IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v14y2025i8p130-d1726805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Janna L. Brown & Robert M. Handler & Eric A. Seagren & Jennifer G. Becker, 2025. "Class A Biosolids Production Using Conventional and Low-Cost, Low-Tech Processes at Small Water Resource Recovery Facilities: A Multidimensional Sustainability Assessment," Resources, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-23, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:130-:d:1726805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/14/8/130/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/14/8/130/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:14:y:2025:i:8:p:130-:d:1726805. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.