The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects of removal and recovery
Abstract
The analysis of different removal and recovery techniques for nutrients in urine shows that in many cases recovery is energetically more efficient than removal and new-production from natural resources. Considering only the running electricity and fossil energy requirements for the traditional way of wastewater treatment and fertiliser production, the following specific energy requirements can be calculated: 45 MJ kg-1N for denitrification in a WWTP, 49 MJ kg-1P for P-precipitation in a WWTP, 45 MJ kg-1N for N-fertiliser and 29 MJ kg-1P for P-fertiliser production. These numbers are higher than the values derived for thermal volume reduction of urine (35 MJ kg-1N for eliminating 90% water) or production of struvite (102 MJ kg-1N, including 2.2 kg P). Considering only the electricity and fossil energy for the traditional way of wastewater treatment and fertiliser production, the energy value of 1 PE urine is 0.87 MJ PE-1d-1 (fertiliser value: 0.44, wastewater treatment: 0.43 MJ PE-1d-1). A more detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) of the entire urine collection system, including the required materials and the environmental burden, support the energy analysis. The LCA compares conventional denitrification in a wastewater treatment plant with collecting urine in households, reducing the volume by evaporation and using it as a multi-nutrient fertiliser. The primary energy consumption for recovery and reuse of urine, including the nutrients N, P and K, is calculated with 65 MJ kg-1N, compared with 153 MJ kg-1N derived for the conventional 'recycling over the atmosphere'.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Environmental Life Cycle Comparison of Algae to Other Bioenergy Feedstocks
Clarens, A. F., Resurreccion, E. P., White, M. A., & Colosi, L. M. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es902838n · Cited by 1,118
Xie, M., Shon, H. K., Gray, S. R., & Elimelech, M. (2016) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.045 · Cited by 580
The Use of Microalgae for Coupling Wastewater Treatment with CO2 biofixation
Molazadeh, M., Ahmadzadeh, H., Pourianfar, H. R., Lyon, S., & Rampelotto, P. H. (2019) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2019.00042 · Cited by 321
Guide for using green infrastructure in urban environments for stormwater management
McFarland, A. R., Larsen, L., Yeshitela, K., Engida, A. N., & Love, N. G. (2019) · Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology · doi:10.1039/c8ew00498f · Cited by 107
De Vrieze, J., Smet, D., Klok, J., Colsen, J., Angenent, L. T., & Vlaeminck, S. E. (2016) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.119 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Maurer, M., Schwegler, P., & Larsen, T. A.
- Venue
- Water Science and Technology
- Publisher
- IWA Publishing
- Published
- 2003-07-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-46
- ISSN
- 0273-1223 (ISSN-L)
- 1996-9732
- OpenAlex
- W2117045545
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects of removal and recovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2166/wst.2003.0011
- The paper
- Maurer, M., Schwegler, P., & Larsen, T. A. (2003). Nutrients in urine: energetic aspects of removal and recovery. Water Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2003.0011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.