | - | - | - | - | - |
*Based on TS.
Scenarios | Food waste disposal units | Food waste collection | Food waste treatment | Human excrement treatment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scenario 1 | - | Curbside | Composting | Septic tank in houses |
Scenario 2 | - | AVWC system | Composting | Septic tank in houses |
Scenario 3 | FWDMs in individual houses | Curbside | Compositing | Septic tank in houses |
Scenario 4 | FWDs in individual houses | Discharge the grinded food waste to the public WWTPs | Septic tank in houses | |
Scenario 5 | FWDs in individual houses | Pretreatment in apartments and discharge the sewage to the public WWTPs | Septic tank in houses | |
Scenario 6 | FWDs in individual houses | Combined biogasification of food waste and human excrement in apartments and discharge the sewage to the public WWTPs |
Organic waste | Process | Users | GHG source | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food waste | Transfer | Elevators | Electric power | ○ | ○ | × | |||
Collection · transport | Diesel | ○ | △ | ||||||
AVWC systems | Electric power | ○ | |||||||
Transport to aerobic compositing facilities | Diesel | ○ | ○ | △ | |||||
Treatment | FWDMs | Electric power | ○ | ||||||
FWDs | Electric power | ○ | ○ | ○ | |||||
Tap water | ○ | ○ | ○ | ||||||
Sewage pretreatment in apartments | Electric power | ○ | |||||||
Aerobic compositing facilities | Electric power | ○ | ○ | ○ | |||||
WWTPs | Electric power | ○ | △ | ||||||
Human excrement | Septic tank in apartments | Methane gas | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | × | |
Food waste and human excrement mixture | Biogas facilities | Electric power | ○ | ||||||
Biogas | ● | ||||||||
WWTPs | Electric power | △ |
○: Consumption in full operation, ◎: Emissions in full operation, △: Consumption in half or less operation, ×: Insignificant consumption/emissions, and ●: Recovery in full operation. *S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6 stand for scenarios 1 - 6, respectively.
Meanwhile, the amount of CH4 generation per person in a septic tank was calculated as 0.423 L CH4/g CODCr × 1/2.4 (g CODCr/g TS) [
Parameters were calculated by dividing them largely into transfer and treatment processes in
Item (unit) | pH | CODCr (mg/L) | CODMn (mg/L) | TN (mg/L) | NH3-N (mg/L) | TP (mg/L) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Food waste | 4.46 | 136,887 | 26,000 | 6179 | 2748 | 2043 |
Human excrement with flush water | 7.79 | 2388 | 645.8 | 111.5 | 95.3 | 19.38 |
Thickened human excrement | 7.81 | 8150 | 2625.5 | 770.2 | 631.5 | 132.4 |
Item (unit) | TS (mg/L) | VS (mg/L) | VS/TS (%) | TSS (mg/L) | VSS (mg/L) | VSS/TSS (%) |
Food waste | 94,303 | 90,373 | 95.83 | 50,601 | 46,358 | 91.60 |
Human excrement with flush water | 1800 | 800 | 44.44 | 1130 | 944.4 | 83.56 |
Thickened human excrement | 20,649 | 12,200 | 59.08 | 6893 | 5597 | 81.20 |
Parameter estimation | |
---|---|
Transfer | Electric power of the elevator · Conditions of the elevator: 20 story apartment, 40 households, height between floors: 2.8 m, the speed of the elevator 90 m/min, the rated electric power of the elevator 8.3 kW [ |
Diesel for collection and transport · Vehicle conditions: load capacity: 5 tons, transportation distance per day: 37 km, the frequency of collection per day: 3 times, collection amount per day: 15 tons-food waste, fuel efficiency: 3.2 km/L-Diesel. · Consumption of diesel for collection and transport per ton of food waste: 0.8 L/ton(= 37 km ÷ 3.2 km/L ÷ 15 ton). · Cost for collection and transport per ton of food waste: 55.6 USD/ton [ | |
Electric power of an AVWC system · Conditions of the facilities: The construction cost: 17 million USD, the repair and maintenance cost: 6.8 million USD, the persisting period: 20 years, the amount of waste from an AVWC system for 20 years: 41449 tons. · Used electricity energy per ton of food waste: 324.3 kWh(= 200 kW/hr × 3360 hr ÷ 2072.5 tons). · Construction cost per ton of food waste: 574 USD (= 23.8 million USD ÷ 41449 ton/20 yrs). · Operating cost per ton of food waste: 186 USD/ton [ | |
Diesel for transport of the compositing facilities · Vehicle conditions: load capacity: 5 tons, total transportation distance: 80 km, frequency of transport: 2 times, transportation amount: 10 tons, fuel efficiency: 4.8 km/L-Diesel, one driver per vehicle. · Consumption of diesel per day of a vehicle: 3.3 L (= 160 km ÷ 4.8 km/L ÷ 10 ton). · Energy consumption per ton of food waste: 34.7 kWh (= 3.3 L × 9050 kcal/L ÷ 860 kWh/kcal). · Transport cost per ton of food waste: 30 USD [ |
Parameter estimation | |
---|---|
Treatment | Electric power of the FWDM [ |
Electric power of the FWD [ | |
Water use of the FWD [ | |
Electric power of pretreatment facilities [ | |
Electric power of the aerobic compositing facilities · Electric energy consumption per ton of food waste: 111.7 kWh [ | |
Electric power of the public WWTP [ | |
Generation of methane gas in a septic tank · The conditions of calculation: The amount of human excrement per person per day: 100 g, The amount of human excrement per population (6667 persons, equivalent of 1 ton of food waste generation): 0.6667 ton (= 0.7 ton). · Generation of methane gas per population (6667 persons): 7.054 kg (= 1.058 g/person/day × 6667 person/ton-food waste ÷ 1000 g/ton). · The emissions of methane gas to the air was ignored by forcibly collecting methane gas when 1 ton of food waste and 0.7 ton of human excrement (= mixture 1.7 tons) were combined and treated. |
Treatment | Electric power of the biogasification facilities (Food waste and human excrement mixture) · Conditions of the facilities: For the quality standards of discharge water, BOD is less than 100 mg/L, SS is less than 300 mg/L, n-Hexane is less than 300 mg/L. The treatment capacity is 400 households and the quantity of discharge water per day is 49 m3. The construction cost is 206 thousand USD (erection of frameworks is 86 thousand USD, the equipment work is 120 thousand USD, this is just used for treatment of food waste by using the combined treatment plant of food waste and human excrement). The persisting period is 10 years and the annual quantity to treat food waste is 0.192 tons. · Energy consumption of the biogasification per 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture: 1147 kWh (= 688 kWh × 1.6667 ton-mixed waste). · Biogas to electric power per 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture: 502 kWh (= 168 Nm3 × 9.953 kWh/Nm3 × 0.3%). · Construction cost per 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture: 447 USD (= 268 USD × 1.6667 ton-mixed waste). · Electricity cost per 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture: 63 USD (= 38 USD × 1.6667 ton-mixed waste). · Maintenance per 1.7 tons of food waste and human excrement mixture: 79 USD (= 47.4 USD × 1.6667 ton-mixed waste). · Saving cost by biogas to electric power on site: 28 USD (= 502 kWh × 0.0551 USD/kWh). |
---|---|
GHG avoided effect(LNG saving effect) due to utilization of biogas · Conditions of calculation: 50.8 kg of CO2 equiv. is generated when LNG, which is applicable to the caloric value, 1 MJ is produced. · Collection calorie per 1.7 tons of mixture: 6.02 MJ (= 168 Nm3 × 8560 kcal/Nm3 methane × 4.1865 × 10−6 MJ). |
Parameter estimation | |
---|---|
Social cost | The value of domestic labor to handle food waste: 10 USD/month [ |
Index to calculate GHG: Diesel 1 L = 7.07 × 10−4 ton CO2 equiv., 1 kWh = 4.24 × 10−4 ton CO2 equiv. |
power, diesel, tap water, methane gas) for functional unit: per 1 ton of food waste; per 0.7 ton of human excrement; or per 1.7 tons of mixture.
The evaluation of net energy consumption identified that energy consumption of Scenario 4 was the smallest at 36 kWh/ton-waste. The order of energy consumption was as follows: Scenario 1 (125), Scenario 2 (320), Scenario 6 (445), Scenario 5 (470), and Scenario 3 (2105).
In Scenario 6, GHG emissions were 351 kg CO2 equiv./ton-household organic waste in the transfer and treatment processes. However, 167 kg of CO2 equiv.ton-household organic waste was actually generated if the fact that the avoided impact (or saved effect, the LNG alternative effect) of methane gas recovery of 184 kg of CO2 equiv./ton-household organic waste was considered.
However, the result, which analyzed the social cost by reflecting the value of domestic labor about handling and separating food waste for collection of 10 USD/month, has found that the cost of Scenario 4 (343 USD/ton- household organic waste) was most efficient followed by Scenario 3 (416), Scenario 1 (481), Scenario 5 (547), Scenario 6 (689; net cost 672), Scenario 2 (938), in order.
By considering domestic labor of 34 USD/month, the cost of Scenario 4 (575 USD/ton-household organic waste) was the most efficient followed by Scenario 5 (779), Scenario 3 (881), Scenario 6 (922; net cost 905), Scenario 1 (1388), and Scenario 2 (1845) in order.
In the environmental aspect, the scenarios including only compositing and only FWDs have been proved to be superior. The utilization of biogas in the private power station after the FWDs and domestic sewage pretreatment in the apartments was better in the GHG emissions and energy consumption than the discharge to the public WWTP after the FWDs and domestic sewage pretreatment in the apartments.
The scenario including only composting was superior to the other scenarios in the economic aspect. In considering the only transfer and treatment processes, the study discovered that the method to put out food waste by using elevators was less expensive, yet, it incurred higher social cost on handling and separating food wastes; thus, it was more efficient to use FWDs. Furthermore, the energy saving effect due to recovery of biogas has found to be larger in the environment aspect than in the economic aspect.
This project was supported by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, Republic of Korea.