Supplementary Information for

Sludge valorization process for waste-to-value-added

products: simulation, sustainability assessment and fuzzy
multi-criteria decision making
Yue Liu1, Tao Shi1, Ao Yang2, Jingzheng Ren1, *, Weifeng Shen3, Chang He4, Sara

Toniolo5

1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University, Hong Kong, 999077, China

2. College of Safety Engineering, Chongqing University of Science & Technology,

Chongqing, 401331, China

3. School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing,

400044, China

4. School of Materials Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou,

510275, China

5. University of Verona, Department of Business Administration, Verona, 37129, Italy

*Corresponding author:

Email:

[email protected] (Jingzheng Ren).

Number of pages: 17

Number of figures: 4

Number of tables: 18

S1
Process simulation

Assumptions for process simulation

Aspen plus was applied to conduct process simulation for the selected sludge

treatment alternatives based on the data of previous studies as well as theoretical model.

The detailed assumptions are presented as follows:

a. The composition of the input sludge has been shown in Table S1 [1]. All the

simulation process are conducted with the same compositions of input sludge and

total amount.

b. The major treatment of sewage sludge for valorized products generation are

considered in the simulation processes. The final use of the products and electricity

and disposal of residues are excluded in this research.

c. According to the literature, the actual daily capacity of the sludge treatment facility

(T PARK) was 1058 tons of dewatered sludge per day on average and the maximum

of daily treatment capacity is 2000 t [2]. Therefore, it is assumed that all the

processes receive and treat 1058 t sludge/day with the working hour of 24 h/day and

8000 h/year.

Table S1 Mass fraction of sludge composition [1]

Proximate analysis1 Ultimate analysis

MC AC VM FC C H N S O
Composition (wt%) 64.1 23.4 75.3 1.3 47.54 7.99 2.02 0.50 18.55
1 MC: Moisture content; AC: Ash content; VM: Volatile matter; FC: Fixed carbon.

S2
Description for the process simulation

Scenario 1: AD-based treatment for steam and power generation.

Figure S1 Process flowchart of sludge anaerobic digestion with power generation and heat recovery

Sludge anaerobic digestion for power generation and heat recovery is simulated

according to the flowchart shown by Figure S1. Since the anaerobic digestion process

involves lots of components in the hydrolysis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis, the

following reactions (i.e., Eqs. (1)-(5)) are assumed to occur and finally methane can be

obtained under the mild conditions. As shown in Figure S1, the sewage sludge is further

sent into the mesophilic AD tank. During the anaerobic digestion module, several

reactions were assumed and shown by Eqs. (1)-(5), and the obtained gas was cleaned

to remove the acid gas such as NH3 and H2S. Cleaning gas which mainly consists of

CH4 and H2, and CO2 was further compressed and then enter the combustor to generate

power. The operating conditions of anaerobic digestion were set to be 35 °C and 1 atm,

which is called a mesophilic AD process [3]. After AD, the digestate is collected for

further treatment and the generated biogas is applied for electricity generation with heat

recovery. The conversion rate of carbon contained in sludge is around 40%.

C+O2  CO2 (1)

N2+3H2  2NH3 (2)

S3
 C+2H2  CH4 (3)

H2+S  H2S (4)

C+2H2O  CH4+CO2 (5)

Scenario 2: Incineration-based treatment for power generation

The major process of sludge incineration by ASPEN PLUS is shown by Figure S2.

Incineration temperature was assumed to be 850 °C [4,5]. The whole process starts from

the drying unit to reduce the moisture content of the sewage sludge which was achieved

by using low-pressure steam as heat source. The final moisture content fed into the

decomposition block is set as 10 wt%. The nonconventional dried stream is

decomposed into the conventional components like carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen

and nitrogen according to the ultimate analysis of the sewage sludge. Those components

mixed with the air and make oxidation reaction happens in the combustor. The post-

combustion ash was further removed by a cyclone while the other flue gas with high

temperature were condensed by a heat exchanger which is coupled into the power

generation system.

Figure S2 Process flowchart of sludge incineration with electricity generation

S4
Scenario 3: Gasification-based treatment for syngas and steam generation

Figure S3 Process flowchart of sludge gasification for syngas and steam production

In this section, a conceptual commercial sludge gasification process is simulated

according to the flowchart diagram which is illustrated in Figure S3. The sewage sludge

stream specified by the unconventional component is fed into the dry unit to achieve

the reduction of moisture to 10 wt% for air gasification. Through the “Flash” model in

Aspen Plus, dried sludge can be obtained and was introduced into the “RYiled” block

to achieve the effective and conceptual decomposition of nonconventional sludge.

Similar to the simulation of the sludge incineration, the decomposed components are

converted into the syngas and ash by using a thermodynamic equilibrium “Gibbs” block.

Additionally, some basic assumptions were made to simplify the downdraft gasifier

before conducting the simulation [6]. The gasification system is at steady state

isothermal condition, the nitrogen and sulphur were fully converted into NH3 and H2S,

ash is inert and tar formation are neglected because of the low content in the outlet gas

stream from downdraft gasifier, and char is assumed to be totally carbon which will be

burned completely [7]. Syngas comprised of CH4, CO, CO2, H2, N2 and H2O will be

S5
obtained from the gasifier. The major reactions involved in sludge gasification are

summarized in Eqs. (6) - (15) [8].

Char particle combustion: C+0.5O2  CO (6)

Char complete combustion: C+O2  CO2 (7)

Hydrogen combustion: H2 +0.5O2  H2O (8)

CO partial combustion: CO+0.5O2  CO2 (9)

Methane combustion: CH4 +3O2  CO2  H2O (10)

Boudouard reaction: C+CO2  2CO (11)

Water-gas reaction: C+H2O  CO+H2 (12)

Water-gas shift reaction: CO+H2O  CO2+H2 (13)

Methanation reaction: C+2H2  CH4 (14)

Methane steam reforming: CH4+H2O  CO+H2 (15)

Scenario 4: SCWG-based treatment for syn-gases and power generation

Figure S4 Process flowchart of supercritical water gasification for sludge treatment and syn-gases

and power production

Currently, SCWG is still an emerging technology without wide application or

commercial promotion. A conceptual SCWG process is simulated according to the

S6
flowchart shown in Figure S4. The overall SCWG process is based on the previous

research [9]. During the process simulation, the raw sewage sludge is fed into the

decomposition reactor which converts the unconventional component into the

conventional substances according to the ultimate analysis results of sewage sludge.

The yield of different elements is set and achieved by using a calculator subroutine [10].

Before the decomposition simulation, the sewage sludge is preheated by the product

syngas stream to achieve the heat exchange and avoid the tar formation [9]. Under the

supercritical condition 254 MPa and 700 ℃ the sludge went through the gasification

reaction as shown in Eqs. (6) - (15) above. The syngas was further separated from the

solid-gas mixture and was expanded to generate power. The discharge pressure of the

turbine was set as 1.5 bar based on the research. The outlet stream with reduced pressure

will be used to preheat the feed stream and decrease the utility energy consumption.

Sustainability evaluation

The initial performance data on the considered indicators are shown in Table S2 and

the detailed data for the economic estimations are shown in Table S3.

Table S2 Initial performance data on each criterion

Aspect Criteria Unit S1 S2 S3 S4

AS1 C1 % 100 9.7828 5.0225 5.8712
C2 % 100 8.5994 5.7479 4.3811
C3 % 100 5.5765 16.5313 11.6126
C4 % 100 13.1652 18.7099 11.1265
AS2 C5 USD/year 25087754 24458590 18977128 30482065
C6 USD/year 15483997 12737910 10745089 11439674
C7 USD/year 26161567 9817200 33229642 19071794
AS3 C8 - 0.45414 0.0367 0.3889 0.3675
C9 - (M,H) (VH,H) (M,L) (M,L)
S7
 C10 - (H,VH) (H,M) (M,H) (L,M)
AS4 C11 - (H,M) (L,M) (L,M) (M,H)
Note:
Performance data of environmental, economic aspects and energy efficiency were estimated based
on the process simulation results.

Table S3 Detailed data for the cost estimations (Unit: USD/year)

Fixed capital Working Land cost Operating Transportation Landfill

cost (FCC) capital cost (LC1) costs (OC) costs (TC) costs
(WCC) (LC2)
S1 21804145 2834539 449070 12952546 7321 2524131
S2 21257330 2763453 437808 11965053 2214 770643
S3 16493308 2144130 339690 9343608 4040 1397442
S4 26492422 3444015 545628 9969114 4240 1466320
Note:
Total capital costs=FCC+WCC+LC1; Total Operating costs=OC+TC+LC2.
FCC, WCC, LC1 and OC are estimated by using Aspen Plus with the process simulation results and
assumptions. Landfill costs refer to the expense for the final landfill disposal, which are roughly
estimated based on the treatment for the residues and the fee for landfill from the reference [11].
Service year of the sludge treatment facility is assumed to be 20 years. Electricity price is assumed
to be 0.052 USD/kWh.
The volume of the truck for transportation is assumed to be 20 m3. Cost for diesel is 12.87 HKD/L
[12]. 1 USD=7.75 HKD.

Calculation process for the fuzzy weights

Fuzzy best-worst method

A new fuzzy best-worst method (fuzzy BWM) proposed by Dong et al. [13] was

applied in this study. The detailed calculation steps are described as follows.

Step 1: The decision criteria system has been constructed in the manuscript, which

is shown by Table 2.

Step 2: The best and the worst aspect and the best and the worst criterion for each

S8
aspect are determined according to the preferences of decision-makers, as is shown by

Table S4. Since there is only one indicator in social dimension, the fuzzy weight of

social aspect is exactly the weight of social acceptance.

Table S4 The best/worst aspect and the best/worst criterion of each aspect

Aspect Environmental Economic (AS2) Technical (AS3)

(AS1)
Best aspect/criterion AS1 Climate change Product sales Energy efficiency
(C1) (C7) (C8)
Worst aspect/criterion AS3 Eutrophication Total operating Technology maturity
potential (C4) costs (C6) (C9)

Step 3: Conduct the fuzzy comparisons for the best aspect to the other aspects.

Similar comparisons are also carried out for the best criterion to the other criteria. The

transformation rules of the linguistic descriptions to the triangular fuzzy numbers

(TFNs) are shown in Table S5. The fuzzy comparison results of each aspect and

criterion are listed in Table S6 - Table S9.

Table S5 Transformation principles between the triangular fuzzy numbers and corresponding

linguistic description [14]

Linguistic terms Membership

Equally important (EI) (1, 1, 1)
Weakly important (WI) (2/3, 1, 3/2)
Fairly important (FI) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
Very important (VI) (5/2, 3, 7/2)
Absolutely important (AI) (7/2, 4, 9/2)

Table S6 Fuzzy comparisons of Environmental (AS1) aspect to other aspects

Aspect AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4

Best aspect AS1 EI FI AI VI
TFNs (1,1,1) (3/2,2,5/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (5/2,3,7/2)

S9
Table S7 Fuzzy comparisons of Climate change (C1) to other criteria in Environmental aspect

Criterion C1 C2 C3 C4
Best criterion C1 EI WI FI VI
TFNs (1,1,1) (2/3,1,3/2) (3/2,2,5/2) (5/2,3,7/2)

Table S8 Fuzzy comparisons of Product sales (C7) to other criteria in Economic aspect

Criterion C5 C6 C7
Best criterion C7 FI VI EI
TFNs (3/2,2,5/2) (7/2,4,9/2) (1,1,1)

Table S9 Fuzzy comparisons of Energy efficiency (C 8) to other criteria in Technical aspect

Criterion C8 C9 C10
Best criterion C8 EI VI FI
TFNs (1,1,1) (5/2,3,7/2) (3/2,2,5/2)

Step 4: Similar with Step 3, the fuzzy comparisons between the other aspects or

criteria and the worst aspect or criterion are conducted and the corresponding results

are shown in Table S10 - Table S13.

Table S10 Fuzzy comparisons of the other aspects to Technical (AS3) aspect

Aspect Worst aspect AS3 TFNs

AS1 AI (7/2,4,9/2)
AS2 VI (5/2,3,7/2)
AS3 EI (1,1,1)
AS4 FI (3/2,2,5/2)

Table S11 Fuzzy comparisons of the other criteria to Eutrophication potential (C4) in Environmental

aspect

Criterion Worst criterion C4 TFNs

S10
 C1 VI (5/2,3,7/2)
C2 FI (3/2,2,5/2)
C3 WI (2/3,1,3/2)
C4 EI (1,1,1)

Table S12 Fuzzy comparisons of the other criteria to Total operating cost (C6) in Economic aspect

Criterion Worst criterion C6 TFNs

C5 FI (3/2,2,5/2)
C6 EI (1,1,1)
C7 VI (7/2,4,9/2)

Table S13 Fuzzy comparisons of the other criteria to Technology maturity (C9) in Technical aspect

Criterion Worst criterion C9 TFNs

C8 VI (5/2,3,7/2)
C9 EI (1,1,1)
C10 WI (2/3,1,3/2)

Step 5: Suitable values of the tolerance parameters p tj and q tj ( j  1, 2, , n;

t  l , m, u ) should be determined by the decision-makers based on their preference and

the features of the decision-making problem. According to the principles in the

reference [13], p tj and q tj can take any values within the interval [1,9]. In the case

study, all the tolerance parameters p tj and q tj are set to be 1.

Step 6: There are three different types of optimization model for solving the fuzzy

weights in this fuzzy BWM, which can be classified to optimistic type, pessimistic type

and neutral type according to the risk attitude of the decision-makers. Optimistic type

of optimization model is selected in this case study to determine the fuzzy weights of

the criteria system. The optimal fuzzy weights of each aspect and criterion can be

obtained by solving the constrained optimization problems. The fuzzy consistency ratio

S11
(FCR) for each problem has also been checked according to the computation principles

provided in the study of Dong et al. [13]. Since all the fuzzy consistency ratios are less

than 0.1, the consistency of the weighting results is acceptable. The weighting result of

each aspect and the fuzzy weight of each criterion has been presented in Table 7 and

Table 8 in the manuscript, respectively. The local weight of each criterion is shown in

Table S14 - Table S16.

Table S14 Local weight for environmental indicators

C1 C2 C3 C4
Fuzzy weight 0.3856 0.3074 0.1845 0.1225

FCR=0.0222

Table S15 Local weight for economic indicators

C5 C6 C7
Fuzzy weight 0.2464 0.1043 0.6493

FCR=0.0664

Table S16 Local weight for technical indicators

C8 C9 C10
Fuzzy weight 0.6070 0.1491 0.2439

FCR=0.0953

S12
Sensitivity analysis

Table S17 Weighting assignments for the sensitivity analysis to investigate the influence of weights variations

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11
G1 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G2 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G3 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G4 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G5 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G6 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G7 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
G8 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075 0.075
G9 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075 0.075
G10 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.075
G11 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.25

S13
Uncertainty analysis

Table S18 Detailed results of the value of  ( S 3) and final ranking under different parameter variation

Variation of Value of the phi+ Variation of the Value of the phi- Variation of the Value of the phi Variation of the Final ranking
indicator phi+ phi- phi
0 0.9551 0.00% 0.1682 0 0.7869 0.00% S3>S4>S2>S1
-5% 0.9498 -0.56% 0.1682 0 0.7816 -0.68% S3>S4>S2>S1
-4% 0.9510 -0.42% 0.1682 0 0.7829 -0.52% S3>S4>S2>S1
-3% 0.9522 -0.30% 0.1682 0 0.7840 -0.37% S3>S4>S2>S1
-2% 0.9533 -0.19% 0.1682 0 0.7851 -0.23% S3>S4>S2>S1
-1% 0.9542 -0.09% 0.1682 0 0.7861 -0.11% S3>S4>S2>S1
1% 0.9558 0.08% 0.1682 0 0.7877 0.10% S3>S4>S2>S1
2% 0.9565 0.15% 0.1682 0 0.7883 0.18% S3>S4>S2>S1
3% 0.9570 0.20% 0.1682 0 0.7889 0.25% S3>S4>S2>S1
4% 0.9575 0.25% 0.1682 0 0.7893 0.31% S3>S4>S2>S1
5% 0.9579 0.29% 0.1682 0 0.7897 0.36% S3>S4>S2>S1

S14
References

[1] Shao J, Chen H, Dai X, Yang H. Experiment of pyrolytic characteristics of

sewage sludge from Hongkong(in Chinese). Huazhong Keji Daxue Xuebao

(Ziran Kexue Ban)/Journal Huazhong Univ Sci Technol (Natural Sci Ed

2009;37:120–4.

[2] Drainage Services Department. Hong Kong Monthly Digest of Statistics -

Stastics on sludge disposal and treatment in Hong Kong. 2017.

[3] Medina-Martos E, Istrate IR, Villamil JA, Gálvez-Martos JL, Dufour J,

Mohedano ÁF. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of an integrated

hydrothermal carbonization system for sewage sludge. J Clean Prod 2020;277.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122930.

[4] Environmental Protection Department. T▪PARK: sludge treatment process

2021. https://www.tpark.hk/en/process/ (accessed January 27, 2021).

[5] de Andrés JM, Vedrenne M, Brambilla M, Rodríguez E. Modeling and model

performance evaluation of sewage sludge gasification in fluidized-bed gasifiers

using Aspen Plus. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2019;69:23–33.

doi:10.1080/10962247.2018.1500404.

[6] Cao Y, Wang Q, Du J, Chen J. Oxygen-enriched air gasification of biomass

materials for high-quality syngas production. Energy Convers Manag

2019;199. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.054.

[7] La Villetta M, Costa M, Massarotti N. Modelling approaches to biomass

gasification: A review with emphasis on the stoichiometric method. Renew

S15
 Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:71–88. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.027.

[8] Motta IL, Miranda NT, Maciel Filho R, Wolf Maciel MR. Sugarcane bagasse

gasification: Simulation and analysis of different operating parameters,

fluidizing media, and gasifier types. Biomass and Bioenergy 2019;122:433–45.

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.051.

[9] Ruya PM, Purwadi R, Lim SS. Supercritical water gasification of sewage

sludge for power generation– thermodynamic study on auto-thermal operation

using Aspen Plus. Energy Convers Manag 2020;206:112458.

doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112458.

[10] Abdelrahim A, Brachi P, Ruoppolo G, Fraia S Di, Vanoli L. Experimental and

Numerical Investigation of Biosolid Gasification: Equilibrium-Based Modeling

with Emphasis on the Effects of Different Pretreatment Methods. Ind Eng

Chem Res 2020. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.9b03902.

[11] Soltani A, Sadiq R, Hewage K. Selecting sustainable waste-to-energy

technologies for municipal solid waste treatment: A game theory approach for

group decision-making. J Clean Prod 2016;113:388–99.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.041.

[12] Lam CM, Lee PH, Hsu SC. Eco-efficiency analysis of sludge treatment

scenarios in urban cities: The case of Hong Kong. J Clean Prod

2016;112:3028–39. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.125.

[13] Dong J, Wan S, Chen SM. Fuzzy best-worst method based on triangular fuzzy

numbers for multi-criteria decision-making. Inf Sci (Ny) 2021;547:1080–104.

S16
 doi:10.1016/j.ins.2020.09.014.

[14] Guo S, Zhao H. Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and

its applications. Knowledge-Based Syst 2017;121:23–31.

doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010.

S17