Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Assessment of energy consumption of municipal wastewater

treatment plants in China
Yan He a, *, Yishuang Zhu a, Jinghan Chen a, Minsheng Huang a, Pan Wang b,
Guohua Wang b, Weiguo Zou b, Gongming Zhou c
a
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urbanization and Ecological Restoration, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China Normal University,
Shanghai, 200062, China
b
Shanghai Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute (Group) Co., Ltd, Shanghai, 200092, China
c
The State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092,
China

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

Article history: Energy consumption from municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) has brought escalating dual
Received 1 June 2018 pressure of high expenditure and greenhouse gas emissions to environmental engineers and policy
Received in revised form makers. In order to identify the underlying factors affecting energy usage, a comprehensive nationwide
20 April 2019
investigation program was done to analyze 1184 urban WWTPs in China over a period of 30 years (1984
Accepted 24 April 2019
e2013). This investigation included a consolidated evaluation of key design parameters (scale, treatment
Available online 27 April 2019
process and effluent standard), different treatment units and geographical distribution of WWTPs in
terms of energy consumption. Comparisons were also made between the statistical- and the baseline-
Keywords:
Municipal wastewater treatment plants
value of unit energy consumption. These findings demonstrated the importance of the integrated ef-
Energy consumption fects of key design parameters on WWTPs energy consumption, and specific reference benchmark,
Design parameters recommendations, strategies and future development were provided accordingly. The present work can
Treatment units hopefully assist in understanding of how and to what extent key factors are incorporated into design
Geographical distribution guidelines, and also help decisions makers and engineers construct and upgrade WWTPs in the best
energy saving way.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As an indispensable part of urban sustainable development,
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing many challenges
to meet fast urbanization (Hao et al., 2015; Singh and Kazmi, 2018).
Among these problems the huge energy expenditure is becoming a
bottleneck in dealing with WWTPs management issues (Awe et al.,
2016; Haslinger et al., 2016), for the needs to meet rapid population
growth and stricter effluent limits have induced parallel increases
in energy consumption (Boujelben et al., 2017). Besides the rising
heavy economic burden, the soaring energy (mainly in the form of
electricity) demand also contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG)
* Corresponding author. School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East
China Normal University, 500 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai, 200241, PR China.
E-mail addresses: yhe@des.ecnu.edu.cn (Y. He), yis_zhu@163.com (Y. Zhu),
jinghchen@126.com (J. Chen), mshuang@des.ecnu.edu.cn (M. Huang), wangpan@
smedi.com (P. Wang), wanggh@vip.163.com (G. Wang), zouweiguo@smedi.com
(W. Zou), zhougm@tongji.edu.cn (G. Zhou).
emissions from WWTPs due to the use of fossil fuels in power
plants (Chang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, the search
for effective energy-saving strategies has attracted increasing
attention in WWTPs management (Hanna et al., 2018).
Many efforts have been made to develop some novel process
configurations with low energy demand (Cotterill et al., 2017) and
even energy recovery (Nowak et al., 2015; Schaubroeck et al., 2015)
in WWTPs, but a range of barriers exist including technology bot-
tlenecks and higher investments, particular in developing countries
(Wang et al., 2016). Some studies have also been done to bench-
mark WWTPs energy consumption for providing useful informa-
tion to achieve energy saving (Gurung et al., 2018; Trapote et al.,
2014; Yang et al., 2010). One typical example was the study con-
ducted by the American Water Works Association Research Foun-
dation and 266 U.S. WWTPs were investigated (Hanna et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, these previous work lack of consolidated evalua-
tion of energy consumption of nationwide WWTPs, and only single
parameter, e.g. treatment scale (Longo et al., 2016; Trapote et al.,
2014), treatment process (Boujelben et al., 2017; Krampe, 2013),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.320
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
400 Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404

operation units (Awe et al., 2016), organic load (Gurung et al., 2018),
as well as partial combination of these parameters (Hanna et al.,
2018; Mizuta and Shimada, 2010; Yang et al., 2010) are adopted.
Few energy consumption assessment has been done in combina-
tion with effluent standard and regional distribution.
As a matter of fact, similar to treatment scale and treatment
process, effluent standard is equally recognized as one key
parameter in designing WWTPs and closely linked to WWTPs en-
ergy consumption. The traditional WWTPs design usually in-
tegrates these three parameters based on ‘pollutant removal
philosophy’ (Zhang et al., 2016). Faced with the dual pressure of
high energy costs and GHG emissions, environmental engineers
and policy makers have to rethink these three core WWTPs design
parameters in energy-saving direction (Panepinto et al., 2016). It is
essential to ascertain the relationships between these three pa-
rameters and energy consumption for best energy saving in
WWTPs. However, little information can be available about the
integrated interrelation between energy consumption and these
three design parameters, and it is thus in need of systematic
exploration.
This research aims at filling this gap by characterizing system-
atically the relationship between key design parameters (scale,
treatment process and effluent standard) and energy consumption
based on a nationwide investigation program. The association of
different treatment units and geographical distribution of WWTPs
with energy consumption were also fully considered. Comparisons
were also made between the statistical- and the baseline-value of
Fig. 1. Maps of unit energy consumption (a) and profiles of unit energy consumption
unit energy consumption. Specially, membrane bioreactor as an
with the average per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) (b) at seven regions in
ever-increasing advanced wastewater treatment technology was mainland China. n represents sample number; North China (N: Hebei, Beijing, Shanxi,
also discussed. On the basis of the above analyses, specific reference Tianjin and Inner Mongolia); East China (E: Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi,
benchmark, recommendations and strategies were provided to Shandong, Shanghai and Taiwan); Northeast (NE: Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning);
help optimize design and planning of WWTPs in the context of Central China (C: Hubei, Hunan and Henan); South China (S: Guangdong, Guangxi,
Hainan, Hong Kong and Macau); Southwest (SW: Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou,
maximum energy saving.
Chongqing and Tibet); Northwest (NW: Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xin-
jiang). No data processed for Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.
2. Data and methodology

2.1. Data
Comprehensive national databases of 3508 WWTPs were in-
ventoried for analysis of energy consumption. Note that all infor-
mation referred to mainland China(i.e., not including Hong Kong,
Macao and Taiwan). It was found that the WWTPs number
increased rapidly especially in the period of 2000e2010
(Supplemental Fig. S1), and distributed unevenly across China.
Samples at town-level and county-level as well as extremely small-
scale (less than 1000 m3/d) WWTPs were excluded. As a result, 1184
urban WWTPs were selected for nationwide evaluation.
The unit energy consumption (UEC) was adopted to assess the
energy use in WWTPs. UEC(kWh/m3) was defined as electricity
consumption per volume of treated wastewater considering the
energy consumed is mainly electric in a WWTP. The UEC data was
directly from Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of
the People's Republic of China (2014). These data cover three de-
cades of WWTPs from 1984 to 2013.
2.2. Factors for consideration
Potential factors that influencing WWTPs energy consumption
were chosen as follows: 1) Region. Mainland China can be divided
into seven regions (Fig. 1), i.e. North China (N), East China (E),
Northeast China (NE), Central China (C), South China (S), Southwest
China (SW) and Northwest China (NW). 2) Scale. According to the
treatment capacity, WWTPs could be classified into <5
104 m3/d,
(5e10)
104 m3/d, (10e20)
104 m3/d, (20e50)
104 m3/d and
50
104 m3/d. 3) Effluent discharge standard. The widely-used
national effluent standard (GB, 18918e2002) divides WWTPs ef-
fluents into Grade IA, Grade IB, Grade II and Grade III, of which
Grade IA is the highest quality and Grade III is the lowest. The Grade
III standard was not included in this study due to its standards
behind the time. 4) Treatment processes. Three mainstream
WWTPs processes including anaerobic-anoxic-oxic plus anaerobic-
oxic (A2/O þ A/O), oxidation ditch (OD) and sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) were analyzed. Special consideration was given to
membrane bioreactor (MBR) process due to its ever-increasing
application in newly-built and upgraded WWTPs.
2.3. Statistical analysis
The shapiro-Wilk test and Normal Q-Q (quantile-quantile) Plots
were used to determine the data distribution, and Levene's test was
used to test for homogeneity. One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) followed by multiple comparisons based on LSD (Least-
Significant Difference) tests were used to test differences in UEC for
each factor under consideration.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Assessment of energy consumption of WWTPs in different
regions
The economy is one of the most important factors for the
development and operation of WWTPs. The energy consumption of
WWTPs in different regions was assessed (Fig. 1) due to the notably
unbalanced spatial social-economic development in China. It was
 Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404
Table 1
Regional distribution of averaged unit energy consumption with different scale WWTPs in mainland China.
Index Region Scale of WWTPs (104 m3/d)
<5
3
UEC (kWh/m ) N 0.428 ± 0.283
E 0.337 ± 0.224
NE 0.316 ± 0.189
C 0.248 ± 0.093
S 0.259 ± 0.249
SW 0.278 ± 0.103
NW 0.359 ± 0.123
Notes: UEC, unit energy consumption; N, North China; E, East China; NE, North East China; C, Central China; S, South China; SW, Southwest China; NW, Northwest China. No
data processed for Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. a values were expressed as means ± SD.
found that the unit energy consumption (UEC) varied from region
to region (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1a). To test whether economic level is a key
factor for the regional difference in UEC, the relationship between
the average per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) and UEC was
investigated in seven regions (Fig. 1b).
No significant correlation was observed between the average
UEC and per-capita GDP (Fig. 1b). The top two regions in terms of
UEC are North China (0.439 kWh/m3) and Northwest China
(0.339 kWh/m3) with the highest and lowest per-capita GDP. The
unit energy consumption in East China and Southwest China were
also noted to exceed the average (0.295 kWh/m3). The lowest UEC
(0.224 kWh/m3) was recorded in South China, then was Central
China (0.244 kWh/m3) and Northeast China (0.285 kWh/m3). As a
whole, regional differences in unit energy consumption fluctuated
with varying scale of WWTPs (Table 1).
This fluctuation of regional differences in unit energy con-
sumption of WWTPs is mainly attributed to many interlocking
factors such as energy availability, climate, distribution of treat-
ment processes, and effluent discharge requirement. Another
explanation is the WWTPs with small scale mainly distribute- in
the west and northwest regions, while large-scale or super-large-
scale WWTPs are mostly built in the coastal area and big cities of
China (Zhang et al., 2016).
3.2. Assessment of energy consumption of WWTPs with different
scale
WWTPs scale is a core design parameter and deserves consid-
eration for minimizing energy consumption. Fig. 2 demonstrates
Fig. 2. Profiles of unit energy consumption with different scales of WWTPs,
were expressed as means ± SD.
401
a
5e10 10e20 20e50 50
0.275 ± 0.093 0.305 ± 0.136 0.270 ± 0.039 0.366 ± 0.089
0.258 ± 0.078 0.270 ± 0.101 0.269 ± 0.051 0.253 ± 0.119
0.231 ± 0.086 0.243 ± 0.063 0.195 ± 0.069 e
0.232 ± 0.077 0.225 ± 0.069 0.226 ± 0.051 e
0.190 ± 0.081 0.185 ± 0.081 0.248 ± 0.113 0.270 ± 0.002
0.273 ± 0.158 0.284 ± 0.059 0.214 ± 0.040 0.230 ± 0.003
0.286 ± 0.061 0.278 ± 0.114 0.275 ± 0.031 e
the profiles of unit energy consumption with different scale of
WWTPs. There is a close link between the energy consumption and
scale of WWTPs, although the results show a high-degree of scat-
tering, especially for WWTPs scale less than 20
104 m3/d (Fig. 2).
Generally, the unit energy consumption presented a decreasing
trend with the increased scale of WWTPs. However, the downward
trend of UEC reversed with WWTPs scale beyond 50
104 m3/d.
This trend is further evidenced by the summary of average unit
energy consumption with varying scale of WWTPs (Fig. 2). The
average UEC of the five levels of scale was 0.330 kWh/m3,
0.256 kWh/m3, 0.254 kWh/m3, 0.249 kWh/m3 and 0.308 kWh/m3,
respectively.
Centralized or decentralized construction of WWTPs has
become one of the current focuses of concern amongst those
involved in the WWTPs management (Mizuta and Shimada, 2010;
Singh and Kazmi, 2018). Although some researchers report that the
unit energy consumption is negatively related to the size of WWTPs
and confirm the economy of scale (Awe et al., 2016; Nowak et al.,
2015; Trapote et al., 2014; Gurung et al., 2018), a reverse increase
in unit energy consumption is observed with WWTPs scale
increased to 50
104 m3/d in this study. This observation can be
mainly attributed to excessive electrical energy lost in moving
wastewater around super-large scale WWTPs due to friction in the
channels and pipes. This finding shows that the optimal WWTPs
scale is 20
104m3/d-50
104 m3/d in terms of energy-saving.
3.3. Assessment of energy consumption of WWTPs with different
effluent discharge standards
WWTPs effluent standard can determine the level of pollutants
removal and thus closely affect energy consumption. Fig. 3 presents
the profile of unit energy consumption with effluent standard of
Grade I-A, Grade IeB and Grade II. It was found that an obvious
increase of UEC was positively correlated with stricter discharge
standard. The Grade I-A effluent was of the highest energy demand
(0.350 kWh/m3), which was well above the average level
(0.295 kWh/m3). In contrast, the UEC level of the other two criteria
were below the average, and there were no significant differences
between them (P > 0.05).
The integrated effects of scale and effluent discharge standard
on WWTPs energy consumption were also investigated (Fig. 3). It
was found that the differences in averaged UEC among Grades I-A,
IeB and II were correlated closely with treatment scale of WWTPs.
A marked gap in average UEC among different effluent criteria was
observed with WWTPs scale below 5
104 m3/d and beyond
50
104 m3/d. This observation showed the effects of WWTPs scale
a
values on unit energy consumption prevailed over those of effluent
discharge norm.
402 Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404
Fig. 3. Profiles of unit energy consumption of effluent Grade I-A, Grade I-B and Grade II
with different scale of WWTPs, a values were expressed as means ± SD, n represents
sample number.
3.4. Assessment of energy consumption of WWTPs with different
treatment processes
Treatment process is a key WWTPs design parameter and its
selection depends on multiple factors such as treatment efficiency,
capital investment, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
The huge energy expenditure of WWTPs has brought economic
pressure on environmental engineers to design energy-saving
treatment systems. Fig. 4 summarizes the averaged unit energy
consumption with treatment process of A2O (AO), SBR (Sequencing
batch reactor), OD (Oxidation ditch) and MBR (Membrane biolog-
ical reactor). It was found that the UEC of MBR was the highest
(0.59 kWh/m3), followed by A2O (AO) and OD, with SBR the lowest
(0.28 kWh/m3).
The integrated effects of scale and treatment processes on en-
ergy consumption of WWTPs were also discussed. Equation (1) was
made by the regression between Scale (S) and the mean of UEC
under different treatment processes. This function calculates
average energy consumption level under given scale, which is
Fig. 4. Profiles of unit energy consumption of A2O þ AO, SBR, oxidation ditch (OD) and
MBR with different scale of WWTPs, a values were expressed as means ± SD, n rep-
resents sample number.
adopted in this research as a benchmark (marked as BUEC).
BUEC ¼ C1$SC2, (kWh/m3) (1)
The quite low R2 value (Table 2) can be mainly attributed to
multiple influencing factors of energy consumption. Nonetheless,
according to confidence, the scale effect does exist and this function
is practicable.
The scale effect can be further confirmed by the observation that
the differences in averaged UEC among A2O (AO), SBR and oxidation
ditch depend heavily on the WWTPs scale (Fig. 4). Among the three
widely-used technologies, SBR had the lowest UEC for small scale
WWTPs, while A2O (AO) demonstrated the lowest energy demand
with scale larger than 20
104 m3/d. Hence, the selection of
treatment process should fully consider given treatment scale for
minimal energy consumption. To achieve maximum energy saving,
SBR is the best option for small-scale WWTPs (<10
104 m3/d),
while A2O (AO) is suitable for large-scale WWTPs (>20
104 m3/d)
and oxidation ditch is fit for medium-scale WWTPs (10
104 m3/
d 20
104 m3/d).
In the WWTPs of China, A2O (AO), SBR and oxidation ditch are
the mainstream treatment processes, while MBR is an emerging
treatment technology that has been ever-increasingly applied in
China due to its special advantages such as small footprint and high
treatment efficiency (Zheng et al., 2010). However, MBR is a high
energy-use process, and some work shows the energy consumption
of MBR is up to three times higher than that of conventional acti-
vated sludge process (Krzeminski et al., 2012). This research also
indicates MBR is the most energy-demanding process. The selec-
tion of treatment process should depend on the major decision
criteria such as effluent standard, land availability and energy
supply.
Some new technologies are also developed including anaerobic
membrane bioreactor (Pretel et al., 2014), microbial fuel cells (MFC)
(Li et al., 2015), microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) (Cotterill et al.,
2017) and other derivative technologies (Schaubroeck et al.,
2015). These emerging technologies are to make good use of po-
tential energy of wastewater itself and achieve self-generated en-
ergy as much as possible. However, there are still challenges for the
engineering application of these new technologies, and lots of
break-through solutions and optimized procedures are under
investigation.
3.5. Assessment of energy consumption of WWTPs with different
treatment units
It is essential to analyze energy consumption of different
treatment units of WWTPs for improving energy efficiency.
WWTPs can be mainly divided into pretreatment unit, biological
treatment unit and sludge treatment unit. The energy consumption
status in different treatment units of ten WWTPs with a repre-
sentative range of sizes and treatment technologies was evaluated
(details in Supplemental Table S1). The energy consumption ratio of
pre-, biological- and sludge-treatment was 25.08% ± 3.86%,
61.93 ± 8.02%, and 12.69 ± 7.63%, respectively. It was found that the
energy consumption was mainly from aeration equipment,
pumping and sludge processing. These observations are similar to
those findings in previous studies (Awe et al., 2016; Boujelben et al.,
2017; Wang et al., 2016).
As a whole, the biological treatment constitutes the largest part
of the overall energy consumed in WWTPs. The most energy-
demanding unit is the use of electricity to provide oxygen for aer-
obic system. Such kind of energy consumption depends on influent
loading, effluent quality, aerator type, treatment process and size of
WWTPs (Awe et al., 2016). The aeration process should be
 Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404
Table 2
Parameters and statistical results of Equation (1).
Treatment process C1 (kWh/m3) C2
OD 0.276 0.054
SBR 0.281 0.094
A2O(AO) 0.343 0.146
Note: S denotes scale.
Fig. 5. Comparisons between the statistical value and the baseline value of unit energy
consumption. The baseline values are from the stipulation of energy consumption of
municipal wastewater treatment in Beijing (DB11/T 1118e2014).
controlled and adjusted by on-line aeration-controlling systems to
cope with influent variability. However, excess aeration exists
widely in many plants owing to lack of proper aeration control.
Energy saving can thus be achieved by designing and operating
aeration systems to match the actual oxygen demand as closely as
possible.
Pumping plays an indispensable role and is also significant en-
ergy draws for WWTPs. A great deal of energy is lost in this process
due to friction in the channels and pipes. The energy loss also
incurred if the actual operating condition does not match the
pump's best efficiency point. Hence, besides optimizing the layout
of treatment units to reduce the conveying distance, the energy
saving can be gained by introducing variable frequency drives for a
close energy input match with the actual demand to pump the
water.
As an end-treatment of WWTPs, sludge treatment also con-
sumes considerable energy, e.g. anaerobic digestion (usually for
heating) and sludge dewatering (belt press etc.). Although sludge
itself contains potential energy, self-generated electricity from
sludge has not yet received sufficient attention due to related
technical problems and lack of policy support. For example, the
anaerobic digestion of sludge has become a common practice in
many WWTPs of developed countries, only some 60 among 3508
WWTPs have adopted it. The sludge treatment in most Chinese
Table 3
Comparison between baseline- and statistical-values of unit energy consumption of WWTPs.
Unit energy consumption (kWh/m3) Scale of WWTPs (104 m3/d)
1e5
Baseline value 0.349e0.367
Statistical value 0.244e0.366
Note: All the baseline values are from the stipulation of energy consumption of municipal wastewater treatment in Beijing (DB11/T 1118e2014).
403
R2 Confidence Sample S (104 m3/d)
0.01 95% 294 [0.40, 80.00]
0.03 95% 192 [0.50, 60.00]
0.10 95% 453 [0.50, 200.00]
WWTPs is basically a “thickening-coagulation-mechanical dew-
atering” process. There is a need to emphasize energy recovery
from sludge (Hao et al., 2015). Taken together, the minimization of
energy consumption can be achieved by optimizing the design and
layout of WWTPs including aeration equipment, pump and sludge
treatment as well as intensifying self-generated energy.
3.6. Comparisons between the statistical and baseline value of
energy consumption
To construct energy-saving WWTPs is gaining ever-increasing
attention in China. However, only one local standard for WWTPs
energy usage has been enacted in Beijing (DB11/T 1118e2014).
Appropriate settings of the baseline value in the standards are
critical to provide good reference for decisions makers and engi-
neers. Comparisons were thus made between the statistical- and
baseline-value. It can be seen that the actual UEC value was below
the recommended baseline with WWTPs scale less than
20
104 m3/d, while contrary trend was found with WWTPs scale
above 20
104 m3/d (Fig. 5). It is worth noting that the statistical
value was well above the recommended UEC for WWTP scales
beyond 50
104 m3/d (Table 3). Therefore, the baseline values in
the standard of DB11/T 1118e2014 should be adjusted according to
the summarized actual values.
4. Concluding remarks and future perspectives
Faced with the soaring pressure of high energy costs and GHG
emission, environmental engineers and policy makers have to
rethink the traditional design principles and adjust basic design
parameters of WWTPs in energy saving direction. The selection of
treatment process should give full consideration of treatment scale
for minimal energy use. SBR is the best option for small-scale
WWTPs (<10
104 m3/d), while A2O (AO) is suitable for large-
scale WWTPs (>20
104 m3/d) and oxidation ditch is fit for
medium-scale WWTPs (10
104 m3/d 20
104 m3/d) in terms of
energy saving. Due to the significant deviation between the existing
baseline- and the statistical-values, the benchmark in the standard
of DB11/T 1118e2014 should be adjusted accordingly. To achieve
best energy saving, special attention should also be paid to opti-
mizing the design and layout of WWTPs including aeration
equipment, pump and sludge treatment as well as intensifying self-
generated energy.
It is equally important to establish an objective energy assess-
ment system for exploring energy saving opportunities in WWTPs.
The proper selection of energy consumption indicator and
5e10 10e20 20e50 50e100
0.305e0.342 0.294e0.339 0.259e0.288 0.211e0.229
0.205e0.347 0.203e0.355 0.257e0.321 0.320e0.400
404 Y. He et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 228 (2019) 399e404
benchmarking method is the prerequisite step for energy assess-
ment system. Although this study used the most common indica-
tor(electricity consumption per volume of wastewater treated)for
analyzing energy consumption, it had some limitations such as
ensuring similar influent quality of all WWTPs in survey. Another
limitation of this study was the energy benchmarking based on the
regression model, which was sensitive to the differences of treat-
ment scale of WWTPs samples. Further study is necessary to
develop more comprehensive energy consumption indicators (e.g.
integration of wastewater volume and pollutant mass removal) and
establish more potent benchmarking methods. Taken together, it is
reasonable to integrate different strategies of optimized design,
operation, technology as well as management to harvest and save
more energy.
Declarations of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the editor and reviewers for their insightful and
constructive comments on this paper. This work was supported by
grants from Shanghai Pujiang Talent Program(16PJD023), Shanghai
Natural Science Foundation (16ZR1408800), Shanghai Science and
Technology Development Funds(16QB1403300), and the National
Science and Technology Special Project (2013ZX07314003).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.320.
References
Awe, O.W., Liu, R., Zhao, Y., 2016. Analysis of energy consumption and saving in
wastewater treatment plant: case study from Ireland. J. Water Sustain. 6 (2),
63e76.
Boujelben, I., Samet, Y., Messaoud, M., Ben, M.M., Maalej, S., 2017. Descriptive and
multivariate analyses of four Tunisian wastewater treatment plants: a com-
parison between different treatment processes and their efficiency improve-
ment. J. Environ. Manag. 187, 63e70.
Cotterill, S.E., Dolfing, J., Jones, C., Curtis, T.P., Heidrich, E.S., 2017. Low temperature
domestic wastewater treatment in a Microbial Electrolysis Cell with 1 m (2)
anodes: towards system scale-up. Fuel Cells 17 (5), 584e592.
Chang, J., Lee, W.J., Yoon, S., 2017. Energy consumptions and associated greenhouse
gas emissions in operation phases of urban water reuse systems in Korea.
J. Clean. Prod. 141, 728e736.
Gurung, K., Tang, W.Z., Sillanpa €€
a, M., 2018. Unit energy consumption as benchmark
to select energy positive retrofitting strategies for Finnish wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTPs): a case study of Mikkeli WWTP. Environ. Process. 5 (3),
667e681.
Hanna, S.M., Thompson, M.J., Dahab, M.F., Williams, R.E., Dvorak, B.I., 2018.
Benchmarking the energy intensity of small water resource recovery facilities.
Water Environ. Res. 90 (8), 738e747.
Hao, X.D., Liu, R.B., Huang, X., 2015. Evaluation of the potential for operating carbon
neutral WWTPs in China. Water Res. 87, 424e431.
Haslinger, J., Lindtner, S., Krampe, J., 2016. Operating costs and energy demand of
wastewater treatment plants in Austria: benchmarking results of the last 10
years. Water Sci. Technol. 74 (11), 2620e2626.
Krampe, J., 2013. Energy benchmarking of South Australian WWTPs. Water Sci.
Technol. 67 (9), 2059e2066.
Krzeminski, P., van der Graaf, J.H.J.M., vanLier, J.B., 2012. Specific energy con-
sumption of membrane bioreactor (MBR) for sewage treatment. Water Sci.
Technol. 65 (2), 380e392.
Li, Y.H., Liu, L.F., Yang, F.L., Ren, N.Q., 2015. Performance of carbon fiber cathode
membrane with C-Mn-Fe-O catalyst in MBR-MFC for wastewater treatment.
J. Membr. Sci. 484, 27e34.
Longo, S., d'Antoni, B.M., Bongards, M., Chaparro, A., Cronrath, A., Fatone, F.,
Lema, J.M., Mauricio-Iglesias, M., Soares, A., Hospido, A., 2016. Monitoring and
diagnosis of energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants. A state of the
art and proposals for improvement. Appl. Energy 179, 1251e1268.
Mizuta, K., Shimada, M., 2010. Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 62 (10), 2256e2262.
Nowak, O., Enderle, P., Varbanov, P., 2015. Ways to optimize the energy balance of
municipal wastewater systems: lessons learned from Austrian applications.
J. Clean. Prod. 88, 125e131.
Panepinto, D., Fiore, S., Zappone, M., Genon, G., Meucci, L., 2016. Evaluation of the
energy efficiency of a large wastewater treatment plant in Italy. Appl. Energy
161, 404e411.
Pretel, R., Robles, A., Ruano, M.V., Seco, A., Ferrer, J., 2014. The operating cost of an
anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) treating sulphate-rich urban waste-
water. Separ. Purif. Technol. 126, 30e38.
Schaubroeck, T., De Clippeleir, H., Weissenbacher, N., Dewulf, J., Boeckx, P.,
Vlaeminck, S.E., Wett, B., 2015. Environmental sustainability of an energy self-
sufficient sewage treatment plant: improvements through DEMON and co-
digestion. Water Res. 74, 166e179.
Singh, N.K., Kazmi, A.A., 2018. Performance and cost analysis of decentralized
wastewater treatment plants in northern India: case study. J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag. 144 (3), 05017024.
Trapote, A., Albaladejo, A., Simo n, P., 2014. Energy consumption in an urban
wastewater treatment plant: the case of Murcia region (Spain). Civ. Eng. Envi-
ron. Syst. 31 (4), 304e310.
Wang, H.T., Yang, Y., Keller, A.A., Li, X., Feng, S.J., Dong, Y.N., Li, F.T., 2016. Compar-
ative analysis of energy intensity and carbon emissions in wastewater treat-
ment in USA, Germany, China and South Africa. Appl. Energy 184, 873e881.
Yang, L.B., Zeng, S.Y., Chen, J.N., He, M., Yang, W., 2010. Operational energy perfor-
mance assessment system of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water
Sci. Technol. 62 (6), 1361e1370.
Zhang, Q.H., Yang, W.N., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Jin, P.K., Dzakpasu, M., Yang, S.J.,
Wang, Q., Wang, X.C., Ao, D., 2016. Current status of urban wastewater treat-
ment plants in China. Environ. Int. 92e93, 11e22.
Zhang, Q., Nakatani, J., Wang, T., Chai, C.Y., 2017. Hidden greenhouse gas emissions
for water utilities in China's cities. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 665e667.
Zheng, X.A., Zhou, Y.F., Chen, S.H., Zheng, H., Zhou, C.X., 2010. Survey of MBR
market: trends and perspectives in China. Desalination 250 (2), 609e612.