Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental assessment of an urban water system

Diogo Lemos a, Ana Cláudia Dias b, *, Xavier Gabarrell c, Luís Arroja b
a
Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
b
Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM) & Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
c
Sostenipra (UAB-IRTA-Inèdit), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) & Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Autònoma de
Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain

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

Article history: The environmental impacts derived from the urban water system of the municipality of Aveiro (Portugal)
Received 3 September 2012 were analysed in this study using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. In addition, those stages
Received in revised form and processes with the largest environmental impacts were identified and improvement scenarios were
11 April 2013
proposed. The entire water system was considered, including the following stages: water abstraction and
Accepted 18 April 2013
Available online 6 May 2013
treatment, water distribution, sewage collection, wastewater treatment and disposal, and water
administration.
The results show that the stage of water abstraction and treatment was the most relevant for the
Keywords:
Drinking water
majority of impact categories because most of the electricity consumption happened during this stage.
Environmental impact For marine eutrophication and marine ecotoxicity, the stage of wastewater treatment and disposal alone
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) carried almost the entire burden because of the release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the sea.
Urban water system Electricity consumption and discharge of nutrients to the sea have been identified as the largest
Wastewater contributors to the environmental impacts. Therefore, scenarios focused on changing these burdens were
assessed in order to prioritise those actions that would bring the greatest improvements. The proposed
improvement actions could be a basis for the decision-making process regarding future investments
towards environmental sustainability of the urban water system.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction population served by wastewater treatment plants that comply

Water is a natural resource vital both for humans and for eco-
systems but one that is becoming increasingly scarce owing to
increasing demand from different human and economic activities
and the effects of climate change (EEA, 2012; UNEP and IWMI,
2011). In this context, the provision of a continuous supply of
clean water and sanitation to the public is particularly challenging
for urban water systems, demanding a sustainable management of
the water resource.
In Portugal, almost the entire population is served by water
supply infrastructure; however, only about 80% of the population is
served by infrastructure for sewage collection and only about 70%
of population is served by wastewater treatment plants (ERSAR,
2011a). In general, regarding the aspect of quality, the water sup-
plied to the population is good but with respect to the wastewater
discharge, the performance is unsatisfactory with only 64% of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ351 234370200; fax: þ351 234370309.
E-mail address: acdias@ua.pt (A.C. Dias).
with the discharge limits (ERSAR, 2011b).
Several sustainability indicators have been proposed for moni-
toring and reporting the performance of urban water systems and
to a lesser extent, for planning and decision-making processes
(Balkema et al., 2002; Hellström et al., 2000; Lundin and Morrison,
2002; Palme and Tillman, 2008). The environmental impacts of
urban water systems or some of its stages have been analysed from
a life cycle perspective, using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), carbon
footprint or hybrid inputeoutput LCA methodologies. Studies car-
ried out by Lundie et al. (2004), Lassaux et al. (2007), Friedrich et al.
(2009a, 2009b), Mahgoub et al. (2010) and Amores et al. (2013)
analysed the environmental impacts of the entire urban water
system of specific regions in Australia, Belgium, South Africa, Egypt
and Spain, respectively. Other studies focused on the environ-
mental impacts of drinking water collection and treatment (Barrios
et al., 2008; Bonton et al., 2012; Mohapatra et al., 2002; Qi and
Chang, 2012; Venkatesh and Brattebo, 2012), wastewater treat-
ment (Foley et al., 2010; Hospido et al., 2008; Lin, 2009; Pasqualino
et al., 2009; Renou et al., 2008; Rodriguez-Garcia et al., 2011) and
sewage sludge treatment (Hospido et al., 2010; Houillon and Jolliet,
2005; Remy et al., 2013; Suh and Rousseaux, 2002). Moreover,

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.029
158 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165
water flows in urban areas have also been analysed in several
sectors, such as cultural, leisure, sport and catering services
(Farreny et al., 2012; Núñez et al., 2010).
The objective of this study is to evaluate and analyse the
environmental impacts associated with the urban water system
in the municipality of Aveiro (Portugal) using LCA, in order to
identify the stages and processes with the highest environ-
mental impacts and to propose improvement scenarios. The
entire water system is considered, beginning with water
abstraction and ending with the release of treated wastewater
into the sea. The municipality of Aveiro comprises 14 parishes
and is located in the central part of Portugal near the Atlantic
coastline (about 6 km distant). Its population is 78,450, which is
0.7% of the total population of the country and the population
density is about 390 inhabitants per km2 (INE, 2012). About 99%
of the population of the municipality of Aveiro is served by a
potable water supply and 95% is served by wastewater treatment
infrastructure.
2. Methodology
2.1. Functional unit
The functional unit (FU) is the supply of 1 m3 of potable water at
the point of consumption. The total consumption of potable water
in the municipality of Aveiro was 4,350,000 m3 in 2008 (reference
year), which results in an average of 0.152 m3/cap/day. This per
capita water consumption is slightly lower than the national
average (about 0.170 m3/cap/day (INE, 2013)).
2.2. System boundary
As shown in Fig. 1, the following stages are considered in the
urban water system:
- Water abstraction and treatment
- Water distribution and sewage collection
- Wastewater treatment and disposal
- Water administration
Water distribution was considered together with sewage
collection because they are managed by the same company and no
division of the inventory data was possible.
The production of chemicals, fuels and electricity consumed in
these stages is also considered, as are the environmental impacts of
the deposition in landfill and agricultural soils of the waste
generated in the wastewater treatment. The application of sludge
on agricultural soils is assumed to replace the usage of synthetic
fertilisers. This approach was also followed in similar studies
(Lundie et al., 2004; Lassaux et al., 2007). The transportation of
chemicals is also included. Pipes used in water distribution and
sewage collection are the only infrastructure items considered,
because previous studies indicated that the pipes had a relevant
share on the impacts from urban water systems (Amores et al.,
2013; Lassaux et al., 2007). Other infrastructure items usually
present very small shares of the total impacts and therefore, they
are excluded from this study (Anya and Jones, 2009; Lundie et al.,
2004; Lyons et al., 2009).
2.3. System description
Most of the water consumed in Aveiro (71% in the year 2008)
comes from capture points built in the alluvium of the river
“Vouga”, located in a neighbouring area called Carvoeiro in the city
of Albergaria a Velha, about 25 km from Aveiro. This water goes
through filtration and it is then treated with lime and carbon di-
oxide (CO2) for pH correction and with chlorine for disinfection.
The remainder of the water consumed in Aveiro (29% in the year
2008) comes from fourteen groundwater capture points and it is
treated in nine treatment plants. Eight of these plants are for water
disinfection (with sodium hypochlorite) and one is for pH control
(with lime).
After treatment, water is supplied to the population by a dis-
tribution network that consists of 612 km of water distribution
pipes, 6 water-pumping stations and 16,950 m3 of water storage
tanks. The system for wastewater collection comprises 510 km of
sewage collection pipes and 119 sewage-pumping stations.
The wastewater treatment is done in two wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs): “ETAR Norte” and “ETAR Sul”. Both
WWTPs consist of pre-treatment, primary treatment, secondary
treatment (activated sludge), anaerobic digestion of secondary
sludge and sludge dewatering. Sludge is then applied on agricul-
tural land and the treated wastewater is discharged into the sea
(3.3 km away from the coast). Biogas is produced in the anaerobic
digestion of sludge and is used to heat up the anaerobic reactor.
The excess of biogas production is burned without energy
recovery.
In the water administration stage, the consumption of electricity
in buildings and the consumption of fuel in the vehicle fleet were
considered. However, it should be noted that these consumptions
refer only to the activities associated with groundwater abstraction
and treatment, water distribution and sewage collection. The
administrative consumptions of the remaining activities were
excluded as they are undertaken by companies that also treat water
and wastewater of other municipalities.
2.4. Inventory analysis
The inputs and outputs of each stage of the urban water
system for 2008 are presented schematically in Fig. 1. For each
cubic metre of potable water supplied to the consumer, 1.379 m3
were abstracted and treated. Water losses of 0.379 m3 per FU
occurred in the distribution network. After water distribution to
the final consumers, a volume of 0.844 m3 per FU became
wastewater, meaning that 0.156 m3 per FU are water losses due
to evaporation or to household uses such as garden irrigation.
The sewage system collected the wastewater that resulted from
the use of supplied potable water but also another 0.32 m3 per
FU from infiltration, rainwater and water from private wells.
This high water input from these sources might be explained by
the high underground water level in the area and by the type
and age of the sewage system. Aveiro is located on the south-
eastern bank of a large lagoon (Ria de Aveiro), which is con-
nected to the Atlantic Ocean via an opening at the coast. Some of
the canals of the lagoon flow through the city and therefore,
infiltrated water mainly comes from these canals. Water from
private wells comes mainly from illegal connections to the
sewage system.
A total of 1.164 m3 per FU of wastewater is treated at the
WWTPs. It is considered that the volume of treated wastewater
discharged to the sea is equal to the volume of wastewater entering
the WWTPs.
Table 1 summarises the inventory data sources, assumptions
and allocation procedures for the processes that constitute the
foreground system shown in Fig. 1. These data are mostly opera-
tional data obtained directly from the companies responsible for
the management of each stage, complemented with literature data
when site-specific data were missing. The data sources for the
processes that constitute the background system are presented in
Table 2.
 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165 159

Water - 1.379 m3

Electricity - 0.882 kWh

Lime - 0.0343 kg
CO2 - 0.0323 kg Water Abstraction
and Treatment
Chlorine - 0.0013 kg
Diesel - 0.00025 L
Sodium hypochlorite - 0.00015 kg

Treated Water
1.379 m3

Water Distribution Water Losses - 0.379 m3

Electricity - 0.427 kWh
Water Losses - 0.156 m3
Waste water
Diesel - 0.0022 L 0.844 m3
Pipes - 0.02 kg
Sewage Collection

Water infiltration,rainwater CH4 - 0.001 kg

Waste water
and private wells - 0.320 m3 N2O - 0.0001 kg
1.164 m3

Sludge - 0.79 kg
Electricity - 0.731 kWh Agriculture
P2O5 - 0.0044 kg
Polymers - 0.0005 kg N - 0.0063 kg
Iron Chloride - 0.003 kg Waste water
Treatment Plants Inert Waste - 0.0611 kg
Landfill
Fats - 0.0038 kg
N2O - 0.00005 kg

Atmosphere
Biogas
CH4 - 0.005 kg
(fugitive emissions)

Waste water - 1.164 m3

Ptotal - 0.0053 kg
Ntotal - 0.0404 kg

Electricity - 0.02 kWh Water

Diesel - 0.017 L Administration
Sea Gasoline - 0.0035 L

Fig. 1. System boundaries and inputs and outputs considered. All units are expressed per FU (1 m3 of potable water).

2.5. Impact assessment
The impact assessment method chosen is the hierarchist
approach of ReCiPe 2008 (Goedkoop et al., 2009) with average
weighting set for Europe. The following midpoint impact categories
were used: climate change (CC), fossil fuel depletion (FD), marine
eutrophication (ME), terrestrial acidification (TA), human toxicity
(HT), photochemical oxidant formation (POF), marine ecotoxicity
(MET) and ionising radiation (IR). The single endpoint indicator of
ReCiPe was also considered. It should be noted that the endpoint
indicator of ReCiPe 2008 does not consider marine eutrophication
because no quantitative connection could be established. It was
decided to use the endpoint indicator even though the aggregation
of impacts in a single indicator is questionable (Berger and
Finkbeiner, 2011).
2.6. Sensitivity analysis
consumption divided by total flow, which included cities other than
Aveiro) and “low” (data were taken from the literature). The dis-
tribution was as follows:
e High quality data: water and wastewater fluxes, electricity
consumption by water distribution and sewage collection and
in the administration stages, consumption of fuels in the
administration stage and consumption of pipes.
e Medium quality data: electricity consumption by water
abstraction and treatment and by the WWTPs stages, inputs of
lime, CO2, chlorine and sodium hypochlorite, fuel consumption
for the transportation of products consumed, outputs of N and
P in the treated wastewater, output of sludge (total wet weight
without composition) and outputs of inert waste and fats to the
landfill.
e Low quality data: inputs of polymers and ferric chloride, N and
P contents in the sludge and emissions of CH4 and N2O.

Data used in this study have different levels of quality. A simple
classification of these levels was done by making a distinction be-
tween three levels: “high” (data were obtained by checking the bills
in the entity archives or by checking the entity reports), “medium”
(data were provided by the entities as an average of total
A simplified sensitivity analysis was performed to check the
influence of data quality on the results. High quality data were
considered to have a 10% margin of error, whereas medium and low
quality data were estimated to have margins of error of 30% and
50%, respectively. The analysis was done by varying the input/
160 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165

Table 1
Inventory data sources, assumptions and allocation procedures for the foreground system.

Stage Input/Output Source Comments Allocation

Water Input of water, Operating data The company that abstracts and treats water
abstraction electricity, chemicals a from the river “Vouga” also supplies other
and nd diesel. Output cities besides Aveiro. An allocation based
treatment of treated water. on the water volume supplied was performed
considering that specific consumptions
(per m3 of water) of electricity, diesel and
chemicals are the same for all the supplied
cities.
Water Inputs of treated Operating data Pipes were considered by checking only replacement,
distribution water, electricity, (some data are i.e. by counting the amount of pipes that were bought
and sewage pipes and diesel. published in during 2008. The total amount of pipes bought
collection Output of untreated SMA (2008)) (14.36 km) was equal to 1.2% of the total water and
wastewater. sewer systems length (1158 km). This percentage
roughly indicates an average life span of 80 years for
pipes if the amount of replaced pipes remains constant
over time. Several types of pipes were bought, but PVC
pipes represented more than 60%. For simplification,
all pipes were considered to be PVC pipes with a
density of 6 kg/m.
CH4 and N2O emissions to the atmosphere due to
degradation processes within the sewage system
were not considered as wastewater in closed
underground sewers is not believed to be a significant
source of these gases (IPCC, 2006).
Wastewater Input of untreated Operating data The two WWTPs considered (“ETAR Norte”
treatment wastewater and (some data are and “ETAR Sul”) receive wastewater from
and electricity. Output published in other cities besides Aveiro. Thus, an
disposala of treated SIMRIA (2008a,b) allocation based on the wastewater volume
wastewater, N and treated was performed considering that
P into the sea, and specific consumptions and emissions
inert waste and fats (per m3 of wastewater treated) are the same
sent to landfill regardless of the origin of the wastewater.
Input of chemicals Lassaux et al. (2007) Application of sludge on agricultural soils is
Output of CH4 Hobson (2000) 26.2 kg CH4/t dry solids for fugitive emissions from assumed to avoid the application of a similar
anaerobic digestion; 5 kg CH4/t dry solids for sludge amount of N and P from synthetic fertilisers
application into agricultural land. (ammonium nitrate and single
Output of N2O Hobson (2000) N2O emissions from wastewater treatment may vary superphosphate were considered as N and P
between 3 and 60 g N2O/cap/year. The lower value sources respectively)
of 3 g N2O/cap/year was selected as the WWTPs in
Aveiro do not include stages of nitrification and
denitrification (which are the main sources of N2O).
Sludge application into agricultural land was assumed
to emit 1% of the N content as N2O.
N and P contained Tchobanoglous N content in sludge: 3.3% of total dry solids; P content
in sludge et al. (2003) (as P2O5) in sludge: 2.3% of total dry solids. An average
value of 24% of dry solids in the sludge after dewatering
was considered, as “ETAR Sul” uses centrifuges (30% of
dry solids) and “ETAR Norte” uses belt-filter presses
(18% of dry solids).
Water Input of electricity Operating data
administration and fuels
a
CO2 emissions from biogas burning were not taken into account because they were considered to be of biogenic origin (IPCC, 2006). Heavy metals in wastewater and
sludge were not considered due to the lack of measured data.

output values using these margins of error in order to obtain a
minimum and a maximum impact. The impact data taken from
databases were not changed in this analysis.
3. Results
The impact assessment results are presented in Table 3 for each
impact category and for the ReCiPe endpoint. The relative contri-
bution of each stage to the total impacts is displayed in Fig. 2 and
the relative contribution of groups of inputs/outputs is shown in
Fig. 3.
The wastewater treatment and disposal stage had the largest
contribution to the impact categories of marine eutrophication and
marine ecotoxicity (98% of the total impacts), mainly because of the
release of N and P, respectively, into the sea. However, it should be
noted that the N and P content of the wastewater was generated
during water use, although it was assigned to the wastewater
treatment and disposal stage.
For the remaining impact categories, the water abstraction and
treatment stage played a major role, contributing between 39% and
45% of the total impacts. The wastewater treatment and disposal
stage also present important contributions to these impact cate-
gories, ranging from 29% to 38% of the total impacts. The water
distribution and sewage collection stage was responsible for a
smaller share of the impacts, although still important (20%e25% of
the total impacts). The contribution of the water administration
stage was not relevant, ranging from 0.1% to 4% of the total impacts.
In all the stages, the main cause of these contributions was the
electricity consumption. For the impact category of climate change,
CH4 emissions from the WWTPs and sludge disposal had a relevant
contribution, representing about 27% of the impact of the waste-
water treatment stage and 10% of the total impact.
 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165 161

Table 2
Inventory data sources and assumptions for the background system.

Process Source Comments

Transportation of chemicals Distances and type of trucks (14 and 40 t):

and fuels operating data provided by the suppliers.
Diesel consumption and load capacity of
trucks: Volvo (2006).
Emission factors: Ecoinvent Database
(Ecoinvent, 2010)
Production of electricity, chemicals, Ecoinvent Database (Ecoinvent, 2010)a The polymers used for sludge dewatering are mainly composed of acrylonitrile
fuels and PVC pipes (WHO, 1994). Thus, the impact data of this compound were used because no
information was found for the production of other polymers.
Fertilisers avoided by sludge application in agricultural soils refer to single
superphosphate and ammonium nitrate.
The Portuguese mix for the year 2008 was considered for the electricity
consumed in the four stages.
Disposal of inert material in landfill Ecoinvent Database (Ecoinvent, 2010)a
Disposal of fats in landfill European Reference Life Cycle Database
(ELCD, 2011)
a
SimaPro software was used to adapt the data taken from Ecoinvent in order to obtain more realistic data sets. In particular, the electricity supply mix used for the
manufacturing of products and of their raw materials was changed for the supply mix that was actually used in their production (the Portuguese supply mix for most products
and the Spanish supply mix for CO2 production).

The relative contributions of each stage for the ReCiPe endpoint
are similar to those observed for the impact categories other than
marine eutrophication and marine ecotoxicity, because electricity
consumption played the predominant role. It should be noted that
the methodology used in ReCiPe 2008 for the endpoint did not take
into account marine eutrophication. This is the reason why N
contained in the treated wastewater released in the sea did not
have any contribution to the endpoint impact, although it might be
considered as one of the most relevant impacts of Aveiro’s water
system.
Sludge application on agricultural soils provided a benefit in all
impact categories and in the ReCiPe endpoint, avoiding up to 5% of
the impacts of the total system owing to the displacement of syn-
thetic fertilisers.
The results of the sensitivity analysis for each impact category
are presented in Table 3. The resulting range for the impacts varied
between 21% and 30%, showing a higher influence of the medium
and high quality data. This is because the results were dominated
by electricity inputs and nutrient outputs to sea, the data for which
were of medium or high quality. If low quality data had had more
influence, then the impacts range obtained would have been
higher.
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison with other studies
(Spain). However, Lundie et al. (2004), Lassaux et al. (2007) and
Friedrich et al. (2009a, 2009b), who analysed the entire urban
water system of Sydney Water (Australia largest water services
provider), Walloon region (Belgium) and eThekwini municipality
(South Africa), respectively, included the production of all the in-
frastructures. In contrast, Mahgoub et al. (2010) did not include the
production of infrastructures in their study of the urban water cycle
of Alexandria City (Egypt). Another difference in the system
boundaries is in the inclusion or exclusion of the water adminis-
tration stage. Only the current study and Lundie et al. (2004) have
addressed this stage.
Regarding the impact assessment methodology, this study em-
ploys the ReCiPe 2008 methodology, whereas Lundie et al. (2004),
Lassaux et al. (2007), Friedrich et al. (2009b), Mahgoub et al. (2010)
and Amores et al. (2013) used the Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkoop and
Spriensma, 1999) or the CML (Guinée et al., 2001) methodologies.
Additionally, Lassaux et al. (2007) present results after the nor-
malisation phase, which makes the comparison of results even
more difficult.
Despite the existence of these methodological differences, a
comparison based on the environmental hotspots found in each
study will be carried out in order to help in the identification of the
main inefficiencies of the system.
One of the main causes of environmental impacts is electricity
consumption. The total electricity consumption of the urban water
system of Aveiro amounted to 2.0 kWh/m3 of potable water, a value

In this study, inventory data were collected for the urban water
system of the municipality of Aveiro, the associated environmental
Table 3
impacts were quantified and the major hotspots within the system Impact assessment results associated with the provision of 1 m3 of potable water in
were identified. the Aveiro municipality and sensitivity analysis results expressed as percentage of
A direct comparison with the inventory data and absolute im- variation in relation to the reference case.
pacts obtained in other LCA studies of urban water systems for Impact category Impact assessment results Sensitivity analysis
other geographical regions (Amores et al., 2013; Buckley et al., results (% of
Total Unit
2011; Friedrich et al., 2009a, 2009b; Lassaux et al., 2007; Lundie variation)
et al., 2004; Mahgoub et al., 2010) should be done with some Climate change 1.62 kg CO2-eq. 26
caution, because of the existence of methodological differences Fossil fuel depletion 0.432 kg oil-eq. 21
between them concerning system boundaries and impact assess- Marine eutrophication 0.0418 kg N-eq. 30
Terrestrial acidification 0.0132 kg SO2-eq. 22
ment methodologies. With respect to the system boundaries, one
Human toxicity 0.0258 kg 1,4-DCB-eq. 22
difference is in the inclusion or exclusion of the production of in- Photochemical oxidant 0.00610 kg NMVOC-eq. 22
frastructures. This study only considers the production of pipes formation
used in water distribution and sewage collection. Amores et al. Marine ecotoxicity 0.104 kg 1,4-DCB-eq. 30
(2013) also included just the infrastructures used in water distri- Ionising radiation 0.153 kg U235-eq. 21
ReCiPe endpoint 0.151 Pt 24
bution and sewage collection in the water system of Tarragona
162
100%
90%
80%
70%
Relative contribution
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CC
FD
Fig. 2. Relative contribution of each stage to the impact assessment results.
similar to the one reported by Amores et al. (2013) but more than
double those obtained by Lundie et al. (2004), Lassaux et al. (2007)
and Friedrich et al. (2009a) (Table 4). Regarding electricity con-
sumption in each individual stage, the values for Aveiro are always
higher than in the other studies analysed (Table 4). The only
exception is the study performed by Amores et al. (2013), which
found the highest values for the water distribution and sewage
collection stage and for the wastewater treatment and disposal
stage. Electricity consumption is site-specific, being influenced by a
number of factors, such as the technology used for water abstrac-
tion, water treatment and wastewater treatment, distances, local
orography, efficiency of pumps and other equipment, as well as the
amount of water losses.
Moreover, the environmental impacts resulting from electricity
consumption do not only depend on the amount of electricity
consumed but also on the electricity production mix. In 2008
(reference year of this study), about 65% of the electricity consumed
in the Portuguese grid was produced from fossil fuels. More spe-
cifically, 34% of the electricity was produced from natural gas, 23%
Fig. 3. Relative contribution of groups of inputs/outputs to the impact assessment results.
D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165
Water administration
Wastewater treatment
and disposal
Water distribution and
sewage collection
Water abstraction and
treatment
ReCiPe endpoint
POF
MET
ME
TA
HT
IR
Impact Category
from hard coal, 15% from hydropower, 12% from wind power, 8%
from fuel oil, 4% from other renewable sources and 4% from nuclear
power (IEA, 2011).
The largest impacts from Aveiro’s water system were associated
with the water abstraction and treatment stage for all the impact
categories analysed, except for marine eutrophication and marine
ecotoxicity, which was mainly because of the use of electricity. This
stage was also the most relevant for the endpoint indicator because
of the higher values of electricity consumption and because this
indicator does not include marine eutrophication. Unlike the cur-
rent study, none of the other LCA studies of urban water systems
found the water abstraction and treatment stage to have the largest
environmental impacts but they all considered inputs of electricity
for this stage much lower than those used in the current study
(Table 4).
The results obtained for marine eutrophication and marine
ecotoxicity in the current study show that the wastewater treat-
ment and disposal stage played a major role, mainly owing to the
discharge of nutrients to the sea. For the remaining impact
 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165 163

Table 4
Electricity consumption in the current study and in other LCA studies of urban water systems.

Stage Unit Current Lundie Lassaux Friedrich et al. (2009a); Mahgoub Amores
study et al. (2004) et al. (2007) Buckley et al. (2011) et al. (2010) et al. (2013)

Water abstraction and treatment kWh/m3 treated water 0.64 0.08 0.21 0.10 0.37
Water distribution and sewage collection kWh/m3 water at consumer 0.43 0.32 0.19 0.27 0.48
Wastewater treatment and disposal kWh/m3 wastewater 0.63 0.41 0.31 0.44 0.01 1.1
Water administration kWh/m3 water at consumer 0.02 a

Total, excluding administrationb kWh/m3 water at consumer 2.0 0.98 0.88 0.80 2.0
a
Value not provided although this stage has been considered.
b
The losses are considered.

categories, the contribution of the wastewater treatment and
disposal stage ranked second because of electricity consumption. In
the studies performed by Lundie et al. (2004), Lassaux et al. (2007)
and Mahgoub et al. (2010), the wastewater treatment and disposal
stage had the largest contribution for most of the impacts, also
because of nutrient discharge and electricity consumption. More-
over, Mahgoub et al. (2010) also highlighted the impacts in terms of
ecotoxicity resulting from the land application of sludge containing
heavy metals. In the current study, the impacts associated with
heavy metals were not considered, because measured data for the
sludge produced in Aveiro were not available. Data from the liter-
ature were not adopted here because the concentration of heavy
metals in sludge can vary widely (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003). If
heavy metals had been considered, the contribution of the waste-
water treatment stage would have been higher for toxicity-related
impact categories (marine ecotoxicity and human toxicity).
Therefore, efforts should be made in future to obtain measured data
of heavy metals concentration, not only in sludge but also in dis-
charged wastewater.
The water distribution stage, which carried the third highest
scores in the current study, was found to be the major hotspot for
Friedrich et al. (2009b) and Amores et al. (2013) mainly because of
the electricity requirements of this stage. These requirements
greatly depend on local conditions, such as distances and topog-
raphy, and therefore, they cannot be generalised.
The contribution of the water administration stage was not
important, as it did not exceed 4% of the total impacts. However, it
should be noted that this contribution is underestimated, because it
only includes the activities associated with the company respon-
sible for groundwater abstraction and treatment, water distribution
and sewage collection. Similar contributions were obtained by
Lundie et al. (2004), except for photochemical oxidant formation,
where the water administration stage contributed 23% of the total
impact. Thus, for specific cases, the water administration might
have an important contribution and therefore, this should be
included in the LCAs of urban water systems.
4.2. Analysis of improvement scenarios
Electricity consumption and discharge of nutrients to the sea
have been identified as the largest contributors to the environ-
mental impacts of the urban water system of Aveiro. Therefore,
improvement scenarios should preferentially be established for
these areas in order to decrease more effectively the environmental
impacts of the system. Five improvement scenarios were analysed
and the environmental impacts in relation to the reference scenario
were estimated (Table 5).
Scenario 1 consists of reducing water losses in the distribution
network from 38% in the reference scenario to 25%, the target
defined by the company in charge of water distribution in Aveiro.
There are several measures that are being applied in order to
achieve this target, such as the substitution of old pipes and quicker
repair of leaks. By reducing water losses to 25%, the amount of
water abstracted to supply 1 m3 of potable water will be reduced to
1.25 m3 and consequently, there will be a reduction in the con-
sumption of electricity, chemicals and fuel during the stages of
water abstraction, treatment and distribution. Reductions of be-
tween 4% and 5% are expected for the endpoint indicator and
impact categories other than marine eutrophication and marine
ecotoxicity.
Scenario 2 assumes a reduction of water losses in the distribu-
tion network to 15%, the target defined for 2020 by the Portuguese
Water Plan (MAOT, 2002). In this scenario, the gains are higher than
in Scenario 1, ranging from 8% to 9% for the endpoint indicator and
impact categories other than marine eutrophication and marine
ecotoxicity.

Table 5
Results of the analysis of improvement scenarios in relation to the reference scenario. A negative percentage represents a reduction and a positive percentage represents an
increase.

Impact category Unit Scenario 1a Scenario 2b Scenario 3c Scenario 4d Scenario 5e Integration

of scenariosf

Climate change % 4 8 2 37 14 36

Fossil fuel depletion % 5 9 3 32 16 30
Marine eutrophication % 0 0 0 2 55 57
Terrestrial acidification % 5 9 3 72 17 71
Human toxicity % 5 9 3 60 16 58
Photochemical oxidant formation % 5 9 2 53 1 52
Marine ecotoxicity % 0 0 0 3 17 3
Ionising radiation % 5 9 3 93 15 94
ReCiPe endpoint % 5 8 2 41 15 39
a
Reduction of water losses in the distribution network to 25%.
b
Reduction of water losses in the distribution network to 15%.
c
Reduction of water input by infiltration into the sewage collection network to 0.25 m3 per m3 of supplied water.
d
Portuguese electricity mix foreseen for 2020.
e
Implementation of biological nitrification and denitrification processes.
f
Simultaneous implementation of scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5.
164 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165
Scenario 3 consists of reducing the input of water into the
sewage collection system owing to infiltration. Some portions of
the sewage collection network are below the water table and are
vulnerable during events such as heavy rain and more often, during
flood tides. Over the last decade, the company responsible for the
management of the sewage collection system has been imple-
menting several measures to decrease water infiltration into the
system, such as replacement of old pipes and the sealing of sewer
manholes. Therefore, a reduction from 0.32 to 0.25 m3 per m3 of
supplied water was considered. A slight decrease (2%e3%) is ex-
pected for the endpoint indicator and environmental categories
other than marine eutrophication and marine ecotoxicity. These
two impact categories were not affected based on the assumption
that the water infiltrated has low concentrations of nutrients and
heavy metals when compared with untreated wastewater.
Scenario 4 considers an electricity mix for the electricity deliv-
ered in the Portuguese grid less dependent on fossil fuels than that
considered in the reference scenario. According to this mix, fore-
seen by Seixas et al. (2012) for 2020 based on the Portuguese
Strategy for Energy and Low Carbon Roadmap, 33% of the electricity
is produced from natural gas, 9% from hard coal, 28% from hydro-
power, 28% from wind power and 2% from other renewable sources.
This is the only scenario that leads to reductions of all the envi-
ronmental impacts, although its application is not dependent on
the willingness of the organisations involved in the water system
management but rather on national policies and strategies. The
environmental gains of this scenario are particularly significant for
ionising radiation (a decrease of 93% because nuclear power is
excluded from the electricity mix) and impact categories associated
with air emissions (a decrease of 32%e72% because fewer emissions
are released to the atmosphere).
Scenario 5 aims to evaluate the effect of decreasing N concen-
tration in the treated wastewater from the current 35 mg/l to
15 mg/l, the general emission limit value set by Portuguese legis-
lation for the discharge of wastewaters in receiving water bodies
(MA, 1998). The company responsible for the management of the
WWTPs is analysing the possibility of implementation of biological
nitrification and denitrification processes (with aerobic nitrification
and anoxic denitrification). According to preliminary studies,
electricity consumption in the wastewater treatment and disposal
stage is expected to increase by 50% in comparison with the
reference scenario. The removal of P from the wastewater was not
addressed in this scenario, because the current concentration of P
in the discharged effluent (5 mg/l) already complies with the
general emission limit value (10 mg/l) stipulated by the Portuguese
legislation (MA, 1998). This scenario leads to a significant reduction
of marine eutrophication (55%) but all the remaining impacts other
than marine ecotoxicity increase by 14%e17%.
Finally, if the measures addressed in Scenarios 2, 3, 4 and 5 are
simultaneously implemented, all the environmental impacts other
than marine ecotoxicity, will be reduced significantly (30%e94%). A
reduction in marine ecotoxicity would only be achieved by
reducing P emissions in the discharged wastewater, which is not
expected to occur.
5. Conclusion
The environmental impacts of the entire water system of the
municipality of Aveiro were analysed for 2008. Some differences
were found compared with past studies, which included a higher
relevance of the abstraction and treatment stage. This happened
because the consumption of electricity in this stage was higher than
that found in other studies. This might be explained by the tech-
nology used in water abstraction and treatment, the distance be-
tween the points of abstraction and treatment and local topography
but also by low system efficiency that might be associated with
water losses and low efficiency of the pumps and other equipment.
This highlights the fact that the environmental impacts of urban
water systems are site-specific as they depend on several local
factors. Therefore, the results obtained for a certain geographical
area cannot be extrapolated to other areas.
Electricity consumption and discharge of nutrients to the sea
have been identified as the major hotspots. The analysis of
improvement scenarios for decreasing these burdens shows that
the individual scenario that brings the best improvements entails
changing the Portuguese electricity mix to one less dependent on
fossil fuels, which is expected to occur in the short term. Further
reductions in the environmental impacts that are even more
important could be achieved if, in addition to this measure, other
actions were put into practice simultaneously, such as decreasing
water losses and infiltration and the installation of nitrification and
denitrification processes in the WWTPs. The proposed improve-
ment measures could be the basis for the decision-making process
regarding future investments towards environmental sustainability
of the urban water system.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the European Commission, through the
Erasmus Mundus Program, is acknowledged for the master schol-
arship granted to Diogo Siqueira Lemos in the Joint European
Master in Environmental Studies (JEMES). The authors would also
like to thank FCT (Science and Technology Foundation e Portugal)
for the scholarships granted to Ana Cláudia Dias (SFRH/BPD/20363/
2004 and SFRH/BPD/75788/2011) and the project ECOTECH SUDOE
e International network on LCA and ecodesign for eco-innovation
(SOE2/P2/E377) funded by the EU Interreg IV B Sudoe Program.
Thanks also to the entities Águas do Vouga, ADRA, SIMRIA and
Serviços Municipalizados de Aveiro for providing real data.
References
Amores, M.J., Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., Antón, A., Castells, F., 2013. Environmental
assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 43, 84e92.
Anya, A.R., Jones, S.A., 2009. Identifying life-cycle environmental concerns for
water-wastewater systems: a review of the existing literature. In: Proceedings
of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition.
American Water Works Association, Denver, pp. 178e193.
Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J.D., 2002. Indicators for the sus-
tainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4 (2), 153.
Bonton, A., Bouchard, C., Barbeau, B., 2012. Comparative life cycle assessment of
water treatment plants. Desalination 284, 42e54.
Berger, M., Finkbeiner, M., 2011. Correlation analysis of life cycle impact assessment
indicators measuring resource use. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (1), 74e81.
Barrios, R., Siebel, M., van der Helm, A., Bosklopper, K., Gijzen, H., 2008. Environ-
mental and financial life cycle impact assessment of drinking water production
at Waternet. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (4), 471e476.
Buckley, C.A., Friedrich, E., von Blottnitz, H., 2011. Life cycle assessments (LCA) in the
South African water sector: a review and future challenges. Water SA 37 (5),
718e726.
Ecoinvent, 2010. Ecoinvent Database Version 2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle In-
ventories, Dübendorf.
EEA, 2012. Towards Efficient Use of Water Resources in Europe. European Envi-
ronment Agency, Copenhagen.
ELCD, 2011. LCA Tools, Services and Data - ELCD. European Comission - Joint
Research Centre. Available at: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/index.vm
(accessed 02.06.11.).
ERSAR, 2011a. Relatório Anual do Sector de Águas e Resíduos em Portugal 2010. In:
Caracterização Geral do Sector, vol. 1. Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços de
Águas e Resíduos, Lisbon.
ERSAR, 2011b. Relatório Anual do Sector de Águas e Resíduos em Portugal 2010. In:
Avaliação da Qualidade do Serviço Prestado aos Utilizadores, vol. 3. Entidade
Reguladora dos Serviços de Águas e Resíduos, Lisbon.
Farreny, R., Oliver-Solà, J., Escuder-Bonilla, S., Roca-Martí, M., Sevigné, E.,
Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., 2012. The metabolism of cultural services. Energy
and water flows in museums. Energ. Build. 47, 98e106.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K., Lant, P., 2010. Comprehensive life cycle inventories
of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 44 (5), 1654e1666.
 D. Lemos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 157e165
Friedrich, E., Pillay, S., Buckley, C.A., 2009a. Carbon footprint analysis for increasing
water supply and sanitation in South Africa: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (1),
1e12.
Friedrich, E., Pillay, S., Buckley, C.A., 2009b. Environmental life cycle assessments for
water treatment processes e a South African case study of an urban water cycle.
Water SA 35 (1), 73e84.
Goedkoop, M.J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2009. ReCiPe 2008, A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report
I: Characterisation, first ed.. Available at: http://www.lcia-recipe.net
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 1999. The Eco-indicator 99. A Damage Oriented
Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, third ed. Pré
Consultants, Amersfoort.
Guinée, J., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L.,
Weneger, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H., de Bruin, H., Duin, R., Huijbregts, M., 2001.
Life Cycle Assessment: an Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment and Centre of Environmental
Science/Leiden University, Leiden.
Hellström, D., Jeppsson, U., Kärrman, E., 2000. A framework for systems analysis of
sustainable urban water management. Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 20, 311e321.
Hobson, J., 2000. CH4 and N2O emissions from waste water handling. In: IPCC (Ed.),
Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Change, Hayama,
pp. 441e454.
Hospido, A., Carballa, M., Moreira, M., Omil, F., Lema, J.M., Feijoo, G., 2010. Envi-
ronmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture:
potential impacts of emerging micropollutants. Water Res. 44, 3225e3233.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G.A., 2008. Comparison of municipal wastewater
treatment plants for big centres of population in Galicia (Spain). Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 13 (1), 57e64.
Houillon, G., Jolliet, O., 2005. Life Cycle Assessment of process for the treatment of
wastewater urban sludge: energy and global warming analysis. J. Clean. Prod.
13, 287e299.
IEA, 2011. Statistics and Balances e Electricity/Heat. International Energy Agency,
Paris. Available at: http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp (accessed 17.05.11.).
INE, 2013. Consumo de Água por Habitante (m3/hab.) por Localização Geográfica.
Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Lisbon. Available at: http://www.ine.pt/
xportal/xmain?xpid¼INE&xpgid¼ine_
indicadores&indOcorrCod¼0001877&contexto¼bd&selTab¼tab2 (accessed
19.02.13.).
INE, 2012. Censos 2011: Resultados Definitivos. Instituto Nacional de Estatística,
Lisbon.
IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayama.
Lassaux, S., Renzoni, R., Germain, A., 2007. Life cycle assessment of water from the
pumping station to the wastewater treatment plant. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12
(2), 118e126.
Lin, C., 2009. Hybrid inputeoutput analysis of wastewater treatment and envi-
ronmental impacts: a case study for the Tokyo metropolis. Ecol. Econ. 68,
2096e2105.
Lyons, E., Zhang, P., Benn, T., Sharif, F., Li, K., Crittenden, J., Costanza, M., Chen, Y.S.,
2009. Life cycle assessment of three water supply systems: importation,
reclamation and desalination. Water Sci. Technol. Water Suppl. 9 (4), 439e448.
Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., Beavis, P.C., 2004. Life cycle assessment for sustainable
metropolitan water systems planning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 3465e3473.
165
Lundin, M., Morrison, G., 2002. A life cycle assessment based procedure for
development of environmental sustainability indicators for urban water sys-
tems. Urban Water 4, 145e152.
Mahgoub, M.E.M., van der Steen, N.P., Abu-Zeid, K., Vairavamoorthy, K., 2010. To-
wards sustainability in urban water: a life cycle analysis of the urban water
system of Alexandria City, Egypt. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (10e11), 1100e1106.
MA, 1998. Decreto-Lei n 236/98. Diário da República e I Série A N 176. Imprensa
Nacional, Lisbon.
MAOT, 2002. Decreto-Lei n 112/2002. Diário da República e I Série A N 90.
Imprensa Nacional, Lisbon.
Mohapatra, P.K., Siebel, M.A., Gijzen, H.J., van der Hoek, J.P., Groot, C.A., 2002.
Improving eco-efficiency of Amsterdam water supply: a LCA approach. J. Water
Supply: Res. Technol. Aqua 51, 217e227.
Núñez, M., Oliver-Solà, J., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., 2010. Water management in
integrated service systems: accounting for water flows in urban areas. Water
Res. Manage. 24, 1583e1604.
Palme, U., Tillman, A.-M., 2008. Sustainable development indicators: how are they
used in Swedish water utilities? J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1346e1357.
Pasqualino, J.C., Meneses, M., Abella, M., Castells, F., 2009. LCA as a decision support
tool for the environmental improvement of the operation of a municipal
wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3300e3307.
Qi, C., Chang, N.B., 2012. Integrated carbon footprint and cost evaluation of a
drinking water infrastructure system for screening expansion alternatives.
J. Clean. Prod. 27, 51e63.
Remy, C., Lesjean, B., Waschnewski, J., 2013. Identifying energy and carbon footprint
optimization potentials of a sludge treatment line with Life Cycle Assessment.
Water Sci. Technol. 67, 63e73.
Renou, S., Thomas, J.S., Aoustion, E., Pons, M.N., 2008. Influence of impact assess-
ment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1098e1105.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Molinos-Senante, M., Hospido, A., Hernández-Sancho, F.,
Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Environmental and economic profile of six ty-
pologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 45, 5997e6010.
Seixas, J., Dinis, R., Alves, B., Baptista, P., Fortes, P., Dias, L., Simões, S., Gouveia, J.P.,
2012. Roteiro Nacional de Baixo Carbono e Modelação de Gases com Efeito de
Estufa: Energia e Resíduos. E.VALUE and CENSE, Lisbon.
SIMRIA, 2008a. 2008 Management Report. SIMRIA e Saneamento Integrado dos
Municípios da Ria, S.A., Aveiro. Available at: http://www.simria.pt/fotos/
editor2/R&CSIMRIA2008.pdf.
SIMRIA, 2008b. 2008 Sustainability Report. SIMRIA e Saneamento Integrado dos
Municípios da Ria, S.A., Aveiro. Available at: http://www.simria.pt/fotos/
editor2/RSustSIMRIA2008.pdf.
SMA, 2008. 2008 Management Report. Serviços Municipalizados de Aveiro, Aveiro.
Suh, Y.J., Rousseaux, P., 2002. An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment
scenarios. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 35 (3), 191e200.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2003. Wastewater Engineering,
Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
UNEP, IWMI, 2011. Ecosystems for Water and Food Security. United Nations Envi-
ronment Programme and International Water Management Institute, Nairobi
and Colombo.
Venkatesh, G., Brattebo, H., 2012. Environmental analysis of chemicals and energy
consumption in water treatment plants: case study of Oslo, Norway. Water Sci.
Technol. Water Suppl. 12 (2), 200e211.
Volvo, 2006. Emissions from Volvo’s Trucks. Volvo, Göteborg.
WHO, 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.
In: Some Industrial Chemicals, vol. 60. World Health Organization, Geneva.