ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Comparative Environmental Assessment of Three Urine Recycling Scenarios: Influence of Treatment Configurations and Life Cycle Modeling Approaches.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mineral-integrated electrochemical system enabling membrane-free pH swing and active chlorine species generation for urine valorization.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Microenvironment-engineered electrified membrane for reactive separation of ammonia from wastewater.Science advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urine recycling is an emerging promising approach for enhancing resource recovery and mitigating environmental impacts in sanitation systems. This study presents a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of a urine dehydration system implemented at three levels of decentralization: (i) toilet-level units within bathrooms; (ii) basement-level units serving multiple households; and (iii) centralized neighborhood-scale facilities using dedicated sewers for off-site processing. Each configuration is assessed using both consequential and attributional system models across five impact categories: global warming potential, acidification, freshwater and marine eutrophication, and cumulative energy demand. The basement-level system consistently shows the lowest impacts, with up to 50% lower global warming potential than the other configurations. Centralized treatment is the most energy-efficient per liter of urine treated, but the sewer infrastructure burden offsets this advantage. Sensitivity analysis shows that substituting sulfuric acid for citric acid and achieving >52% heat recovery can yield net-negative emissions at the basement level. The choice of the LCA system model strongly affects results: attributional with substitution yields net-negative impacts, whereas consequential provides more conservative but robust estimates. The findings underscore the need for methodological transparency in LCA and provide guidance for scaling sustainable decentralized urine recycling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.