Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere

Towards global phosphorus security: A systems framework for phosphorus

recovery and reuse options
D. Cordell a,b,⇑, A. Rosemarin b, J.J. Schröder c, A.L. Smit c
a
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
b
Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2B, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
c
Agrosystems Department, Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 616, 6700 AP Wageningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Human intervention in the global phosphorus cycle has mobilised nearly half a billion tonnes of the ele-
Received 14 September 2010 ment from phosphate rock into the hydrosphere over the past half century. The resultant water pollution
Received in revised form 13 February 2011 concerns have been the main driver for sustainable phosphorus use (including phosphorus recovery).
Accepted 15 February 2011
However the emerging global challenge of phosphorus scarcity with serious implications for future food
Available online 16 March 2011
security, means phosphorus will also need to be recovered for productive reuse as a fertilizer in food pro-
duction to replace increasingly scarce and more expensive phosphate rock. Through an integrated and
Keywords:
systems framework, this paper examines the full spectrum of sustainable phosphorus recovery and reuse
Phosphorus recovery and reuse
Systems framework
options (from small-scale low-cost to large-scale high-tech), facilitates integrated decision-making and
Global phosphorus scarcity identifies future opportunities and challenges for achieving global phosphorus security. Case studies
Food security are provided rather than focusing on a specific technology or process. There is no single solution to
Sustainability achieving a phosphorus-secure future: in addition to increasing phosphorus use efficiency, phosphorus
will need to be recovered and reused from all current waste streams throughout the food production
and consumption system (from human and animal excreta to food and crop wastes). There is a need
for new sustainable policies, partnerships and strategic frameworks to develop renewable phosphorus
fertilizer systems for farmers. Further research is also required to determine the most sustainable means
in a given context for recovering phosphorus from waste streams and converting the final products into
effective fertilizers, accounting for life cycle costs, resource and energy consumption, availability, farmer
accessibility and pollution.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction challenges of global phosphorus scarcity (Déry and Anderson,

The element phosphorus is essential to all life (e.g. plants, ani-
mals and bacteria) and is a key ingredient in fertilizers to sustain
high crop yields. Phosphorus has no substitute in food production
and in a world of 9 billion people by 2050, securing sufficient phos-
phorus will be critical for future food security. Yet the world’s main
source of phosphorus – phosphate rock – is non-renewable and
becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. Peak phosphorus
was estimated to occur by 2035, after which demand would out-
strip supply (Cordell et al., 2009a). While the exact timeline might
be uncertain, there are no alternative sources of phosphorus on the
market that could replace the current global production of 20 mil-
lion tonnes (Mt) of P from phosphate rock. Recent scientific and
popular science articles have explicitly drawn attention to the
⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of
Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Tel.: +61 2
9514 4950; fax: +61 2 9514 4941.
E-mail address: Dana.Cordell@uts.edu.au (D. Cordell).
2007; Cordell et al., 2009a; Rosemarin et al., 2009; Smit et al.,
2009; Vaccari, 2009), however there is still a lack of policy debate
and action.
While global phosphorus scarcity is likely to be one of the great-
est challenges of the 21st century, it is possible to avert a crisis
with concerted action. One reason behind such optimism is that
the current food production and consumption system is highly
inefficient with respect to phosphorus use. Indeed, while approxi-
mately 19 Mt a 1 of P is mined from phosphate rock specifically for
food production (Heffer and Prud’homme, 2009), only a fifth of this
phosphorus actually reaches the food consumed by the global pop-
ulation (Cordell et al., 2009a). Phosphorus is lost – permanently or
temporarily – at all key stages of the food system, from mine to
field to fork, meaning there are substantial opportunities for
improving efficient use and reuse.
Global phosphorus security is directly linked to food security,
environmental protection and farmer livelihoods and can be de-
fined as ensuring that ‘‘all the world’s farmers have access to suffi-
cient phosphorus in the short and long term to grow enough food to

0045-6535/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.02.032
748 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758

feed a growing world population, while ensuring farmer livelihoods

and minimising detrimental environmental and social impacts’’
(p. 123, Cordell, 2010). However there is no single solution to
achieving a sustainable phosphorus cycle. A recent global phospho-
rus scenario analysis (Fig. 1), indicated that meeting the increasing
long-term phosphorus demand would likely require demand
management measures to reduce business-as-usual demand by
two-thirds, and the remaining third could be met through a high
recovery rate of phosphorus from human excreta, manure, food
waste and mining waste. However achieving such a high recovery
and reuse scenario will undoubtedly require substantial changes to
physical infrastructure, new partnerships and strategic policies to
guide phosphorus recovery and reuse in an integrated way.
This paper offers a systematic framework for examining the po-
tential, options and future challenges for phosphorus recovery and
reuse to achieve global phosphorus security. Schröder et al. (2011)
compliments this by investigating the potential for phosphorus use
efficiency in agriculture to contribute to a sustainable phosphorus
cycle.

2. A systems framework for phosphorus recovery and reuse

There are numerous innovative phosphorus recovery technolo-

gies and processes (Hermann, 2009; Mavinic et al., 2009; IWAR TU-
Darmstadt, 2010), however phosphorus recovery and reuse is far
from mainstream practice. Further, there is a science and policy
gap between such technologies and frameworks to guide and sup-
port the most appropriate nutrient recovery strategy in a given re-
gion, country or international setting, particularly relating to food
security and sustainable food systems. Failure to take a systems
approach could result in investment in costly and energy-intensive
Fig. 2. Integrated systems framework to guide decision-making for sustainable
phosphorus recovery technologies that do not address the whole phosphorus recovery and reuse.
system and hence do not provide the greatest outcome for sustain-
ability, or at worst, conflict with other related services (such as en- recovering and reusing the most phosphorus to achieve multiple
ergy supply). This paper provides an 8-step framework to guide goals of food security, environmental protection, sustainable sani-
decision-making for phosphorus recovery and reuse (Fig. 2) and tation and possibly energy generation.
takes a broad systems approach, rather than focusing on a specific
technology or process. The framework is intended as a flexible and 2.1. Step 1: Identify key drivers
iterative guide only and should not be taken as a rigid step-by-step
process. It is designed to facilitate research and decision-making Phosphorus is removed from waste streams for various rea-
towards the most cost-effective and energy-efficient means of sons, depending on local, regional and global drivers (such as

Fig. 1. A sustainable scenario for meeting long-term future phosphorus demand through phosphorus use efficiency and recovery. Source: Redrawn from Cordell et al. (2009b),
 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
eutrophication problems or high dependence on phosphate
imports). Clarifying the key driver upfront is important because
it will impact the design and effectiveness of the recovery system.
For example, recovering phosphorus in wastewater sludge was
predominantly driven by the need to prevent the nutrient from
entering waterways (Driver et al., 1999). Reuse of sludge in agricul-
ture was a secondary driver (largely to dispose of sludge on land),
and is still a source of quality concerns due to perceived or real
risks of heavy metal and other contaminants (Driver, 1998). If
use as fertilizer is the primary driver, the quality of the recovered
phosphorus and its effectiveness as a fertilizer will be key. Impor-
tantly, this means phosphorus recovery should not only be opti-
mised for pollution prevention, but the resultant product needs
to be suitable for food production and other applications. This
opens up possibilities for recovering phosphorus at points other
than ‘‘end-of-pipe’’ in the food production and consumption sys-
tem. Key drivers include:
 Pollution prevention: reducing phosphorus in effluents to reduce
eutrophication and algal blooms (Barnard, 2009), through
reducing, reusing or removing phosphorus. For example, the
EU Water Framework Directive requires potential pollutants
to be removed from wastewater before being disposed of in sur-
face water (European Commission, 2000).
 Renewable fertilizer production: recovered phosphorus can be a
renewable fertilizer source to substitute increasingly scarce
phosphate rock (Britton et al., 2009).
 Farmer fertilizer security: lack of purchasing power prevents
many poor farmers from accessing mineral fertilizer markets
(Cordell, 2010), hence locally recovered phosphorus can con-
tribute to farmer fertilizer security and hence food security;
 Industrial phosphorus value: recovered phosphorus can also be
processed into elemental phosphorus (although this requires
substantial energy) and used in industrial applications, includ-
ing detergents, food additives, livestock feed additives (Schipper
and Korving, 2009; Global Phosphate Forum, 2010);
 Improved wastewater treatment plant maintenance: in some
instances phosphorus is recovered during wastewater treat-
ment to improve treatment, such as precipitating struvite (mag-
nesium ammonium phosphate) under controlled circumstances
to prevent unintentional crystalline formation which can other-
wise clog and damage wastewater treatment plants (Gilbert,
2009; Hermann, 2009).
The fertilizer value of recovered phosphorus for use in food pro-
duction is perhaps the most important future driver because it will
be essential to meeting the world’s long-term food demand. Impor-
tant questions to consider when identifying key regional or local
drivers include: current dependence on imported mineral phos-
phate fertilizers, nutrient status of water bodies (is eutrophication
a problem?), farmer accessibility to fertilizers or fertilizer markets,
food security status and need for sanitation and solid waste man-
agement systems.
2.2. Step 2: Define system boundary
Defining the system boundary (e.g. household, city, food sys-
tem, country) is important for facilitating a consistent and system-
atic analysis, in addition to identifying the most effective potential
recovery points and opportunities for synergies (e.g. combined en-
ergy and fertilizer provision) to address the key drivers (Cordell,
2010). Further, phosphorus recovery and reuse can be defined
not just as a technology, but as a socio-technical system involving
collection and storage, treatment and recovery, transport, refine-
ment and reuse (IWAR TU-Darmstadt, 2010). Further, the institu-
tional arrangements within and between each stage (such as
749
actors and their roles and responsibilities) are part of this system
(see Section 2.8).
2.3. Step 3: Quantify phosphorus available from different sources
Once the system boundary has been drawn, key potential recov-
ery points (and their relative magnitude) can be identified. While
phosphorus recovery from wastewater has received perhaps the
most attention (e.g. Hermann, 2009; Mavinic et al., 2009), phos-
phorus can potentially be recovered from any organic waste
stream. Fig. 3 indicates points in the food system where phospho-
rus is lost and hence can be recovered for reuse (R+) (versus used
more efficiently, D- or L-).
Phosphorus-containing waste streams can range from mixed
wastewater, to separate organic waste fractions, including human
urine and faeces, greywater, animal manure, animal carcasses,
detergents, other industrial wastes, food waste and crop residues.
Animal manure (and other animal parts such as bones and blood)
is widely used as a source of phosphorus fertilizer in many regions
of the world. Human excreta have also been used as a fertilizer for
as long as 5000 years in parts of East Asia (Matsui, 1997). Urine for
example, contains all the essential plant nutrients (NPK), is essen-
tially sterile and can be directly reused in agriculture (WHO, 2006).
Urine and faeces are the largest sources of phosphorus coming
from urban areas. Studies in Sweden, China, Haiti, India, South
Africa and Uganda found that approximately 60–70% of the phos-
phorus in human excreta is found in the urine fraction (0.3 kg a 1
of P), while 30–40% is found in the faecal component (0.16 kg a 1
of P) (Jönsson et al., 2004).
Around 200 million (mostly poor) farmers divert wastewater to
agriculture fields and two-thirds of all aquaculture is fertilized by
wastewater because it is a cheap and steady source of nutrients
(Raschid-Sally and Jayakody, 2008). In the European Union around
25% of phosphorus in municipal wastewater is currently recovered
and reused, predominantly as sludge (European Commission
(2001). Crop residues (such as straw, husks and stalks) are an
important and common source of phosphorus, while organic waste
from food processing and production (such as peelings, oil cakes,
food preparation and plate waste) can also be productively reused
for their phosphorus content. However in all cases, the quality of
the source is paramount and strategies to either prevent contami-
nation (such as through source separation) or sanitize the source
may be needed.
The total amount of phosphorus available in excreta, manure,
food waste and other sources may vary from country to country
depending on: population size, daily food intake, and dietary pref-
erences (Esrey et al., 2001); livestock numbers, the animal type-
specific P-excretion, feed type and supplements; the commodities
produced; location of final consumption (domestic or exported);
and efficiency and complexity of the food commodity chain (if effi-
ciency is high, losses such as spillages will be low and therefore
less phosphorus will be available in waste for recovery (Cordell
et al., 2009b)).
Knowledge of phosphorus concentration in different sources
(Table 1) is useful for estimating the total phosphorus available
for recovery. The phosphorus concentration also has strong impli-
cations for viability of phosphorus recovery, storage and transport.
In general, the lower the phosphorus concentration, the more en-
ergy is required to concentrate the phosphorus (such as through
dewatering or other physical or chemical process), or to transport
the bulky low concentrated material if it will not be used onsite1.
1
However other factors such as quality are also important. For example, while
urine has a low phosphorus concentration compared to some other organic wastes, it
can be used directly without treatment (since it is essentially sterile and contains all
the plant nutrients), meaning energy and other costs can be avoided to an extent.
750 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758

Fig. 3. Potential points of phosphorus recovery and increased efficiency in the global food production and consumption system. (Internal accumulation of P and recycling
potential within a sector are not indicated here. For example, P accumulating in arable soils and the large potential to recycle (R+) P within the livestock sector for fertilizing
pastures that require P (rather than ‘dumping’ on land that does not require P) are not indicated here.) Figures represent current phosphorus flows in Mt a 1 of P (million
metric tonnes P per year). Source: Adapted from Cordell et al. (2009a)

Table 1 the sediments of canals, rivers, lakes and oceans (Gunther, 1997;
Typical phosphorus concentrations of different wastes and intermediates. Richards and Dawson, 2008).
Organic material P (% P by weight) Key questions to consider include:
Human urine 0.02–0.07
Human faeces 0.52  Total available phosphorus from different waste streams (e.g., in
Human excreta 0.35 The Netherlands manure may be the dominant source of phos-
Activated sewage sludge 1.4 phorus, while in other countries like Germany, sludge may be
Sludge (from biogas digester) 0.48–0.77
the largest phosphorus-containing waste stream).
Struvite 13–14
Cow dung 0.04  Potential phosphorus recovery rate (%P) from the system (close
Poultry manure 1.27 to 100% recovery rate of phosphorus will be required to meet
Farm Yard Manure (FYM) 0.07–0.88 future global fertilizer demand).
Rural organic matter 0.09  Contaminants e.g. iron or aluminium in the flocculation process
Vermicompost 0.65
that could adversely affect the fertilizer effectiveness of the
Crop residues 0.04–0.33
Urban composted material 0.44 sludge or cadmium which can create health risks to end users.
Oil cake (by-product from oilseed processing) 0.39–1.27  Appropriateness or feasibility of the recovered phosphorus as a
Meatmeal 1.09 fertilizer from the farmer perspective, including:
Bonemeal 8.73–10.91
– Biochemically, such as bioavailability to plant roots, appro-
Note: Some caution should be exercised when using such phosphorus concentration priate NPK ratio.
values, as they will depend very much on whether the material is fresh wet-weight, – Socially, e.g., odour and safety; and
semi-dried or slurry.
– Logistically, e.g. ease of handling, available for procurement
(Data sources: Kirchmann and Pettersson, 1995; Vinnerås, 2002; van Dijk, 2003;
FAO, 2006; Hammond et al., 2007; Tilley et al., 2009).
at appropriate time for growing season.

If not intentionally recovered for reuse in agriculture, used 2.4. Step 4: Identify phosphorus recovery systems and techniques
phosphorus ends up in non-agricultural land (such as dumping of
manure), landfills (organic solid waste or sewage sludge), inciner- Once potential sources of phosphorus have been identified for
ator ash and eventually building materials, or permanently lost in recovery, appropriate recovery and reuse techniques to address
 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758 751

the key drivers can be explored. Table 2 indicates recovery pro-
cesses (across the header row), including source separation and di-
rect use, composting, physical separation, biological phosphorus
removal, precipitation and incineration (or a combination of pro-
cesses). Examples of phosphorus recovery and reuse systems (in
the cells) for each source (in the header column) are matched with
a process. Each will have trade-offs that vary in significance
depending on the context. Never-the-less it is important to con-
sider both small and large-scale systems in the same framework.
2.4.1. Small-scale, decentralised recovery processes
Small-scale and decentralised sanitation systems (ranging from
individual onsite systems through to community-scale) have been
developed due to their lower cost, or appropriateness for serving
remote or low-density populations. Many small-scale systems dis-
pose of treated or untreated excreta/wastewater to land (rather
than rivers and oceans typical of large-scale centralised systems).
Ecological sanitation is one form of sustainable decentralised san-
itation and refers to the containment, sanitization and recycling of
human excreta to arable land (Esrey et al., 2001). While the key
objectives are protection of public health and the environment,
other important goals are the reduction of water use in sanitation
systems, reducing the demand for mineral fertilizers in agriculture
by recycling nutrients from human excreta and explicitly address-
ing the need to ‘close the loop’ on nutrients, including phosphorus.
There are numerous documented practical local cases of ecological
sanitation around the world, including examples from Southern
Africa, China, Vietnam and Mexico (Drangert, 1998; Gumbo and
Savenije, 2001; Rosemarin et al., 2008), and in the developed world
from Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany
(Johansson and Kvarnström, 2005; Münch et al., 2009).
Some small-scale decentralised operations that concentrate
nutrients following recovery are also emerging, such as develop-
ments to precipitate struvite from source-separated urine in Swe-
den (Ganrot et al., 2009) and Nepal (Tilley et al., 2009). Other
small-scale phosphorus recovery systems include: composted toi-
let and food waste, household greywater treatment and irrigation,
biogas sludge reuse, onsite industrial waste treatment and reuse
and the already common practice of farmyard manure reuse. A
compendium of sanitation systems and technologies (including
some nutrient recovery technology) prepared by EAWAG (Tilley
et al., 2008) provides a systematic assessment of the broad range
of low-cost, small-scale systems.
Decentralised systems can also offer benefits over centralised
systems in terms of potential to reduce energy consumption, losses
(from leaky pipes), costs, water consumption and raw material in-

Table 2
A classification matrix of phosphorus sources and recovery and reuse processes to meet future global phosphorus needs for food security.d Source: Redrawn from Cordell et al.
(2009b)

a
An incinerating toilet is a toilet with inbuilt incineration technology (EPA, 1999).
b
Green manure is a cover crop like clover or vetch and is ploughed into the soil (FAO, 2006).
c
Oil press cakes are the by-product when oil seeds are pressed to produce oil (FAO, 2006).
d
The examples provides are not an exhaustive list, rather they are used by way of example to indicate the range of systems. Some sources, such as crop residues are typically
already left in the field for reuse, however there is a risk they may be exported from the field in the future for energy production.
752 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
puts. For example, 50–70% of the costs of centralised wastewater
treatment systems can be in the conveyance (sewerage pipe net-
work) (Clarke, 1997). In a future challenged with energy and water
scarcity, climate change and increased population growth, decen-
tralised systems are likely to play an important role in future sus-
tainable sanitation systems (Mitchell et al., 2011; Maurer, in press).
Further, separating wastewater streams at source (known as
‘source separation’) can facilitate appropriate treatment and re-
source recovery of the different streams, which can have substan-
tially different qualities (for example, urine or household
greywater tend to contain substantially less toxic substances com-
pared to industrial wastewater and therefore the two streams need
not be treated in the same way) (Mitchell et al., 2011).
Limitations of small-scale decentralised systems can include
land space availability (particularly in highly dense urban areas)
and transferral of management and maintenance responsibilities
(from wastewater service provider to householder, in the case of
onsite systems). Section 3 provides examples of a range of small-
scale systems.
2.4.2. Large-scale, centralised recovery processes
Centralised wastewater systems were first developed in the
mid-1800s after severe cholera outbreaks in London coupled with
‘The Big Stink’ (Abeysuriya et al., 2006) (the history of sanitation
and phosphorus recovery is detailed in Ashley et al. (2011)). This
had substantial public health benefits by moving pathogenic faecal
material away from human settlements, reducing the risk of dis-
ease. However the recovery of nutrients in cities was largely
brought to an end by such water-based piped networks (Neset
et al., 2010). Nutrient recovery was re-introduced in centralised
systems in the 1970s to reduce pollution of waterways that was
coming from increasing phosphorus levels in household and indus-
trial wastewater containing detergents and excreta (Smil, 2000;
Barnard, 2009). Nutrient removal from wastewater treatment
plants has developed over the past decades from a focus on chem-
ical processes (in the 1980s) to biological nutrient removal (in the
1990s) and most recently to commercial marketing of recovered
nutrients such as struvite or ash (Hammond et al., 2007; Ashley
et al., 2011). Struvite can readily form in advanced wastewater
treatment processes permanently clogging pipes if not removed.
The reaction is magnesium-limited and can be exploited to pro-
duce an efficient slow release fertilizer (Uysala et al., 2010).
Phosphorus can be recovered from multiple streams at a centra-
lised wastewater treatment plant, including untreated wastewater
inflow, sewage sludge, effluent side stream from sludge dewater-
ing and ash from sludge incineration (Hermann, 2009). Indeed
Schenk et al. (2009) and Hermann (2009) identify over 30 pro-
cesses for the recovery of phosphorus from wastewater treatment
plants alone. The potential phosphorus recovery rate varies with
technology and local conditions and practices. There are commer-
cial scale struvite recovery plants (from sludge dewatered side
stream) operating in Canada (see Ostara, 2009; Rahaman et al.,
2009) and Japan (Ueno and Fujii, 2001), while some commercial
operations in The Netherlands sell nutrients sourced from sludge
ash to end users (Schipper and Korving, 2009). There have been tri-
als to produce a marketable fertilizer from municipal sewage in
Germany (Adam et al., 2008) and marketable ‘biofertilizer’ sourced
from livestock effluent in Australia (for example, Microfert (2009)).
Other examples of large-scale phosphorus recovery systems in-
clude wastewater-fed aquaculture, the reuse of sludge, precipi-
tated calcium-phosphate or effluent emerging from wastewater
treatment plants. In almost all of these cases, the source of phos-
phorus is mixed household and industrial wastewater, therefore
the quality of the inflow will be highly dependent on the input
sources.
Reuse of ground bone and meat meal from animal carcasses are
also frequently used in countries with significant livestock densi-
ties, such as Denmark and The Netherlands, however such reuse
decreased markedly after ‘‘mad cow disease’’ or transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) outbreaks in the 1990s
(European Commission, 2010). The ‘Cows to Kilowatts’ project in
Nigeria can generate gas from anaerobic digestion of abattoir
waste to power 5400 households, while the resultant sludge can
be sold as organic fertilizer to low-income urban farmers at 5%
the standard price of fertilizers in Nigeria (Heid, 2006).
Centralised phosphorus recovery and reuse systems can have
benefits such as an economy of scale, ease of end-of-pipe additions
rather than household or community-scale retrofits and generation
of marketable products. However such systems are limited in
terms of large sunk costs, energy and resource costs of pipe net-
works, increased risk of losses (as discussed earlier), and risk of
technology ‘‘lock-in’’ (that is, the large investments in technology
that make it difficult to change in a timely manner even when
more superior or appropriate alternatives are available (see
Perkins, 2003) (Abeysuriya et al., 2006; Mitchell et al., 2011). This
is discussed further in Section 4. Section 3 provides examples of a
range of large-scale systems.
2.5. Step 5: Identify logistics of collection, storage, transport and use
In addition to the potential sources and technologies, the spatial
distribution of the phosphorus sources (e.g. toilets) relative to the
end users (e.g. farmers) is important for determining the energy
cost and hence feasibility of the phosphorus recovery and reuse
system. Population density and distribution, location and size of
the agriculture and food production systems are important factors
as well. As the world becomes predominantly urbanized, urban
centres will become ‘phosphorus hotspots’ from human excreta
and food waste (Cordell, 2010). The phosphorus in these hotspots
originated from local or distant agricultural fields, hence returning
the phosphorus to these sources would create a more closed phos-
phorus loop. While excreta typically is disposed of on land in rural
areas, effluent from urban wastewater almost always ends up in
rivers and oceans, unless intentionally recovered (Drangert,
1998). Urbanization has broken the phosphorus cycle through
the use of water-based sanitation systems which dilute phospho-
rus, making it more expensive to recover. China, for example, has
been reusing excreta (‘nightsoil’) for an estimated 5000 years,
though as the population of 1.3 billion people migrate to urban
centres, so does the source of ‘humanure’ and simultaneously the
location where food is needed. Brown (2003) addresses these
drawbacks of spatial separation of food production and food con-
sumption in greater detail.
Achieving efficient and cost-effective phosphorus recovery from
human excreta will require more sustainable and ecological sanita-
tion systems involving less or no water (Rosemarin et al., 2008).
While urban agriculture fertilized by human and animal waste, al-
ready occurs in a planned or an ad hoc way in some parts of the
world such as direct wastewater reuse (Drangert, 1998), its poten-
tial to meeting future food security in a sustainable way on a global
or even a regional scale has not yet been assessed in a substantial
way. Gumbo (2005) provides a thorough analysis for an urban wa-
tershed in Harare, Zimbabwe, indicating that the fertilizer value of
the urine produced by urban dwellers in the case study catchment
could sustain the agricultural activities in the urban areas. The con-
cept of eco-industrial parks in industrial ecology could inform a
spatial analysis of how human excreta could be feasibly and logis-
tically collected, converted to fertilizer and re-distributed to urban
and peri-urban agriculture in an efficient sustainable manner.
Jönsson (2002) and Tidåker et al. (2007) calculated that urine can
be transported up to 100–200 km in the Swedish context and
 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
remain more energy-efficient than production and use of mineral
fertilizers. Fealy and Schröder (2008) showed, however, that the
energetic break-even point, and hence the affordable distance, is
strongly determined by the extent to which nutrients have been
diluted with flush water and storm water.
Important questions to consider include:
 Physical distance between source and productive agricultural
land or other end uses (the energy consumption, costs and risk
of losses during transport of recovered phosphorus to the end
user are generally proportional to the overland distance); and
 Land space available for intermediate storage and reuse (in
some instances, land space is a constraining factor (Gumbo,
2005)).
2.6. Step 6: Identify life cycle costs
Once potential systems have been identified, the life cycle costs
associated with the collection, storage, transport, treatment and
reuse of phosphorus need to be determined. This includes eco-
nomic, environmental and social costs. In an era of energy scarcity
and climate change, fossil fuel energy use will need to be mini-
mised. Important questions therefore include:
 Life cycle costs of the whole recovery and reuse system (seeking
phosphorus recovery options with lowest cost to society – not
just a single stakeholder – will need to be prioritised).
 Life cycle energy required from recovery to reuse.
 How this compares to current life cycle costs of mineral phos-
phate fertilizer from mine to farm gate.
 Raw materials required for the recovery system such as input
chemicals (e.g. magnesium for struvite crystallization); and
 By-products and their required treatment or management.
2.7. Step 7: Identify synergies and conflicts
While a suitable recovery and reuse system may appear opti-
mal, the phosphorus system does not operate in isolation, and in-
deed has many inter-linkages with sanitation, water, energy and
food systems. There are no sustainable parts of unsustainable
wholes2, thus the phosphorus system should have no net negative
impact on society and ideally value-add. That is, synergies should
be identified and sought, while potential conflicts should be avoided.
such as, the potential of the system to address services other than
food production, by value-adding soil fertility with other related ser-
vices such as sanitation, pollution prevention, energy/heat genera-
tion, irrigation (for example, small-scale biogas plants can treat
household sewage, generate energy (methane) from the waste
through anaerobic digestion and enable the resultant sludge to be
reused as fertilizer).
2.8. Step 8: Identify institutions and stakeholders
Identifying the key stakeholders and institutional arrangements
around the phosphorus recovery and reuse system is crucial to
implementing an effective system. Stakeholders include those
actors that affect or are affected by the system. In the case of phos-
phorus these may include: phosphate mining companies, fertilizer
manufacturers and distributors, agri-business sector, farmers, food
producers, distributers and retailers, dieticians and nutritionists,
consumers/householders, water and sanitation service providers,
environmental managers, policy-makers and entrepreneurs
(Cordell, 2010). Engaging key stakeholders early in the process
2
Franzi Poldy, pers comm., CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 14th November 2008.
753
can improve the generation of socially robust and credible out-
comes that are more likely to be adopted and implemented. Also
important is to identify the dominant world view or paradigms that
underlie the current system (e.g. the common belief that centra-
lised systems are superior, or that the market will solve the scarcity
problem). Important questions to consider include:
 Which stakeholders can affect or will be affected by the system?
 Who will manage and finance elements and overall coordina-
tion of the system?
 Are institutional arrangements, regulations and policies suffi-
cient, or do they need to change?
 What are the most appropriate policy instruments (e.g. regula-
tory, economic, communicative) to facilitate the chosen phos-
phorus recovery and reuse options?
3. Case studies
The following cases highlight the range of examples of phos-
phorus recovery and reuse systems from around the world – cases
1–3 are small-scale and cases 4–6 are large-scale. The matrix in
Table 3 highlights how each case addresses the issues in steps
1–8 of the systems framework.
3.1. Case 1: Household-scale phosphorus recovery combining struvite
precipitation and zeolite adsorbtion in Sweden
Driven by the need for energy-efficient technology that precip-
itates phosphorus from household wastewater streams, this sys-
tem recovers and concentrates phosphorus and other valuable
resources onsite for potential reuse offsite, through commercially
available technology. Urine is separated from faeces via the ‘Aqua-
tron’ system and the phosphorus precipitated to yield struvite,
while the faeces and other organic waste streams are dried. ‘Split
Box’ technology achieves a high volume reduction of wastewater,
in addition to capturing waste heat from the wastewater streams
for reuse in the house (Ganrot et al., 2009). Concentration of phos-
phorus at source overcomes the bulky storage and transport logis-
tical barrier associated with direct use of urine, however this
results in the additional financial burden and the requirement of
space for the treatment system in each household.
3.2. Case 2: Productive sanitation in rural Niger
Driven by the goal of local food security, this phosphorus recov-
ery system in southern Niger involves 700 households (eight vil-
lages) in the recycling of nutrients and organic matter from
human excreta via simple urinals and waterless toilets. The system
value-adds by conserving water, providing sanitation, food security
and contributing to poverty alleviation and resulted in the new
term Productive Sanitation Systems (PSS). The technology used is
low-cost (including low energy), low-tech and the nutrients are re-
used for food production locally, avoiding large transport costs of
bulky material. Yields of vegetables and cereals fertilized with ex-
creta were equal or superior to those receiving equivalent amounts
of chemical fertilizer (Dagerskog and Bonzi, 2010).
3.3. Case 3: Decentralised reuse-oriented wastewater management
using urine and anaerobic digestion (biogas), India
The key drivers of this phosphorus recovery system located at
Adarsh College were sanitation, energy generation and food pro-
duction. The system involves urinals and pour-flush toilets. The
blackwater and greywater are collected in an anaerobic digester
to produce biogas (for cooking and lighting) and sludge (for agri-
culture and gardening within the school grounds) while the urinal
Table 3

754
Examples of 6 phosphorus recovery and reuse systems from different parts of the world, reviewed against the themes in the 8-step systems framework..

CASE 1. Key 2. System 3. Phosphorus source/output 4. Technology/ 5. Logistics 6. Life cycle costs 7. Synergies or conflicts 8. Institutional
driver(s) boundary system arrangements
Input Output
CASE 1 Sweden Energy- Household Separated Struvite (magnesium Aquatrona Concentration Requires treatment and Precipitation of phosphorus reduces Commercially
efficient urine and ammonium phosphate) Split boxb of P at source recovery system onsite perceived or real health risks available household
nutrient other slow release fertilizer overcomes the connected to toilet and other associated with pharmaceutical technology
recovery household P recovery rate: 90–98% bulky storage wastewater fractions residues in urine, and any other
wastewater and transport (therefore space and chemical or bacterial pollutants;
streams barrier associated costs) resultant phosphorus is in the form
associated with of a slow release fertilizer
direct urine

CASE 2 Niger Sanitation Rural Urine and Stored urine and dry- Low-cost waterless Eight villages; Construction of low cost System provides complete Onsite organisation,
provision, village faeces composted faeces toilets and urinals 1 month toilets and storage systems replacement for chemical fertilizer training in
food security, P recovery rate: 90–99% storage of urine onsite to produce the household construction and use
poverty in sealed jerry vegetables and grains (higher yields of urine-diverting
alleviation containers; of vegetables, millet and sorghum toilets and urinals and
dried faeces compared to chemical fertilizer); handling of stored
added to also provides household-based urine and dried faeces
manure sanitation facilities without using in agriculture
the limited water supply in this
drought-ridden region

D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758

CASE 3 India Sanitation School Urine and Urine, biogas digester Low-cost pour- Onsite Constructed sanitation System provides safe sanitation in a Maintenance
provision, faeces sludge, wetland trapped flush toilets and treatment and facility, digester and wetland school setting and produces biogas programme for the
energy effluent urinals, anaerobic reuse facilities onsite for cooking and lighting plus the biogas facility; sludge
generation, P recovery rate: 90–99% digester, necessary urine and digested sludge are used drying, urine storage
local food constructed for local gardening and agriculture facility and
production wetland to replace the equivalent use of constructed wetland
chemical fertilizer

CASE 4 North Improved Centralised Mixed Crystal Greenc struvite Ostara technology – Struvite is Easy to transport (due to Slow release fertilizer reduces risk Wastewater service
America wastewater wastewater wastewater (5–28-0 + 10% Mg) slow Pearl and Crystal precipitated concentration of P); requires of runoff; reduces downstream provider can sell
treatment treatment release fertilizer Green and bagged for constant addition of Mg; scaling problems that can occur struvite as
plant plant P recovery rate: >85% sale onsite at effluent waste stream still during the sludge dewatering commercial product
maintenance; centralised needs treatment and proper process; N removal is low, hence
phosphorus wastewater disposal (contains heavy struvite is low in N
recovery for treatment metals, pharmaceutical
fertilizer use facility residues, etc.)

CASE 5 The Phosphorus Centralised Sewage Elemental or industrial Sewage sludge Recovered Energy required for Sewage sludge ash must be low in Profitable partnership
Netherlands recovery for wastewater sludge quality P incinerator, phosphorus is dewatering and sludge Fe to be appropriate for phosphorus between sludge
industrial treatment incinerator P recovery rate: 75% phosphorus concentrated incineration recovery (Fe is sometimes added treatment company
uses and single ash - original refinement onsite which upstream during wastewater and phosphate
industry source avoids costly treatment, due to the lower cost of producer; Energy
mixed transport of Fe compared to Al); incineration efficient sludge
wastewater bulky material processes, including those at incineration
Thermphos, have shown to be
associated with the emission of
dioxins

CASE 6 Denmark Pollution Central Mainly pig A liquid fraction low in P Mechanical Bulky liquid Removal of water from Adding Fe and Al salts can stimulate Market stability via
prevention, installations slurry on suitable for local crop P separation based on fraction applied ingoing slurry helps to save the separation process but make the multi-year contracts
phosphorus and small landless demands, solid fraction the use of screens, locally, on the costs (and energy) of P in the solid fraction less available between livestock
recovery for scale livestock high in P and low water, sieve bands, screw concentrated transporting excess P. These to plants. This makes the product farmers, industries
fertilizer use (mobile farms and suitable for long-distance presses or solid fraction savings outweigh the energy commercially less attractive for providing the
truck cattle slurry transport to crop farms in centrifuges transported needed for the separation agricultural use separation capacity
mounted) on intensive need of P fertilizers over longer itself and sellers of solid
installations dairy farms P recovery rate: 60% distances fraction

a
www.aquatron.se.
b
www.splitvision.se.
c
http://www.ostara.com//premium-fertilizer/crystal-green.
 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
system has a separate collector (also for agriculture and garden-
ing). The effluent from the digester is treated in a constructed wet-
land. The system traps all phosphorus fractions (Sustainable
Sanitation Alliance, 2009). Onsite treatment does not concentrate
phosphorus and requires sufficient space, however phosphorus is
used onsite, so transport logistics are not a problem. Such an on-
site system also requires investment in maintenance and training
to operate and manage the system components.
3.4. Case 4: Struvite recovery – the Ostara ‘Crystal Green’ experience,
Canada
Initially developed by the University of British Columbia in
Canada to reduce the occurrence of pipe blockages in advanced
wastewater treatment facilitates, the Ostara nutrient recovery
technology recovers phosphorus and ammonium from wastewater
treatment plants via a fluidized bed reactor. Wastewater centrate
influent from sludge dewatering side streams (ideally following
biological treatment) enters the reactor from the bottom, moving
up through increasingly larger reactive zones. Magnesium is dosed
to facilitate the crystallization process. The resultant struvite is
then harvested from the reactor, dried and packaged onsite for
sale. There are now numerous commercial operations using the
Ostara fluidized bed reactor in North America. The full-scale com-
mercial operation at Portland’s Durham wastewater treatment
plant processes 100% of the wastewater through the reactor, at a
90% P recovery rate, yielding 500 t a 1 of struvite. The phosphorus
recovery system is capital-intensive (typically $2–4 million) and
does not address the inefficiencies and current energy costs associ-
ated with centralised sewerage systems, however transport costs
are reduced due to concentration of phosphorus and costs can be
recovered in 3–5 years due to maintenance and capacity cost sav-
ings and fertilizer revenue. After this time it can provide revenue to
the wastewater service provider (such as the municipality) (Britton
et al., 2009; Mavinic et al., 2009).
3.5. Case 5: Phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge ash – the SNB-
thermphos partnership, The Netherlands
Driven by the market opportunity for recovered phosphorus,
the Dutch sewage sludge treatment company, N.V. Slibverwerking
Noord-Brabant (SNB) recovers phosphorus from sewage sludge ash
and sells it to the international phosphate producer, Thermphos
International. SNB processes approximately 430 kt a 1 of sludge
cake – accounting for around 30% of the sludge produced in The
Netherlands. Approximately 6 kt a 1 of product (35 g P kg 1 ash
is delivered to Thermphos at their expense) for further purification
(Schipper and Korving, 2009). The process is energy- and capital-
intensive (and like other ‘add-on’ systems at a wastewater
treatment plant it does not address the current inefficiencies in
centralised wastewater systems), however it does provide a pure,
high quality and reliable product that Thermphos then sells to
end users, such as the food producers (for additives) or pharmaceu-
tical companies (for medicines). The collaboration between SNB
and Thermphos is an example of new industry partnerships that
can facilitate the effective recovery and reuse of phosphorus from
urban wastes.
3.6. Case 6: Manure separation and reuse, Denmark
This phosphorus recovery system was driven by the limited
space available for most pig farmers to spread phosphorus-rich
pig slurry on land (to avoid accumulation and environmental pol-
lution). Pig slurry (typically 9% dry mass (DM), N/P ratio = 4) is split
into a liquid fraction (5% DM) poor in phosphorus (N/P ratio = 6)
and a solid fraction (25% DM) rich in phosphorus (N/P ratio = 2)
755
via mechanical separation with screens, sieve bands, screw presses
or centrifuges. This value-adds by enabling pig farmers to export
just the less bulky solid fraction while helping crop farmers save
on mineral fertilizer phosphorus. The energy saved in manufactur-
ing that fertilizer and the reduced transport costs of excess manure
by far outweigh the energy needed for the separation process
(Birkmose, 2009; Schröder and Verloop, 2010). While this system
functions for the driver, it does not address issues at a broader re-
gional scale, such as whether intensive livestock production is suf-
ficiently sustainable and how mixed livestock-cropping farm
systems might provide an even better solution in the long-term.
While most of the cases presented are at the scale of individual
dwellings or treatment plant (and not planned at the scale of a city
or region), the cases never-the-less demonstrate the wide range of
phosphorus recovery techniques possible in response to different
local and regional drivers. In all cases, there are synergies or va-
lue-adding, such as combined fertilizer and energy production
and pollution prevention. In cases 4 and 5, the energy and other
costs occurring between the source (e.g. toilet) and the wastewater
treatment plant were not included. However from a life-cycle and
systems perspective, these costs would need to be accounted for.
Trade-offs, such as reducing the energy cost of treatment/process-
ing versus transport to the end user, will likely always be present
and need to be considered systematically, explicitly and in relation
to the specific context.
4. Future challenges and directions
Designing sustainable phosphorus recovery systems will need
to consider other global environmental and social challenges (in
addition to phosphorus scarcity), including: climate change, fossil
fuel energy scarcity, water scarcity, land-use changes, population
growth, urbanisation trends and eutrophication.
The investment in renewable energy systems to provide alter-
natives to scarce fossil fuel energy sources and reduce greenhouse
gas generation, can potentially compete with phosphorus recovery
if not explicitly taken into account. For example, generating ‘bio-
char’ from agricultural wastes to replace coal or for use in agricul-
tural soils to sequester carbon can either permanently remove the
phosphorus contained in the original biomass from the food sys-
tem, or, potentially convert the phosphorus to a form unavailable
for plants.
Conversely, phosphorus recovery and reuse should ideally not
require a net increase in energy consumption. However there are
still large research and knowledge gaps regarding life cycle energy
costs of phosphorus recovery and reuse systems (recovery, refin-
ing, transportation) and how such costs compare to the use of min-
eral phosphate fertilizers (mining, processing, transportation).
While some individual studies exist, more uniform and compre-
hensive analyses are required to assess different phosphorus
recovery and reuse systems under different scenarios.
Future phosphorus recovery systems will also need to take into
account future trends and drivers within water, sanitation, food
and environmental management sectors to ensure they are consis-
tent with preferred future directions and do not, for example, re-
sult in technology lock-in (Perkins, 2003; Cordell, 2010). For
example, the water and sanitation industry is at a turning point
due to aging infrastructure and new global pressures like climate
change (Mitchell et al., 2011). Future sustainable sanitation sys-
tems are therefore trending towards more decentralised systems,
to minimise life cycle energy consumption, infrastructure, losses
and costs associated with conveying large volumes of wastewater
through a piped network system and importantly, to facilitate re-
source recovery. Mitchell et al. (2011) suggests a transition to-
wards ‘restorative’ systems is required, where sanitation systems
756 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
have positive economic and social outcomes, such as generating re-
sources like energy, water and nutrients, in addition to providing
communities with sanitation services.
Other important future directions affecting phosphorus recov-
ery include the paradigm shift in sustainable production and con-
sumption from a focus on ‘products’ (e.g. carpet, cars) to ‘services’
(e.g. carpet leasing, car shares) (White et al., 1999). With respect to
phosphorus, new opportunities arise for the phosphate fertilizer
industry to shift from selling fertilizer products, to providing ‘soil
fertility’ or ‘food security’ services. The concept of ‘integrated plant
nutrient management’ (IPNM) and associated ‘‘Global 4R Nutrient
Stewardship Framework’’, put forward by the International Fertil-
izer Industry Association (IFA), is one example in this direction
(IFA, 2009). New partnerships between the fertilizer and sanitation
sectors will also be required. There are already some innovative
examples (see Case 5) and the Global Phosphate Forum (2010)
which is leading the phosphate industry in phosphorus recovery
initiatives.
In addition to future trends, ‘weights’ of the past (such as sunk
infrastructure costs) must also be taken into consideration, as they
may otherwise inhibit transitions towards sustainable and restor-
ative systems, despite improvements offered by the new systems
(Abeysuriya et al., 2006; Mitchell et al., 2011). While some phos-
phorus recovery and reuse systems exist, commercialisation and
implementation on a global scale to ensure long-term phosphorus
security could take decades to develop and significant adjustments
to institutional arrangements will be required to support these
infrastructural changes (Cordell et al., 2009a). Tilley (2010) further
notes a marked lack of investment in phosphorus recovery tech-
nologies in developing country contexts. Stimulating markets for
renewable phosphorus fertilizers through subsidies, taxes, compe-
tition and investment grants and supporting demonstrations and
trials may be required to facilitate effective phosphorus recovery
and reuse systems (Tilley, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2011). Until
2008, the price of phosphate rock and associated fertilizer com-
modities was too low to stimulate investment in recovery systems
for their fertilizer value. While the 2008 peak of US$431 t 1 price
has since returned to a lower baseline (US$90 t 1), the price of
fertilizers is expected to increase over the long-term (Cordell
et al., 2009a; Horn and Sartorius, 2009). Horn and Sartorius
(2009) postulate that phosphorus recovery from wastewater treat-
ment plants will become self-sufficient at a price of approximately
US$100 t 1 rock phosphate.
Another important weight of the past is the psychological bar-
rier of reusing excreta in food production. Farmers may be reluc-
tant to use wastes because of cultural barriers and perceived or
real contamination concerns. For example, while urine is essen-
tially sterile and the global population excretes approximately
2 Mt a 1 of P in urine alone, Drangert (1998) maintains that a ‘ur-
ine blindness’ of professionals and householders is preventing
more serious use of the resource globally. A study of Swiss citizens
found a rather high willingness to both use urine-diverting toilets
and to consume food fertilized by urine (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2003).
However issues of the health and environmental effects of micro-
pollutants were of greater concern than the long-term sustainabil-
ity issue of closing the nutrient cycle. This means that to overcome
this barrier in the long run, phosphorus recovery and reuse sys-
tems will need to separate or render industrial and urban residues
contaminated with heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, hormones and
infectious bacteria below the presently acceptable levels (Vinneras
et al., 2008).
The specific types of phosphorus recovery and reuse systems in
practice today or under trial tend to reflect local pressures and
drivers (Hermann, 2009). For example, severe and reoccurring algal
blooms have been a driver for advances in phosphorus removal
technology for municipal wastewater treatment systems and
regulation in some European countries (such as Sweden, Switzer-
land, France) (Wilson, 1999). In countries with high livestock den-
sities and low land availability for spreading manures (for example
in Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands), phosphorus recovery
from manure has been a priority (Nyord, 2009).
While emerging phosphorus recovery and reuse initiatives are
certainly on the increase around the world, they are generally not
operating within an overarching coordinated framework or strat-
egy at a broader scale. For example, there are no international
strategies for sustainable phosphorus recovery and reuse in the
context of food security (Cordell, 2010). Contexts and drivers will
differ from region to region, hence there is still a need to investigate
the most appropriate ways of recovering and reusing phosphorus in
a given country as it is likely that no one social–technical solution
will meet all needs.
5. Conclusions
Sustainable phosphorus use has been largely driven by pollu-
tion concerns over the past few decades, not by food security con-
cerns. The new global challenge of phosphorus scarcity means,
however, that phosphorus will need to be recovered for productive
reuse as a fertilizer to replace increasingly scarce, inaccessible or
unaffordable phosphate rock. Whilst the exact timeline of peak
phosphorus is uncertain, what is clear is that unless we intention-
ally change the way we source and use phosphorus throughout the
food production and consumption system, we will end up in a
‘hard-landing’ situation with increased phosphorus scarcity and
phosphorus pollution, further fertilizer price fluctuations and
increasing costs and energy consumption. There is no single solu-
tion to achieving a phosphorus-secure future, phosphorus will
need to be recovered and reused from current waste streams
throughout the food production and consumption system, in addi-
tion to increasing efficiency and ensuring more equitable distribu-
tion of phosphorus across the world. However there is a strong
need for new sustainable policies, partnerships and strategic
frameworks to stimulate and support both the development of
renewable phosphorus fertilizers (and the associated recovery sys-
tems) and their effective use by the world’s farmers. Further re-
search is also required to determine the most sustainable means
in a given context for recovering phosphorus from waste streams
and converting the final product into an effective fertilizer, taking
into account life cycle costs, energy consumption, availability,
farmer accessibility, resource use and pollution, among other
criteria.
References
Abeysuriya, K., Mitchell, C., Willetts, J., 2006. Kuhn on Sanitation: Dignity, Health
and Wealth for the Children of the Revolution. Ecological Sustainability and
Human Well-Being, 5–18 December 2006, New Delhi.
Adam, C., Kley, G., Simon, F.G., Lehmann, A., 2008. Recovery of Nutrients from
Sewage Sludge – Results of the European Research-project SUSAN. Water Pract.
Technol. 3.
Ashley, K., Cordell, D., Mavinic, D., 2011. A brief history of phosphorus: from the
philosophers stone to nutrient recovery and re-use. Chemosphere 84, 737–746.
Barnard, J.L., 2009. Elimination of eutrophication through resource recovery. In:
Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F. (Eds.), International Conference on Nutrient
Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing, London
(ISBN: 9781843392323).
Birkmose, T.S., 2009. Nitrogen Recovery from Organic Manures: Improved Slurry
Application Techniques and Treatment: The Danish Scenario. Proceedings 656.
International Fertiliser Society, York.
Britton, A., Prasad, R., Balzer, B., Cubbage, L., 2009. Pilot testing and economic
evaluation of struvite recovery from dewatering centrate at HRSD’s Nansemond
WWTP. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F. (Eds.), International Conference on
Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing,
London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Brown, A.D., 2003. Feed or Feedback: Agriculture, Population Dynamics and the
State of the Planet. International Books, Utrecht.
 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
Clarke, R., 1997. Optimum Scale for Urban Water Systems. South Australian
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.
Cordell, D., 2010. The Story of Phosphorus: Sustainability Implications of Global
Phosphorus Scarcity for Food Security. Doctoral Thesis. Collaborative Ph.D.
between the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
(UTS) & Department of Thematic Studies – Water and Environmental, Linköping
University, Sweden .No. 509. Linköping University Press, Linköping (ISBN:
9789173934404)
Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., White, S., 2009a. The Story of Phosphorus: Global food
security and food for thought. Global Environ. Change 19, 292–305.
Cordell, D., White, S., Drangert, J.-O., Neset, T.S.S., 2009b. Preferred future
phosphorus scenarios: a framework for meeting long-term phosphorus needs
for global food demand. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F. (Eds.), International
Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009.
IWA Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Dagerskog, L., Bonzi, M., 2010. Opening Minds and Closing Loops – Productive
Sanitation Initiatives in Burkina Faso and Niger. Sustainable Sanitation Practice.
Issue 3, 2010. <www.ecosan.at/SSP>.
Déry, P., Anderson, B., 2007. Peak phosphorus. Energy Bulletin.
Drangert, J.-O., 1998. Fighting the urine blindness to provide more sanitation
options. Water SA 24, 157–164.
Driver, J., 1998. Phosphates recovery for recycling from sewage and animal waste.
Phosphorus Potassium 216, 17–21.
Driver, J., Lijmbach, D., Steen, I., 1999. Why recover phosphorus for recycling, and
How? Environ. Technol. 20, 651–662.
EPA, 1999. Water Efficiency Technology Fact Sheet – Incinerating Toilets. EPA 832-
F-99-072. US Environmental Protection Authority. <http://www.epa.gov/owm/
mtb/incinera.pdf>.
Esrey, S., Andersson, I., Hillers, A., Sawyer, R., 2001. Closing the Loop: Ecological
Sanitation for Food Security. UNDP & SIDA, Mexico.
European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for the Community
Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European
Communities, December 22, 2000, Brussels, pp. 1–72.
European Commission, 2001. Disposal and Recycling Routes for Sewage Sludge, Part
3 – Scientific and Technical Report. European Commission, Luxembourg.
European Commission, 2010. A Strategy Paper on Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies for 2010–2015. Communication from the Commission to
the European parliament and the Council – The TSE Road map 2, SEC(2010)899.
FAO, 2006. Plant Nutrition for Food Security: A Guide for Integrated Nutrient
Management, FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 16. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Fealy, R., Schröder, J.J., 2008. Assessment of manure transport distances and their
impact on economic and energy cost. In: Proceedings 642, International
Fertiliser Society, York.
Ganrot, Z., Broberg, J., Byden, S., 2009. Energy efficient nutrient recovery from
household wastewater using struvite precipitation and zeolite adsorption
techniques: a pilot plant study in Sweden. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch,
F. (Eds.), International Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater
Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Gilbert, N., 2009. The disappearing nutrient. Nature 461, 716–718.
Global Phosphate Forum, 2010. Perspectives for phosphates in detergents. In:
Phosphates 2010 International Conference, 22–24 March, 2010, Brussels.
Gumbo, B., 2005. Short-cutting the Phosphorus Cycle in Urban Ecosystems. Ph.D.
Thesis, Delft University of Technology and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education, Delft.
Gumbo, B., Savenije, H.H.G., 2001. Inventory of Phosphorus Fluxes and Storage in an
Urban-shed: Options for Local Nutrient Recycling. Internet Dialogue on
Ecological Sanitation (15 November–20 December 2001), Delft.
Gunther, F., 1997. Hampered effluent accumulation process: phosphorus
management and societal structure. Ecol. Econ. 21, 159–174.
Hammond, J.P., White, P.J., Broadley, M.R., 2007. Is Struvite a Valuable Phosphate
Source for Agriculture? Final Project Report. Warwick HRI, University of
Warwick, Warwick.
Heffer, P., Prud’homme, M., 2009. Fertilizer Outlook 2009–2013. In: 77th IFA Annual
Conference International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) Shanghai (China
PR), 25–27 May 2009.
Heid, E., 2006. Cows to Kilowatts, Nigeria: Turning Waste into Energy and Fertiliser. Global
Public Policy Institute, Created for the Seed Initiative Partnership Report 2006
‘‘Partnerships for Sustainable Development: On the Road to Implementation’’.
Hermann, L., 2009. Recovery of Phosphorus from Wastewater Treatment (translated
from: Rückgewinnung von Phosphor aus der Abwassereinigung: Eine
Bestandesaufnahme). Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 0929. Bundesamt für Umwelt, 196
S, Bern, in German (with English summary), http://www.bafu.admin.ch/
publikationen/publikation/01517/index.html?lang=de&lang=de.
Horn, J.v., Sartorius, C., 2009. Impact of supply and demand on the price
development of phosphate (fertilizer). In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F.
(Eds.), International Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater
Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
IFA, 2009. The Global ‘‘4R’’ Nutrient Stewardship Framework – Developing Fertilizer
Best Management Practices for Delivering Economic, Social and Environmental
Benefits Paper Drafted by the IFA Task Force on Fertilizer Best Management
Practices, International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris.
IWAR TU-Darmstadt, 2010. Phosphorus Recovery Website. Technische Universität
Darmstadt, Institut WAR, Darmstadt <http://www.phosphorus-recovery.tu-
darmstadt.de>.
757
Johansson, M., Kvarnström, E., 2005. A Review of Sanitation Regulatory
Frameworks. EcoSanRes, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm.
Jönsson, H., 2002. Urine separating sewage systems – environmental effects and
resource usage. Water Sci. Technol. 46, 333–340.
Jönsson, H., Stintzing, A.R., Vinnerås, B., Salomon, E., 2004. Guidelines on the Use of
Urine and Faeces in Crop Production. EcoSanRes, Stockholm Environment
Institute, Stockholm.
Kirchmann, H., Pettersson, S., 1995. Human urine – chemical composition and
fertilizer use efficiency. Fert. Res. 40, 149–154.
Matsui, S., 1997. Nightsoil collection and treatment in Japan. In: Drangert, J.-O.,
Bew, J., Winblad, U. (Eds.), Ecological Alternatives in Sanitation. Publications on
Water Resources: No. 9. Sida, Stockholm.
Maurer, M., in press. The influence of uncertainty on costs of water infrastructure.
In: Larsen, T., Udert, K., Lienert, J. (Eds.), Wastewater Management: Source
Separation and Decentralization. IWA Publishing (Chapter 2.5).
Mavinic, D., Ashley, K., Koch, F. (Eds.), 2009. Proceedings from the International
Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver. IWA
Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323) <www.nutrientrecovery2009.com>
Microfert, 2009. Microfert – Powered by Nature. Microfert Pty. Ltd.,
www.microfert.com.au.
Mitchell, C., Fam, D., Cordell, D., 2011. Effectively managing the transition towards
restorative futures in the sewage industry: a phosphorus case study. In: Howe,
C., Mitchell, C. (Eds.), Water Sensitive Cities. IWA Publishing, London (ISBN:
9781843393641).
Münch, E.V., Schöpe, A., Rüd, S., 2009. Ecosan – Recycling Oriented Wastewater
Management and Sanitation Systems GTZ <www.gtz.de/ecosan>.
Neset, T.-S.S., Drangert, J.-O., Bader, H.-P., Scheidegger, R., 2010. Recycling of
phosphorus in urban Sweden: a historical overview to guide a strategy for the
future. Water Policy 12, 611–624.
Nyord, T., 2009. Field application methods for the liquid fraction of separated
animal slurry in growing cereal crops. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F.
(Eds.), International Conference on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater
Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Ostara, 2009. Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies <www.ostara.com>.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Schönborn, A., Willi, N., Muncke, J., Larsen, T.A., 2003. Investigating
consumer attitudes towards the new technology of urine separation. Water Sci.
Technol. 48, 57–65.
Perkins, R., 2003. Technological ‘‘lock-in’’. Online Encyclopaedia of Ecological
Economics, International Society for Ecological Economics.
Rahaman, M.S., Mavinic, D.S., Briton, A.T., Zhang, M., Fattah, K.P., Koch, F.A., 2009.
Numerical investigations of the hydrodynamics of the UBC MAP fluidized bed
crystallizer. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F. (Eds.), International Conference
on Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA
Publishing, London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Raschid-Sally, L., Jayakody, P., 2008. Drivers and Characteristics of Wastewater
Agriculture in Developing Countries – Results from a Global Assessment.
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, International
Water Management Institute.
Richards, I.R., Dawson, D.J., 2008. Phosphorus imports, exports, fluxes and sinks in
Europe. In: Proceedings 638, International Fertilizer Society, York, pp. 1–28.
Rosemarin, A., de Bruijne, G., Caldwell, I., 2009. Peak phosphorus: the next
inconvenient truth. The Broker 15, 6–9.
Rosemarin, A., Ekane, N., Caldwell, I., Kvarnström, E., McConville, J., Ruben, C., Fogde,
M., 2008. Pathways for Sustainable Sanitation Achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. Stockholm Environment Institute, IWA Publishing,
Stockholm, 56pp.
Schenk, K., Fahrni, H.-P., Laube, A., 2009. Phosphorous in Switzerland Material
Flows, Targets, Options, P-recovery. World Resources Forum, 14th–16th
September, 2009, Davos, Switzerland.
Schipper, W.J., Korving, L., 2009. Full-scale plant test using sewage sludge ash
as raw material for phosphorus production. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D.,
Koch, F. (Eds.), International Conference on Nutrient Recovery from
Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing, London (ISBN:
9781843392323).
Schröder, J.J., Verloop, J., 2010. Slurry separation could allow a wider use of manure
within the EU Nitrates Directive. In: Cordovil, C., Ferreira, L. (Eds.), Proceedings
Ramiran 2010 Conference, Lisboa, Portugal, Lissabon <http://www.ramiran.net/
ramiran2010/docs/Ramiran2010_0047_final.pdf>.
Schröder, J.J., Smit, A.L., Cordell, D., Rosemarin, A., 2011. Improved phosphorus use
efficiency in agriculture: a key requirement for its sustainable use.
Chemosphere 84, 822–831.
Smil, V., 2000. Phosphorus in the environment: natural flows and human
interferences. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, 53–88.
Smit, A.L., Bindraban, P.S., Schröder, J.J., Conijn, J.G., van der Meer, H.G., 2009.
Phosphorus in agriculture: globale resources, trends and developments. Report
282, Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 36pp.
Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, 2009. Decentralised Wastewater Mgmt at Adarsh
College Badlapur, Maharashtra, India. Case Study of Sustainable Sanitation
Projects, Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, 30 July 2009.
Tidåker, P., Mattsson, B., Jönsson, H., 2007. Environmental Impact of Wheat
Production using human urine and mineral fertilizers – a scenario study. J.
Clean. Prod. 15, 52–62.
Tilley, E., 2010. Phosphorus and sanitation. In: Neset, T.S., Cordell, D. (Eds.),
Phosphorus and Global Food Security: A Synthesis, International Workshop
Proceedings, Global Phosphorus Research Initiative, Linköping University
<http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_home/index.en.aspx?issue=053> (24.12.10).
758 D. Cordell et al. / Chemosphere 84 (2011) 747–758
Tilley, E., Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Zurbrügg, C., Schertenleib, R., 2008. Compendium of
Sanitation Systems and Technologies. Eawag/Sandec, Zurich.
Tilley, E., Gantenbein, B., Khadka, R., Zurbru, C., Udert, K.M., 2009. Social and
economic feasibility of struvite recovery from Urine at the community level in
Nepal. In: Ashley, K., Mavinic, D., Koch, F. (Eds.), International Conference on
Nutrient Recovery from Wastewater Streams Vancouver, 2009. IWA Publishing,
London (ISBN: 9781843392323).
Ueno, Y., Fujii, M., 2001. Three years experience of operating and selling recovered
struvite from full-scale plant. Environ. Technol. 22, 1373–1381.
Uysala, A., Yilmazelb, Y.D., Demirerb, G.N., 2010. The determination of fertilizer
quality of the formed struvite from effluent of a sewage sludge anaerobic
digester. J. Hazard. Mater. 181, 248–254.
Vaccari, D., 2009. Phosphorus, a looming crisis. Scientific American 2009, 42–47.
van Dijk, W. (2003), Adviesbasis voor de bemesting van akkerbouw-en
vollegrondsgroentengewassen (in Dutch), PPO-publicatie (Praktijkonderzoek
Plant & Omgeving, Lelystad) nr. 307: 66 pp, 8 bijlagen.
Vinnerås, B., 2002. Possibilities for Sustainable Nutrient Recycling by Faecal
Separation Combined with Urine Diversion, Ph.D. Thesis Agraria 353. Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Vinneras, B., Clemens, J., Winkler, M., 2008. Non-metallic contaminants in domestic
waste, wastewater and manures: constraints to agricultural use. In:
Proceedings 640. International Fertiliser Society, York, pp. 1–32.
White, A., Stoughton, M., Feng, L., 1999. Servicizing: The Quiet Transition to
Extended Product Responsibility. Tellus Institute, Submitted to US
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
WHO, 2006. Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater,
vol. 4: Excreta and Greywater use in Agriculture. World Health
Organisation.
Wilson, H., 1999. Legislative challenges for lake eutrophication control in Europe.
Hydrobiologia 395–396, 389–401.