Environmental impacts of phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater

Options for Improved Phosphorus Cycling and Use in Agriculture at the Field and Regional Scales

“…These obstacles may be addressed by subjecting wastes to biological, chemical, thermal, or physical processes that isolate relatively pure P‐rich compounds, destroy pathogens, and/or reduce bulk. A number of P recovery techniques have been described and evaluated in the literature (Yuan et al, 2012; Schoumans et al, 2015; Egle et al, 2016; Cieślik and Konieczka, 2017; Melia et al, 2017; Roy, 2017; Amann et al, 2018; Peng et al, 2018; Weissengruber et al, 2018; Muhmood et al, 2019; Walling et al, 2019). In assessing the relative value of various approaches to P recovery, factors deserving consideration include the proportion of P that is recoverable, the presence of contaminants in recovered products, energy requirements, environmental impact of the process, value of the recovered products as fertilizer, and cost—recognizing that trade‐offs between desirable characteristics may be necessary (Egle et al, 2016; Cieślik and Konieczka, 2017; Roy, 2017; Amann et al, 2018;).…”

“…A number of P recovery techniques have been described and evaluated in the literature (Yuan et al, 2012; Schoumans et al, 2015; Egle et al, 2016; Cieślik and Konieczka, 2017; Melia et al, 2017; Roy, 2017; Amann et al, 2018; Peng et al, 2018; Weissengruber et al, 2018; Muhmood et al, 2019; Walling et al, 2019). In assessing the relative value of various approaches to P recovery, factors deserving consideration include the proportion of P that is recoverable, the presence of contaminants in recovered products, energy requirements, environmental impact of the process, value of the recovered products as fertilizer, and cost—recognizing that trade‐offs between desirable characteristics may be necessary (Egle et al, 2016; Cieślik and Konieczka, 2017; Roy, 2017; Amann et al, 2018;). The P recovery potential of 19 individual P recovery technologies assessed by Egle et al (2016) in the context of the Austrian wastewater management system ranged from 20 to 85% of wastewater influent P. Phosphorus recovery rates were greatest from incinerated sewage sludge ash, followed by sewage sludge and then the aqueous phase; however, the resulting products from the aqueous phase generally carried fewer contaminants and required lower energy inputs and chemical use than products from the solid phases (Schoumans et al, 2015; Egle et al, 2016; Amann et al, 2018).…”

“…In assessing the relative value of various approaches to P recovery, factors deserving consideration include the proportion of P that is recoverable, the presence of contaminants in recovered products, energy requirements, environmental impact of the process, value of the recovered products as fertilizer, and cost—recognizing that trade‐offs between desirable characteristics may be necessary (Egle et al, 2016; Cieślik and Konieczka, 2017; Roy, 2017; Amann et al, 2018;). The P recovery potential of 19 individual P recovery technologies assessed by Egle et al (2016) in the context of the Austrian wastewater management system ranged from 20 to 85% of wastewater influent P. Phosphorus recovery rates were greatest from incinerated sewage sludge ash, followed by sewage sludge and then the aqueous phase; however, the resulting products from the aqueous phase generally carried fewer contaminants and required lower energy inputs and chemical use than products from the solid phases (Schoumans et al, 2015; Egle et al, 2016; Amann et al, 2018). Amann et al (2018) suggested that P products recovered from sewage sludge ash have a lower environmental footprint than sewage sludge and aqueous extractions because high P recovery rates from sewage sludge ash off‐set the moderate energy demand and use of chemicals.…”

“…The P recovery potential of 19 individual P recovery technologies assessed by Egle et al (2016) in the context of the Austrian wastewater management system ranged from 20 to 85% of wastewater influent P. Phosphorus recovery rates were greatest from incinerated sewage sludge ash, followed by sewage sludge and then the aqueous phase; however, the resulting products from the aqueous phase generally carried fewer contaminants and required lower energy inputs and chemical use than products from the solid phases (Schoumans et al, 2015; Egle et al, 2016; Amann et al, 2018). Amann et al (2018) suggested that P products recovered from sewage sludge ash have a lower environmental footprint than sewage sludge and aqueous extractions because high P recovery rates from sewage sludge ash off‐set the moderate energy demand and use of chemicals. Combining multiple techniques at various points along a waste treatment process can potentially create synergies; for example, enhanced biological P removal from domestic wastewater using microbial processes increases P concentration in the resulting effluent, thereby increasing the efficiency of a subsequent P extraction process (Yuan et al, 2012; Egle et al, 2016).…”

Wastewater To Resource: Design of a Sustainable Phosphorus Recovery System

“…Among the different recoverable resources in the waste and wastewater sector, P is a notable priority . As a key nutrient for the growth of living organisms and intensive agriculture, phosphorus rock is a non‐renewable mineral resource which has undergone progressive worldwide depletion.…”