Skip to Main Content
Table 1

Studies that report calorific value (as higher heating value) per dry weight of end product and ash content of faecal sludge, faeces, and representative ranges of wastewater sludge (all based on dry weight)

ReferenceCalorific value (MJ/kg)Ash content (% dw)Location
Faecal sludge 
 Murray Muspratt et al. (2014)  19.1 (n = 30) NA Kumasi, Ghana 
 16.6 (n = 48) NA Dakar, Senegal 
 16.2 (n = 102) NA Kampala, Uganda 
 Liu et al. (2014)  18.1 (n = NA) 17.1 Beijing, China 
 Zuma (2015)  13.1 (n = 84) NA Durban, South Africa 
 Seck et al. (2015)  12.2 (n = 5) 41.7 Dakar, Senegal 
 Koottatep et al. (2016)  16.9a (n = NA) 31.9a Pathumthani, Thailand 
 Gold et al. (2017)  10.9 (n = NA) 58.5 Kampala, Uganda 
 13.4 (n = 4) 47.0 Dakar, Senegal 
 Mwamlima et al. (2017)  8.3 (n = 3) 51.3 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 
 Pivot Works Ltd (2017)  16.9 (n = 33) 15.7 Kigali, Rwanda 
 Nyaanga et al. (2018)  13.1 (n = 5) 48.3 Nakuru, Kenya 
 Hafford et al. (2019)  12.5 (n = 6) 44.0 Boulder, USA 
 14.3 (n = 3) 34.0 Kampala, Uganda 
Faeces 
 Rose et al. (2015)  17.2b 7.5–16 NA 
 Onabanjo et al. (2016)  24.7 14.6 Cranfield, UK 
 Somorin et al. (2017)  23.4 18.3 Cranfield, UK 
 Afolabi et al. (2017)  19.5 13.3 Loughborough, UK 
Wastewater sludge ranges 
 Primary sludge (Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 23–29 NA NA 
 Activated sludge (ECN; Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 16–23 18.2–23 NA 
 Anaerobically digested sludge (ECN; Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 9–13 14–26 NA 
ReferenceCalorific value (MJ/kg)Ash content (% dw)Location
Faecal sludge 
 Murray Muspratt et al. (2014)  19.1 (n = 30) NA Kumasi, Ghana 
 16.6 (n = 48) NA Dakar, Senegal 
 16.2 (n = 102) NA Kampala, Uganda 
 Liu et al. (2014)  18.1 (n = NA) 17.1 Beijing, China 
 Zuma (2015)  13.1 (n = 84) NA Durban, South Africa 
 Seck et al. (2015)  12.2 (n = 5) 41.7 Dakar, Senegal 
 Koottatep et al. (2016)  16.9a (n = NA) 31.9a Pathumthani, Thailand 
 Gold et al. (2017)  10.9 (n = NA) 58.5 Kampala, Uganda 
 13.4 (n = 4) 47.0 Dakar, Senegal 
 Mwamlima et al. (2017)  8.3 (n = 3) 51.3 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 
 Pivot Works Ltd (2017)  16.9 (n = 33) 15.7 Kigali, Rwanda 
 Nyaanga et al. (2018)  13.1 (n = 5) 48.3 Nakuru, Kenya 
 Hafford et al. (2019)  12.5 (n = 6) 44.0 Boulder, USA 
 14.3 (n = 3) 34.0 Kampala, Uganda 
Faeces 
 Rose et al. (2015)  17.2b 7.5–16 NA 
 Onabanjo et al. (2016)  24.7 14.6 Cranfield, UK 
 Somorin et al. (2017)  23.4 18.3 Cranfield, UK 
 Afolabi et al. (2017)  19.5 13.3 Loughborough, UK 
Wastewater sludge ranges 
 Primary sludge (Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 23–29 NA NA 
 Activated sludge (ECN; Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 16–23 18.2–23 NA 
 Anaerobically digested sludge (ECN; Fytili & Zabaniotou 2008; Kim & Parker 2008) 9–13 14–26 NA 

The number of samples (n) is in parentheses. NA means that the information was not available.

aRecalculated to dry weight.

bRecalculated based on kcal/kg, design guidelines.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal