An Overview of LCA Applied To Various Membrane (Profress, Challenges, and Harmonization)

Environmental Technology & Innovation 27 (2022) 102803
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Technology & Innovation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eti
An overview of LCA applied to various membrane

technologies: Progress, challenges, and harmonization
∗
Khalisah Khairina Razman a , Marlia M. Hanafiah a,b , ,
Abdul Wahab Mohammad c,d
a
Department of Earth Sciences and Environment, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Centre for Tropical Climate Change System, Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Chemical and Process Engineering Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
d
Research Centre for Sustainable Process Technology (CESPRO), Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been developed to assess the possible environmental
Received 27 May 2021 impact of a system over its life cycle. As LCA provides information on how to create
Received in revised form 24 May 2022 a more sustainable infrastructure while also recognizing environmental hotspots, there
Accepted 30 June 2022
is a growing interest in the sustainability of membrane treatment systems, especially
Available online 5 July 2022
for wastewater treatment (WWT). As a result, it is critical to revisit previous research
Keywords: to identify the challenges and accomplishments in implementing LCA for membrane
Life cycle assessment systems. This paper provides a thorough review of 57 previous studies on the LCA
Environmental performances of membrane systems for WWT. The collection of previous LCA studies was based on
Membrane process articles published between 2000 and 2020, where the progress, trends, challenges, and
Wastewater treatment potential harmonization were explored using content analysis. Membrane bioreactor
(MBR) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are the frequently studied systems concern-
ing environmental impact. The review of articles was bound by the main frameworks of
ISO norms and revealed differences in defining the functional unit, system boundaries,
impact evaluation categories, and method of testing LCA, making comparisons difficult.
The inconsistencies in defining the impact evaluation and methods used for certain
papers, in addition to the lack of LCA studies in some geographical areas, are some
of the difficulties addressed and illustrated in this paper. To ensure reliability and
reproducibility, a more standardized implementation of LCA should be considered,
allowing its adoption on new and existing membrane systems.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Wastewater treatment technology
Although water sanitation has protected a large proportion of society from numerous diseases since the 20th century,
this has created a cost to the environment (Ashraf and Hanfiah, 2017; Banch et al., 2019). Wastewater treatment
(WWT) is a process of controlling water pollution that is environmentally friendly. Typically, wastewater contains a
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Earth Sciences and Environment, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
E-mail address: mhmarlia@ukm.edu.my (M.M. Hanafiah).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102803
2352-1864/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.K. Razman, M.M. Hanafiah and A.W. Mohammad Environmental Technology & Innovation 27 (2022) 102803
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of membrane technology. *MF: microfiltration; UF: ultrafiltration; NF: nanofiltration; RO: reverse osmosis; PV:
pervaporation; GP: gas permeation; ED: electrodialysis.
Source: Adapted from Jhaveri and Murthy (2016).
considerable number of contaminants, including chemical oxygen demand (COD), heavy metals, suspended solids, trace
organic compounds, and toxins from various origins (Agoro et al., 2020; Ashraf and Hanafiah, 2019; Tariq et al., 2020;
Abbas and Hanafiah, 2021; Hanafiah et al., 2018). To reclaim wastewater safely, it is necessary to ensure that contaminants
are thoroughly removed to acceptable standards, as determined by local environmental bodies. However, high operating
and construction costs associated with the use of electricity and utilities combined with kilometers of sewer networks
are major concerns when using conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Moreover, the amount of sludge
produced in these centralized systems during wastewater treatment is another concern (Arias et al., 2020) and additionally
some of the challenges in wastewater reclamation includes the deposit of metals and compounds that may affect the
treatment systems, and potential for salinity buildup in soils. A number of options for dealing with water treatment
issues has been developed by overseeing the use of sustainable, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly agents and
discarded solid waste, such as industrial, agricultural, and municipal waste, to effectively capture and degrade water
contaminants (Yadav et al., 2019). Regardless, wastewater reclamation is regarded as another source of clean water that
can help overcome water availability problems or increases in water consumption in a given area. This has been made
possible by recent advances in membrane technology for removing contaminants from wastewater. The membranes
are classified based on their properties, which include permeability, pore size, surface charge, and chemical stability.
In developed countries, centralized aerobic wastewater treatment plants and lagoons are the most common treatment
methods used for both domestic and industrial wastewater (Dhote et al., 2012).
Membrane technology is favored due to the increasing complexity of wastewater contaminants and the greater demand
for wastewater reclamation, with the aims of increasing efficiency and reducing costs (Damtie et al., 2019; Razman
et al., 2021). The diverse nature and complexity of wastewater provides the opportunity to develop these technologies
in meeting the targeted efficiency, energy and permeate quality. Membrane modules and elements are constantly being
modified, especially to improve membrane fouling, which is a major challenge for membrane processes (Obotey Ezugbe
and Rathilal, 2020). There are several classifications of membrane technologies that are commonly used in water
purification, as presented in Fig. 1. However, pressure-driven and non-equilibrium-based membrane technologies are
frequently adapted in these wastewater treatment systems, as seen in subsequent sections. Nonetheless, a limited number
of studies have adopted membrane technologies involving the remaining three technologies, namely (i) pressure-driven,
equilibrium-based; (ii) non-pressure-driven, equilibrium-based; and (iii) non-pressure-driven, non-equilibrium-based).
Membrane systems are highly regarded due to their optimum membrane effluent efficiency, despite the high price
in terms of energy and chemical demand, greenhouse gases, and other air pollution emissions (Remy et al., 2014).
Pressure-driven membrane filtration technologies (such as MF, UF, NF, and RO) work by separating components selectively
based on pore size. The permeation of a fluid through a membrane results in the retention of certain elements, such as
chemical compounds and/or solid materials including monovalent ions, macromolecules, suspended particles, and sugars.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the size of the membrane pore affects the amount of retained materials, such as in reverse osmosis
(RO), which only allows water to pass through due to their extremely small pore size.
2. Life cycle assessment of membranes for wastewater treatment technology
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a standard method for analyzing the environmental impact of a system (or product) at all
stages of its life cycle. This encompasses everything from raw material production to product refining and manufacturing
2
Fig. 2. Classification of common membrane filtration.

Source: Adapted from Climate Policy Watcher (2021).
Fig. 3. Membrane technology commonly analyzed using LCA.
to final disposal. System inputs and outputs are both considered, and the environmental impact is evaluated using
the ISO 14000 set of standards. Standardization of the LCA framework started in the late 1990s due to efforts made
by certain governmental and international organizations to provide guidelines for LCA studies (Corominas et al., 2013;
Martins et al., 2017). This framework is guided by four fundamental phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis,
impact assessment, and interpretation (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006). Comparisons of studies can be more objective
and unbiased with a proper context, allowing for a more accurate assessment of a system’s related environmental
impact. Improvements to the examined framework can be made as a result of LCA findings, in addition to providing
assistance in the decision-making process for future developments. Furthermore, LCA is a versatile technique that aids
in policymaking, as a marketing tool, and for strategic planning (Arias et al., 2020; Razman et al., 2022). With various
membrane technologies available to reclaim wastewater, it is important to identify some of the most common that are
being analyzed using LCA. Fig. 3 depicts the membrane processes that have been commonly investigated by previous
studies using the life cycle approach. From the figure, it is clear that the membrane bioreactor (MBR) dominates the
study of LCA, as there are various configurations possible for this type of system.
3
Fig. 4. LCA flow of membrane wastewater treatment (Martins et al., 2017).
When assessing the sustainability of a given membrane system, an LCA flow needs to be constructed to define the
boundary of the study. Fig. 4 represents the typical flow of wastewater treatment with respect to LCA, which serves as a
basis of the life cycle inventory of the system.
The use of LCAs to identify the environmental impacts of membrane technologies for WWT has been addressed in
some previous analysis studies. Mahmood et al. (2013a) conducted an analysis that provided a simple and brief overview
of previous LCA studies with respect to membrane processes used in WWT. However, the analysis only skimmed the
surface of LCA findings and did not delve deeper into the methodology used to conduct the LCA. From the brief summary,
the operational phase of a membrane process in a WWT system has been identified as contributing to the environmental
impact, in addition to the electricity consumed. However, no specific range for the impact value was provided in the
studies reviewed. The study by Mahmood et al. (2013b) comprised a discussion on the overall research direction of the
sustainability aspect for membrane processes in WWT. The tools for evaluating sustainability (such as Eco Indicator 95,
Eco Indicator 99, Green Pro, and the Life Cycle Index (LInX)) were analyzed, and their advantages and limitations were
highlighted. Some findings indicated that global warming potential (GWP), acidification, and eutrophication are impacts
that are extensively evaluated.
Monticelli and Zanelli (2016) conducted a review centered on the design and architecture of membranes rather than
the sustainability of their use in WWT systems. The review especially focused on the pre-use phase of membranes and
identified that the designing stage is crucial to improving sustainability and efficiency. By contrast, this paper considers
previous studies that discussed the overall environmental and sustainability aspects of membranes used in WWT. At the
general WWT scale, only Corominas et al. (2013) performed a critical review on 45 papers with the goal of defining
the various methodological methods employed and their transparency in communicating the findings. From the review,
the paper observed that there were variations when defining the functional unit (FU) and system boundaries. Even
so, the review was generalized to any WWT system, which includes both membrane processes and non-membrane
processes. None of these analyses, however, provided a detailed and comprehensive review on the membrane-based
wastewater treatment of LCA studies or highlighted the limitations in this area. Thus, this paper aims to bridge the gap
by providing a critical review of the methodology, environmental impacts, and challenges faced when conducting LCA for
membrane-based processes in WWT.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Selection of LCA studies
With an emphasis on membrane technology for WWT systems, this study considers peer-reviewed articles, conference
papers, and book chapters. A total of 57 related studies were collected from databases such as Scopus, Science Direct, and
Springer, and the searched keywords included ‘life cycle assessment’, ‘membrane’, ‘wastewater’, ‘treatment’, ‘sustainabil-
ity’, ‘environmental’, and ‘impact’. The scope of the research, the types of membranes used, and the impact categories
4
Fig. 5. Sources of publication of reviewed studies.
are all addressed in this paper. Furthermore, only research with relevant case studies and a focus on membranes that
are used in WWT were included. To investigate trends of LCA methods in membrane WWT systems, a 20-year range was
chosen (2000–2020), and WWT systems that did not utilize a membrane process or were outside the chosen period, were
excluded.
As shown in Fig. 5, although the majority of the selected studies were published in a variety of journals, Water, Science
and Technology, and the Journal of Cleaner Production were the most frequently cited (14% and 16% of the total studies,
respectively), with books and conferences accounting for only a small percentage of LCA studies.
3.2. Review method
The application of different types of membrane processes in treating different types of wastewater differed between
studies. Thus, to achieve a systematic review, the LCA studies were classified into the types of membranes used, including
the MBR and RO. The classification included study goal, source of wastewater, FU defined, LCA software used to calculate
the environmental impact, system boundary, and the midpoint/endpoint approach. The existing practices and LCA in
membrane application progress and research trends were determined, followed by a discussion on the challenges, research
gaps, and potential harmonization of this particular LCA practice.
4. Analysis and results
4.1. Goal and scope definition
Several processes are involved in performing an LCA analysis for a particular system or product, all of which are
intricately related. This renders the start and end points of assessing the environmental impact more difficult to determine.
As a result, establishing a system boundary is critical since it establishes a limit for which inputs and outputs are applicable
to the system. The most popular system boundary established by these LCA studies focused solely on the construction
and operation phases. In this paper, a variety of water treatment plants and facilities were examined with a wide range of
research objectives. Assessing the environmental impacts of various treatment systems (or different scenarios introduced)
were some of the common objectives identified. While it is possible to identify other framework boundaries for LCA studies
(such as cradle-to-gate studies that do not consider product distribution and use), this depends on the study’s objectives
and the availability of data and/or impact assessment methodologies (Arias et al., 2020).
A limited number of studies conducted a full LCA from ‘cradle-to-grave’ (Arden et al., 2020; Caballero et al., 2020;
Jiménez-Benítez et al., 2020; Kobayashi et al., 2020; Cetinkaya and Bilgili, 2019; Zhang et al., 2019), as the infrastructure
phase is considered to have a negligible impact on the environment. The final disposal phase and dismantling of a plant
are also seldom considered, with only 21% considering this issue. Regardless, Mahmood et al. (2013a,b) argued that a full
LCA analysis helps in determining the sustainability of the membrane system from the parameters at each stage.
The studies also succeeded in defining the goal of studies, which included comparing and evaluating various membrane
systems or technologies that had the least negative impact on the environment. However, since different types of
wastewater sources were used in each study, the FU for different treatment systems varied (Arden et al., 2020). However,
the FU is generally defined as 1 m3 of treated wastewater. Although 89% of the studies explicitly defined the FU, it
was not specified in 11%. Since different types of wastewater and FU were used for different systems, these variations
rendered it difficult to make reliable comparisons of membrane treatment systems, particularly across the reviewed
studies. Nonetheless, since the consistency of treated wastewater and its removal efficiency are not demonstrated, the FU
is unrepresentative (Caballero et al., 2020).
5
Fig. 6. LCA software frequently used in reviewed studies.
4.2. Inventory analysis
The preferred software utilized in these studies was SimaPro, partly due to its international recognition as a tool to
evaluate and conduct LCA analyses. It also has multiple databases and impact assessment tools with a powerful graphical
interface that clearly displays processes having the greatest impact (Liu et al., 2019). With regard to GaBi, their database
is tailored towards industrial processes and flows, which can be observed in certain studies that utilized industrial
wastewater (such as Niaz et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2018; Sabeen et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2017). Almost 32% of the LCA
studies did not specify the software used to model their LCA, rendering it inconvenient to reach an objective comparison.
The differences in LCA software tools also affected the results obtained due to differences in characterization factors for
each software tool (Silva et al., 2019). Fig. 6 presents a brief overview of frequently used software to conduct LCA. It should
be noted that 22 papers (38%) did not specify the software used or were using less common software such as EASETECH,
TOTAL, Wastewater Energy Sustainability Tool (WWEST), and TEAM.
4.3. Impact assessment
Table 1 presents the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods used in previous LCA studies. Here, CML, ReCiPe,
TRACI, EDIP, Impact 2002+, CED, and mixed or unspecified methodology were the associated LCIA methodologies used for
wastewater treatment systems. Among the 57 studies reviewed, 37 stated the impact assessment methodology (with
14 choosing CML, 9 ReCiPe, 8 TRACI, 3 EDIP, 1 Impact 2002+, 1 EDP 2013 or 1 CED) while the remainder used mixed
methodologies or did not specify the method.
The CML method is an impact evaluation approach that limits quantitative modeling to early stages in the cause–effect
chain. The results are categorized into midpoint groups based on common mechanisms (for example, climate change) or
widely agreed groupings such as ecotoxicity (Guinée et al., 2002).
The main goal of the ReCiPe method is to reduce many life cycle inventory outcomes to a few indicator scores. The
relative severity of an environmental impact group is expressed by these indicator ratings at two levels: 18 midpoint
indicators and 3 endpoint indicators. The advantage of utilizing ReCiPe is its comprehensive selection of effect categories
at the midpoint level compared to other approaches (ReCiPe, 2021).
The TRACI method characterizes factors for LCIA, industrial ecology, and sustainability indicators. Through common
equivalence units, the characterization factors measure the possible impacts of inputs and releases on particular impact
categories. Furthermore, processes, goods, services, businesses, and societies have all benefited from the TRACI approach
(Bare, 2011).
The EDIP 2003 method is more aligned with damage-oriented and covers a greater portion of the environmental mecha-
nism. To make the measured impacts more relevant, EDIP 2003 considers the characteristics of the receiving environment.
This methodology also explores the exposure of non-global impact categories such as acidification, photochemical ozone
formation, ecotoxicity, nutrient enrichment, human toxicity, and noise (Potting and Hauschild, 2004).
6
Table 1
LCIA methods used in previous LCA studies.
Method Developer User (Reference)
CML Centre for Environmental Cetinkaya and Bilgili (2019), Niaz et al. (2020), Chen et al.
Studies (CML), University of (2018), Kamble et al. (2019), Büyükkamacıand Karaca (2017),
Leiden Arena et al. (2016), Pretel et al. (2016, 2015), Amores et al.
(2013), Zuin et al. (2013), Hancock et al. (2012), Kalbar et al.
(2012), Ortiz et al. (2007), Friedrich (2002)
ReCiPe RIVM, CML, PRé Caballero et al. (2020), Yoonus et al. (2020), Gallego-Schmid
and Tarpani (2019), Goga et al. (2019), Su et al. (2019), Lam
et al. (2017), Lijó et al. (2016), Pintilie et al. (2016), Remy
et al. (2014)
TRACI U.S. Environmental Protection Jiménez-Benítez et al. (2020), Kobayashi et al. (2020), Sabeen
Agency (U.S. EPA) et al. (2018), Cabling et al. (2020), Harclerode et al. (2020),
Yang et al. (2020), Cashman et al. (2018), Jeong et al. (2018)
EDIP 2003 Institute for Product Høibye et al. (2008), Wenzel et al. (2008), Jørgensen et al.
Development (IPU) at the (2004)
Technical University of
Denmark.
Impact 2002+ Swiss Federal Institute of Bonton et al. (2012)
Technology Lausanne (EPFL)
and The IMPACT Modeling
Team
EDP 2013 Swiss Federal Institute of Fajardo et al. (2016)
Technology (ETH)
CED – Manda et al. (2014)
Mixed methodolo- – Arias et al. (2020), Arden et al. (2020), Zhang et al. (2019), Zhu
gies/Unspecified et al. (2017), Banti et al. (2020), Joseph et al. (2020), Muñoz
et al. (2020), Ronquim et al. (2020), Skrydstrup et al. (2020),
Singh et al. (2019), Chong et al. (2018), Dominguez et al.
(2018), Rashidi et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2018), Bai et al.
(2017), Holloway et al. (2016), Igos et al. (2013), Lazarova
et al. (2012), Dodbiba et al. (2009), Tangsubkul et al. (2006)
The Impact 2002+ method currently offers midpoint characterization factors, damage factors, normalized midpoint
characterization factors, and normalized damage factors for up to 1500 different life cycle inventory results. This method
proposes the practical implementation of a hybrid midpoint/damage approach that connects all forms of life cycle
inventory results (elementary flows and other interventions) to several damage categories through several midpoint
categories (Jolliet et al., 2003).
The following impact categories were frequently selected: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Eutrophication Potential
(EP), and Acidification Potential (AP). Nasution et al. (2020) stated that GWP has the highest potential for improving future
environmental issues at the production stages. Only studies by Jiménez-Benítez et al. (2020), Yang et al. (2020), and Goga
et al. (2019) included all 18 impact categories for evaluation. Furthermore, only 10 impact categories were frequently
included in these LCA studies, including GWP, EP, and AP. The operational phase of these membrane treatment systems is
the major contributor to the GWP and emission of CO2 . Hence, this is why most studies prioritize the operational phase
when defining system boundaries due to its major contribution to the overall environmental impact. It was also noted
that GWP was included in almost all the reviewed studies as one of the most important metrics, with public policies often
examining this indicator. The GWP values will be discussed in more detail in the next section with respect to MBR and
RO membrane systems. However, the GWP values for the LCA studies involving other membrane treatment systems in
Section 4.4.3 are not discussed due to the various types of membrane treatment systems employed.
4.4. Interpretation of reviewed studies
It has become critical to assess environmental performance using a validated and systematic approach such as LCA
(Aziz and Hanafiah, 2020). Furthermore, the phase of interpretation is crucial in LCA because it offers a comprehensive
and critical analysis of relevant data. This data is derived from the results of a life cycle inventory and impact assessment,
which includes drawing conclusions and identifying the process phases that contribute to environmental hotspots. Based
on this data, the system’s limitations can be detected and suggestions for improvement offered. Accordingly, the key
objectives of this step are to define possible areas for improvement, lend legitimacy to the LCA report, and prevent any
bias arising from the personal interests and backgrounds of practitioners and/or organizations (Martins et al., 2017). The
next section of this paper presents a more detailed analysis of the interpretation processes used in the studies and a
discussion of the results of different membrane treatment systems.
7
Fig. 7. LCA studies on membrane technology by country of origin.
The reviewed studies were subjected to a thorough analysis to define and highlight any similarities and differences in
LCA implementation for membrane systems in WWT, in addition to any accomplishments. A total of 57 studies published
from 2000 to 2020 were examined, featuring studies from all over the world (Fig. 7). While the collection of studies does
not constitute a comprehensive overview of the field, they do represent the current state of the art. The ISO framework
only provides a general methodology, and the details and implementation of LCA for each membrane system differ
between studies. Accordingly, the environmental impacts were evaluated through the ISO 14040/14044 guidelines.
Fig. 8 represents a more thorough overview of studies based on their country of origin. It is clear that Spain published
the most papers (19%) on LCA for membrane technology, followed by the United States (12%), China (11%), and Denmark
(7%). Most of the LCA studies conducted in Spain focused on comparing the environmental impact of MBRs and anaerobic
MBRs (AnMBRs) against other treatment systems, mostly referenced to municipal wastewater and greywater. Overall, it
is clear that developed countries contributed the most LCA studies on wastewater treatment membrane processes.
The number of LCA studies on membrane technology for WWT has increased (Fig. 9) in line with sustainability being
increasingly incorporated into the design of membrane systems. This is particularly true for the last decade (2011–2020),
as there was a significant jump in LCA studies conducted on membrane systems compared to the previous decade (2000–
2010). In addition, there were twice as many LCA studies conducted in 2020 compared to previous years, demonstrating
an increased interest in LCA as an evaluation tool. This number is projected to increase in the future as more policymakers
and organizations embrace the development of more environmentally sustainable systems for WWT and improve existing
treatment systems.
Most of the research evaluated various membrane technologies to determine which treatment systems or processes
have the least environmental impact on WWT. Two of the most frequently studied membrane systems were the MBR
and RO systems. However, although WWT systems have been built and operated to manage water contamination and
mitigate the environmental effects of industrial and domestic wastewater discharge, they consume energy and chemical
reagents while generating sludge and other emissions (Harun et al., 2020).
4.4.1. LCA of membrane bioreactor in treating wastewater

An MBR combines membrane processes (such as microfiltration or ultrafiltration) with a biological treatment system
and was frequently analyzed in these studies to identify their environmental impact in WWT plants (WWTPs). Table 2
presents an overall summary of the LCA studies focusing on MBR treatment systems, including AnMBR, anaerobic
fluidized MBR (AFMBR), submerged MBR (SMBR), and aerobic MBR (AeMBR). The LCA studies primarily compared the
8
Fig. 8. LCA studies based on specific countries.
Fig. 9. LCA studies on membrane technology by system boundaries from 2000 to 2020.
environmental impacts of MBR and AnMBR with other treatment systems (Arias et al., 2020; Jiménez-Benítez et al., 2020;
Dominguez et al., 2018), with an emphasis on municipal wastewater and greywater treatment.
Greywater accounts for 19% of the wastewater handled by MBR systems and Kobayashi et al. (2020) discovered
that MBR is environmentally preferable, particularly when the amount of reused greywater is increased. The anaerobic
greywater reuse method has also been demonstrated to be the most environmentally friendly because it allows for energy
recovery, providing it with an advantage over other systems (Lam et al., 2017). Moreover, MBR technology is preferred in
decentralized wastewater treatment because there are fewer pollutant loads compared to conventional activated sludge
(CAS) (Singh et al., 2019). Lazarova et al. (2012) took a holistic approach in using LCA and revealed that MBR has a
lower environmental impact compared to CAS. When comparing MBR with conventional treatment systems, Cabling et al.
9
Table 2
LCA studies on MBR treatment system.
Reference Goal Source of water Functional unit Software System Approach Findings
boundary
Arias et al. Compare three Decentralized 1 m3 of treated SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint The best configuration
(2020) decentralized wastewater wastewater for was by AnMBR due to
treatment irrigation its decreased energy
systems consumption (owing to
the reactor’s functioning
at room temperature)
and the biogas output
associated with the
anaerobic reactor
Arden et al. Compare three Greywater Delivery of Not specified Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The use of graywater
(2020) biological non-potable AeMBR to meet onsite
treatment reuse water for non-potable demands
systems for the whole has the lowest
non-potable building environmental and
reuse human health
implications
Banti et al. Evaluate two Municipal 1 m3 of treated OpenLCA Gate-to-gate Midpoint When compared to
(2020) separate wastewater wastewater traditional activated
treatment sludge method, MBR
plants technology had a
considerable
environmental benefit by
excluding elements of
land area and excess
sludge production
Cabling et al. Evaluate Sewage Annual OpenLCA Cradle-to-gate Midpoint When compared to
(2020) community- provision of scenarios that uses
based sewage space and conventional
water use water heating, technologies and
irrigation, and discharge, MBR showed
water lower impact
treatment per contributions
person
Harclerode Compare Domestic Treatment of 5 Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint AnMBR treatment of
et al. (2020) AnMBR-based million gallons domestic wastewater has
treatment of medium the potential to be more
system with a strength energy-efficient and
conventional wastewater sustainable than
wastewater with the same traditional aerobic
treatment effluent treatment due to the
system characteristics. combination of primary
sedimentation with
anaerobic digestion,
alternate procedures for
dissolved methane
removal, and biological
sulfide removal.
Jiménez- Evaluate Urban Volume of SimaPro Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The feasibility of AnMBR
Benítez et al. full-scale wastewater treated water performance is
(2020) AnMBR system (m3 ) significantly improved
when treating medium
to high organic loading
rates, implementing
fouling control methods
to reduce operating
expenses, increasing
dissolved methane
recovery from the
effluent, and establishing
technologies and/or
effluent management
plans for nutrients
recovery
(continued on next page)
10
Table 2 (continued).
boundary
Kobayashi et al. Evaluate Greywater Annual OpenLCA Cradle-to-gate Midpoint The CW scenarios
(2020) greywater treatment of outperformed the MBR
management greywater and BAU scenarios at the
systems generated per community and
person neighborhood scales,
whereas the MBR
scenario is
environmentally
preferred when large
amounts of greywater
can be reused
Skrydstrup Evaluate Dairy factory 1000 m3 of EASETECH Gate-to-gate Midpoint Compared to
et al. (2020) alternative wastewater treated dairy conventional WWT,
MBR treatment wastewater decentralized WWT and
systems reuse in the dairy
improved the aquatic
environment by 80%
(freshwater) and 51%
(marine water) but
raised negative impact
on climate change by
27%
Yang et al. Assess three Textile 1 m3 of treated SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint, The MBBR system had
(2020) treatment wastewater effluent Endpoint lower environmental
processes consequences than the
CAS and MBR systems as
it used less electricity
and decolorizing agent
Yoonus et al. Evaluate Greywater 1 m3 of treated Gabi Gate-to-gate Midpoint The SMBR system
(2020) integrated greywater generates 8.04 kg CO2
greywater eq and consumes 3.59
treatment plant kg Oil eq less than the
desalination system,
indicating that it is
highly advantageous
Kamble et al. Evaluate six Municipal 1 m3 of treated Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint Except for
(2019) wastewater wastewater wastewater eutrophication potential,
treatment soil biotechnology (SBT)
technologies had the lowest
environmental impact of
all the impact categories
studied
Singh et al. Conventional Hostel-site 1 L of treated SimaPro Cradle-to-gate Midpoint, The MBR technology can
(2019) activated wastewater or processed Endpoint be utilized for WWT to
sludge versus wastewater reuse and discharge
MBR treated water into bodies
with lower pollution
loads, whereas the CAS
system has higher
environmental impacts
Su et al. (2019) Evaluate Wastewater 10,000 m3 /d of Gabi Gate-to-gate Midpoint The ecological
between pre-treatment, technologies
environmental biological outperformed the other
and ecological treatment, technologies in terms of
technologies disinfection, environmental impacts,
wastewater particularly in terms of
discharge, and global warming and
sludge eutrophication, but
treatment consumed more land
process. due to their huge area
requirements and
limited treatment
capacity
11
boundary
Chen et al. Assess two Municipal 1 m3 of Gabi Gate-to-gate Midpoint The major process that
(2018) reclamation wastewater reclaimed results in increased life
plants water cycle environmental
impacts and costs is
power consumption with
the largest impacted
environmental category
be aquatic ecotoxicity
Cashman et al. Evaluate Municipal 1 m3 of treated OpenLCA Gate-to-gate Midpoint In comparison to the
(2018) treatment wastewater wastewater other tested systems, the
system as AnMBR reactor running
sewer mining at 20 ◦ C provided the
water largest net energy
reclamation benefits
Dominguez Evaluate three Greywater The same Gabi Cradle-to-gate. Midpoint The light source for
et al. (2018) greywater treated volume photocatalytic greywater
treatment of greywater treatment consumes a
systems and the same lot of energy and is the
amount of largest contributor to
sodium both natural resources
dodecylben- and environmental
zenesulfonate burdens
(SDBS)
removed
Rashidi et al. Evaluate Wastewater Flow rate of TOTAL Cradle-to-gate Midpoint In terms of GWP, the
(2018) membrane and wastewater environmental impact
conventional (100,000 m3 evaluation revealed that
treatment day−1 ) for 20 the A2O + MBR and A2O
systems in years of + MFC processes are the
given scenarios operation most environmentally
friendly in the
construction and
operation stages,
respectively.
Lam et al. Evaluate four Greywater Not specified SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint, The anaerobic greywater
(2017) water Endpoint reuse system would be
management the most
scenarios environmentally friendly
alternative to utilize
because it allows for
energy recovery, water
resource recycling, and
sewage treatment load
reduction
Holloway et al. Full advanced Potable/non- 1 m3 of Wastewater- Cradle-to-grave. Midpoint FAT has substantially
(2016) treatment (FAT) potable reusable Energy lower life-cycle
versus wastewater (potable and/or Sustainability consequences than
ultrafiltration non-potable) Tool (WWEST) UFO-MBR treatment
osmotic water without UFO-MBR
membrane system optimization,
bioreactor with the operation phase
(UFO-MBR) being the biggest
contributor to energy
use and GHG emissions
(2020) found that integrating MBR wastewater treatment and water reuse into a district heating scheme offers additional
environmental savings on a community scale. Furthermore, when comparing resource usage, Singh et al. (2019) found that
MBR systems consume more electricity and the power used to operate them only consists of 25%–30% of renewable energy
(compared to solar panels). By comparison, CAS systems operate on biogas, which accounts for 60%–65% of the energy
needed to operate the system. Therefore, MBR treatment is superior (and more favored) compared to CAS treatment
due to its higher organic matter removal efficiency (allowing MBRs to take in more contaminants). When compared
to conventional treatment systems such as CAS, it can be inferred that the MBR treatment systems constitute a more
environmentally friendly technology.
12
boundary
Lijó et al. Evaluate two Domestic Service Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint Heat production from
(2016) post-treatments wastewater and provided by biogas has a favorable
for anaerobic organic waste system, which impact on climate
membranes includes change, ozone depletion,
management of photochemical oxidant
wastewater creation, and fossil
and domestic depletion, whereas
organic waste electricity usage has a
produced by negative impact
2000
inhabitants per
day.
Pretel et al. Evaluate Urban Not specified SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint AnMBR technology
(2016) AnMBR wastewater improves overall
treatment (UWW) and environmental
system organic fraction performance by working
of municipal at high sludge retention
solid waste durations (70 days) and
(OFMSW) treating UWW and
OFMSW together.
Pretel et al. Evaluate Influent from 1 m3 of treated SimaPro Cradle-to-grave Midpoint Accounting for energy
(2015) AnMBR pre-treatment wastewater offsets through on-site
treatment of Caraixxet production when
system with WWTP in methane (from both
two-line Valencia biogas and effluent
treatments streams) is captured and
used for energy
generation resulted in
greenhouse gas savings
of up to 76% to 104% (at
ambient temperatures of
15 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C,
respectively).
Kalbar et al. Evaluate three Sewage from Not specified Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint MBR was identified as
(2012) wastewater high-rise the most desirable
treatment buildings in option for wastewater
technologies urban centers recycling in high-rise
buildings among the
three technologies as it
requires less land, and
generates superior
effluent quality
Lazarova et al. MBR versus Municipal Treat an annual TEAM Gate-to-gate Midpoint The MBR and CAS have
(2012) CAS wastewater volume of 1.92 similar effects on
technologies million m3 of greenhouse emissions,
wastewater but energy consumption
entering the is more critical in MBR
WWTP
Høibye et al. Evaluate five Municipal Not specified Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint Due to its low energy
(2008) wastewater wastewater consumption and great
treatment efficiency in heavy metal
technologies removal, sand filtration
is the most
advantageous technology
based on technical and
environmental
assessments.
Different forms of MBR can be used (depending on the form of wastewater being handled and the treatment target) to
ensure the least amount of environmental impact. Moreover, different types and configurations of MBR treatment systems
yield different environmental impacts and rates of energy consumption. Ortiz et al. (2007) revealed that external MBR
has a marginally higher environmental impact compared to immersed MBR due to high energy consumption. An example
of an immersed MBR system is the SMBR system, which has five components: the feed pump, pre-aeration tank, aeration
tank combined with SMBR, permeate pump, and sodium hypochlorite solution. The study by Yoonus et al. (2020) noted
13
boundary
Wenzel et al. Assess three Urban Not specified Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint Sand filtration have a
(2008) wastewater wastewater lower avoided
treatment from WWTP environmental impact
technologies from the removal of
chemicals in wastewater
than the impact
generated by the
treatment plant itself,
with the latter being
primarily due to the
plant’s electricity
consumption when
compared to ozonation
and MBR
Ortiz et al. Evaluate three Wastewater The average SimaPro Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The CAS system with
(2007) wastewater from WWTP in production of tertiary treatment causes
treatment Tauste 3000 m3 /day of the largest
technologies water for 25 environmental impacts.
years, Although the
considering environmental
membrane implications of the
replacement submerged and external
will be every 7 MBRs are similar, the
years external MBR technology
is higher due to its
higher electricity usage.
that these components have a major impact inside the system, while Cashman et al. (2018) revealed that AnMBR has a
net energy gain at all scales.
Depending on the industry, MBR has been found most effective for removing organic compounds and color from textile
wastewater. However, the moving bed bioreactor (MBBR) is more appealing on an industrial scale (Yang et al., 2020). The
disadvantage of using MBR treatment systems is that they consume a lot of resources, which has a negative effect on the
atmosphere and renders them a major environmental hotspot. This is evident from the majority of the studies revealing
that electricity consumption contributed to most of the systems’ environmental impact. The main contributor from MBR
systems was identified to be electricity consumption, resulting in higher environmental impact (and costs) compared to
coagulation and flocculation treatment systems (Chen et al., 2018). Skrydstrup et al. (2020) are in agreement with these
findings, especially the higher energy demands resulting in increased electricity consumption associated with reusing
MBR in a system. However, they also found no significant impact on the overall environmental impact of electricity
consumption. The study by Høibye et al. (2008) evaluated five different types of wastewater treatment technologies:
sand filtration, ozone treatment, ultraviolet (UV) microbial disinfectant, MBR, and UV combined with advanced oxidation.
Among the systems, sand filtration was shown to be highly beneficial in terms of both technical and environmental aspects
compared to MBR systems. In fact, MBRs have a higher energy consumption in urban wastewater treatment, resulting in
greater environmental impact and expense.
When interpreting the GWP for MBRs, several studies only provided the relative impact, such as Harclerode et al.
(2020), Rashidi et al. (2018), Lijó et al. (2016), and Pretel et al. (2016). The relative impact for these studies ranged from
7% to 100%, with Pretel et al. (2016) revealing the largest difference. Outliers present in these studies may have been
caused by insufficient details of the life cycle inventory. When the outliers are excluded, the values of GWP vary between
0.19 and 49 kg CO2 -eq. However, a clear comparison of the impacts is not possible due to the lack of clarity from certain
studies and the wide variety of inputs for MBR device parameters and LCA features.
4.4.2. LCA of reverse osmosis in treating wastewater

The RO membrane treatment system is frequently used in desalination processes and the reclamation of reusable water.
This is mainly because the membranes are capable of eliminating up to 90%–99% of pollutants in the water supply, such
as total dissolved solids (TDSs) (Maynard and Whapham, 2020). In this analysis, the five studies that performed LCA on
the RO membrane treatment system used different types of wastewater and had different goals. This is reflected in the
FU defined by these studies, with the exception of Zhu et al. (2017), as shown in Table 3.
In the study by Ronquim et al. (2020), three scenarios were used to identify the environmental impacts that had the
lowest effect on the environment. It was observed that adding an intermediate softening calcite seeding is the most
environmentally favored due to the maximum recovery of RO. When treating textile wastewater, Cetinkaya and Bilgili
(2019) found that membrane capacitive deionization (MCDI) achieves improved environmental performance on all terms
compared to RO membranes. This is caused by the natural gas used to generate electricity (primarily during the RO
14
Table 3
LCA studies on RO treatment system.
Reference Goal Source water Functional unit Software System Approach Findings
boundary
Ronquim et al. Compare three Industrial 1 m3 of water SimaPro Gate-to-grave Midpoint The plant’s electricity
(2020) scenarios of wastewater for reuse as use was the main source
tertiary cooling tower of GHG emissions in all
wastewater make up scenarios
treatment
Cetinkaya and RO membrane Textile 500 m3 of SimaPro Cradle-to-grave Midpoint, With 5641 times fewer
Bilgili (2019) versus MCDI wastewater wastewater per Endpoint values for damage
membrane day assessment categories,
MCDI system is
substantially more
environmentally friendly
than RO membrane
system
Goga et al. Seawater Seawater and 1 kL of potable SimaPro Cradle-to-gate Midpoint The desalination plant
(2019) desalination mine water water produced emits 4.17 kg CO2
versus mine at a specified equivalent per kL, while
water standard over the mine-affected plant
reclamation the life cycle of emits 2.44 kg CO2
using RO each process equivalent per kL
membranes unit
Zhu et al. RO- Electroplating Not specified Gabi Gate-to-gate Midpoint Due to the lower
(2017) nanofiltration wastewater electricity power use,
(NF) the RO-NF system
configuration outperformed the NF-RO
versus NF-RO system reducing output
configuration pollution by 5671 kg in
GWP, 39.16 kg in AP,
and 4.54 kg in EP.
Hancock et al. Evaluate Seawa- 1 m3 of water SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint The hybrid osmotic
(2012) desalination ter/wastewater produced dilution-seawater RO
technology (ODN-SWRO) process
has a marginally lower
environmental impact
than current water
reclamation methods
such as hybrid
nanofiltration-RO
process) contributing to the global warming impact (Ghani et al., 2021). Furthermore, when making a comparison between
treating seawater and mine water using an RO membrane, the operational phase has the greatest environmental impact
in both scenarios. However, Goga et al. (2019) identified that mine water reclamation has an improved overall impact on
the environment than seawater desalination when using RO membranes as a treatment system. Regardless, Ghani et al.
(2021) suggested reducing the amount of electricity used in seawater desalination to lessen the environmental impact.
This could be achieved by combining a high-flux membrane with other appropriate renewable energy sources for the
treatment plant.
When making comparisons between the stages of RO and NF, Zhu et al. (2017) found that NF-RO had more impact on
the environment compared to RO-NF, with the highest from GWP. This is justified by the principle that RO membranes
require higher pressure than NF membranes and are more suitable for lower feed concentrations. By making RO the
second stage, more valuable energy would be consumed and less freshwater produced. However, Hancock et al. (2012)
revealed that the NF-RO had less environmental impact compared to the baseline seawater RO (SWRO) when treating
seawater. Hence, when choosing the RO membrane as a treatment system, the type of water being treated and the stage
in which the RO is located play important roles in determining the environmental impact.
When interpreting the global warming potential for the RO membrane, the outlier among these studies was from Zhu
et al. (2017) with 494.93 and 438.22 (E+02 kg CO2 -eq) as the GWP values. Disregarding this outlier, the RO membrane
has a range of 1.4 to 12.84 kg CO2 -eq in terms of its GWP.
4.4.3. LCA of other membrane treatment systems in treating wastewater

Table 4 indicates that the remaining studies incorporated various membrane systems, such as fuel cell technology
(Zhang et al., 2019), a wood-based filtration system with different membranes (Niaz et al., 2020), and a hybrid treatment
system (Jeong et al., 2018). Regardless of the employed system, the source of wastewater being treated was mainly
municipal wastewater (Gallego-Schmid and Tarpani, 2019; Chen et al., 2018; Büyükkamacıand Karaca, 2017) and
15
Table 4
LCA studies on other membrane treatment systems.
boundary
Caballero et al. Evaluate shale Shale 1 m3 of treated Not specified Gate-to-grave Midpoint As membrane distillation
(2020) gas extraction wastewater water has a higher
wastewater environmental impact
treatment than thermal
technologies, adopting a
thermal-based method
to desalinate water is
the best alternative
Joseph et al. Locally European Amount of AC OpenLCA Gate-to-grave Midpoint Using locally made ACs
(2020) produced AC wastewater required to for the removal of
versus reduce FAE organic micropollutants
conventional potential to a at a large-scale WWTP
ACs defined level in had fewer environmental
terms of impacts in terms of
comparative GWP and CED
toxicity unit
per 1000 m3 of
wastewater
Muñoz et al. Assess three Refinery 1 m3 refinery SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint The impact of marine
(2020) reclamation wastewater wastewater ecotoxicity and aquatic
scenarios from from API/CPI eutrophication has been
petroleum separator decreased by up to 90%
refinery and 84%, respectively
Niaz et al. Assess Industrial 30 × 30 × Gabi Gate-to-grave Midpoint, The environmental
(2020) wood-based wastewater 5 mm3 of Endpoint impact of the WWT
filtration Ginkgo biloba system had been
systems with (Gb) membrane outweighed by this
different filtration technology
membranes with the key
environmental hotspot
identified as energy
demand
Gallego-Schmid Assess SPF Municipal 1000 m3 of Gabi Cradle-to-grave Midpoint For all 15 impacts
and Tarpani process for wastewater treated studied, acidic SPF with
(2019) secondary secondary NF is the greatest
effluent effluent per option, whereas neutral
treatment day SPF (without NF) is the
worst
Zhang et al. Assess fuel cell Wastewater 1 L of treated Gabi Cradle-to grave Midpoint At the current power
(2019) technology wastewater density, osmotic fuel cell
(OsMFC) emits more
GHG than traditional
wastewater treatment
systems
Chong et al. Evaluate two Municipal 1 g of SimaPro Cradle-to-gate Midpoint, Due to insertion of
(2018) different sets of synthetic membrane and Endpoint silver/graphene oxide
membranes wastewater 1 L of permeate (Ag/GO) nanohybrids
using an algal into the polymer, the
membrane environmental impact of
photoreactor Ag/GO - polyvinylidene
(A-MPR) fluoride (PVDF)
system membrane was higher
than that of neat PVDF
membrane fabrication
Jeong et al. Hybrid system Greywater 1 m3 water SimaPro Gate-to-gate Midpoint Due to background
(2018) versus used for activities in power
centralized outdoor generation, the operation
water system irrigation phase of each system
and/or toilet contributes the most to
flushing environmental impacts
16
boundary
Sabeen et al. Assess two Electroless Environmental Gabi Cradle-to-gate Midpoint, Compared to the
(2018) scenarios of nickel plating impact per m3 Endpoint physical and biological
electroless wastewater of treated treatment procedures,
nickel plating wastewater the chemical treatment
treatment produced by process had the highest
systems the electroless environmental
nickel plating implications with
(ENP) industry climate change (1552.89
kg CO2 equivalent) and
land acidification (5.79
kg SO2 equivalent)
Zhang et al. Assess Wastewa- 1 L of treated Gabi Cradle-to-gate Midpoint Manufacturing and
(2018) desalination ter/seawater water operation of MDCs have
technology significant environmental
implications, with
manufacturing
accounting for 22.7%
GWP and operation
accounting for 58.7%.
Bai et al. Evaluate four Wastewater 10 000 m3 Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint GWP, FETP, FRP, and HTP
(2017) different sewage per day indicators dominated the
scenarios of overall findings across
wastewater all scenarios
treatment cases
Büyükka- Assess Domes- 1 m3 of Gabi Gate-to-gate Midpoint For almost all impact
macıand Karaca polishing units tic/municipal delivered categories, cartridge
(2017) in treated wastewater recycled water filter and UF with
wastewater to be used for electric grid mix has the
irrigation. greatest environmental
impact
Arena et al. Assess Not specified 1 tonne of GaBi Cradle-to-gate Midpoint The impact categories of
(2016) coconut-based activated GWP, HTP, and AP have
activated carbon a vital role in the overall
carbon production environmental
performance of the
production chain
Fajardo et al. Evaluate Cattle benefit 1 kg/s of SimaPro Gate-to-grave Midpoint The high electricity
(2016) biological plant treated usage in the screening,
treatment wastewater wastewater homogenizer, and slurry
system reactor generates
significant environmental
implications at the plant
Pintilie et al. Assess Tarragona 1 m3 of Not specified Gate-to-grave Midpoint Due to the sheer amount
(2016) reclamation WWTP wastewater of energy required for
wastewater wastewater entering the advanced treatment
system municipal for reuse, the cumulative
WWTP energy demand (5.44
MJ-Eq) had the greatest
influence
Manda et al. Assess Not specified 1 cm3 of SimaPro Cradle-to-grave Midpoint Covalently bound
(2014) membrane drinking water membranes have
system coated with minimized substantially lower
with enzyme content of mi- environmental
cropollutants. implications than
coal-based activated
carbon
Remy et al. Evaluate five Wastewater Treatment of Not specified Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The largest electricity
(2014) water treatment plant secondary and chemical
treatment Berlin- effluent per consumption, along with
system Ruhleben in population emissions of greenhouse
Germany equivalent and gases or other air
year ((PE*a)− 1) pollutants, were found in
ceramic MF membranes
17
boundary
Amores et al. Evaluate urban Urban 1 m3 of potable Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint The energy used in the
(2013) water cycle wastewater in water supplied collection and
with two Tarragona, to consumers intermediary pumping of
alternative Spain in the Spanish freshwater is the
scenarios Mediterranean primary source of impact
area across all three scenarios
Igos et al. Evaluate three Wastewater Treatment of Not specified Gate-to-gate Midpoint, Due to the very low
(2013) wastewater effluents from 1 m3 of Endpoint pollutant load, the
treatment houses, wastewater decentralized treatment
scenarios industrial sites, option showed no
and hospital significant improvement
in the mitigated
environmental impact.
Zuin et al. Assess Not specified The production Not specified Cradle-to-gate Midpoint The biggest contributors
(2013) environmental of 1 m2 of to the overall
performance of polyethersul- environmental impact
deposition fone (PES) are the electricity used
phase in membrane during membrane
membrane activated with production, as well as
production TiO2 the solvents and
engineered polymers required to
nanoparticles make PES membrane
needed for
treating 1 m3
of feed per
hour (h)
Bonton et al. Conventional Raw water 1 m3 of NF Not specified Cradle-to-grave Midpoint, The operation phase had
(2012) plant versus NF from Quebec grade drinking Endpoint the greatest potential for
system Province water environmental impact,
with greater
environmental damage
towards the
conventional plant
Dodbiba et al. Evaluate Fe Arsenic- Treatment of Not specified Cradle-to-gate Midpoint The adsorption
(2009) adsorbent containing 9 × 109 L of employing a FeCl3 -based
technologies wastewater wastewater adsorbent resulted in a
containing higher environmental
arsenic load
Tangsubkul Assess different Secondary- 1 ML/day of GaBi Gate-to-gate Midpoint The most
et al. (2006) MF operating treated water produced environmentally friendly
scenarios wastewater with the outcome comes from
quality of input running the MF process
wastewater and at a low flux with a high
treated effluent maximum
assumed to be transmembrane pressure
the same for
each scenario
Jørgensen et al. Assess six Wastewater The scenario Not specified Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The significant impact is
(2004) scenarios of from WWTP in for washing of from the water reuse
wastewater a local urban 1000 tonnes of scenarios found in the
treatment Danish area colored final disposal of residues
workwear per related to heavy metal
year toxicity
Friedrich Conventional Wastewater 1 kiloliter (kL) GaBi Cradle-to-grave Midpoint The generation of
(2002) process versus from WWTP in of potable electricity is the major
membrane Durban water contributor to the overall
filtration environmental burden
wastewater (Joseph et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2017). Some other evaluated systems included improvements
made to the existing system, such as adding an Fe adsorbent (Dodbiba et al., 2009), coating the membrane system with an
enzyme (Manda et al., 2014), using coconut-based activated carbon (Arena et al., 2016), or using a wood-based filtration
system (Niaz et al., 2020). However, there was no consistency in defining FUs, despite having similar goals defined in
assessing between scenarios or methods.
The studies by Caballero et al. (2020) and Zhang et al. (2018) focused on the desalination of wastewater with different
desalination technologies and FUs. From the study, Caballero et al. (2020) summarized that thermal-based desalination
18
technology is the optimum method for desalinating water compared to membrane distillation since the latter has a much
higher environmental impact. However, Zhang et al. (2019) compared microbial desalination cells (MDC), microbial fuel
cells (MFC), and conventional treatment methods and found that MDC has the highest environmental impact from the
manufacturing and operation phases. This contributes to the GWP for the whole of its life cycle, which is caused by the
electricity consumption used to pump water for the MDC from its operation phase.
When treating municipal wastewater, Büyükkamacıand Karaca (2017) utilized different combinations of microfiltra-
tion, ultrafiltration (UF), and ultraviolet (UV) treatments. Here, UV treatment was deemed the most environmentally
friendly, with the cartridge filter and UF combination impacting the most for all impact categories. Gallego-Schmid and
Tarpani (2019) employed solar photo-Fenton (SPF) and NF and identified the major environmental hotspots as being
electricity and chemical consumption for this type of treatment. For treating municipal synthetic wastewater, Chong
et al. (2018) defined the key environmental hotspot as energy demand by using the A-MPR system. The energy source
for electricity generation had a substantial impact on the overall sustainability of the membrane system. To minimize the
impact on energy demand, the study suggested using grid-connected renewable energy (such as hydro or geothermal and
solar photovoltaic energy), which could reduce CO2 emissions by 94.8% and 97.5%, respectively.
The studies by Sabeen et al. (2018), Bai et al. (2017), Muñoz et al. (2020), Amores et al. (2013), Igos et al. (2013),
Tangsubkul et al. (2006), and Jørgensen et al. (2004) were defined by assessing scenarios for wastewater reclamation with
various sources of wastewater, the software used, and the FUs. The proposed alternative scenarios from Sabeen et al.
(2018) proved to fare better in terms of climate change than the existing chemical treatment processes for electroless
nickel plating wastewater, which has a climate change equivalent of 1552.89 kg of CO2 and equivalent terrestrial
acidification of 5.79 kg SO2 . The two proposed alternative scenarios, which involved the chitosan and wet air oxidation
processes, produced fewer emissions. Furthermore, the scenarios proposed by Muñoz et al. (2020) also displayed favorable
results concerning marine ecotoxicity and aquatic eutrophication impact, which were reduced by up to 90% and 84%,
respectively. When evaluating the environmental profile of an urban water cycle in Spain, Amores et al. (2013) defined
the goal through a comparison with two other scenarios involving water reclamation and drought. The energy used during
the collection and intermediate pumping of freshwater was the key source of any adverse effects in all three scenarios.
When compared to water reclamation and drought scenarios, the urban water cycle has a lower energy effect. Igos et al.
(2013) compared three scenarios of wastewater treatment: conventional centralized WWTP, advanced post-treatment for
centralized plants, and advanced post-treatment implemented in a decentralized plant at a hospital in Europe. It was
noted that the avoided environmental impact was not significantly improved by the choice of decentralized treatment.
Compared to ozonation and activated carbon (AC) adsorption as post-treatment methods, UV radiation performs worse.
Moreover, assessing the LCA of a proposed scenario is a good method for assessing the sustainability of a given system and
can help when deciding which scenario provides the least environmental impact. Treatment systems with the least unit
operation have a lower environmental impact, as observed by Teow et al. (2021) who compared four types of membrane
combination: MBBR, RO, UF membrane, and pretreatment with sand filters and activated carbon. The lower environmental
impact is due to the reduced electricity consumption required to operate the two-unit processes of RO and pretreatment
with sand filters and activated carbon combination. The study also revealed that electricity consumption has the greatest
effect on all life cycle impact categories, accounting for 73% of climate change, 80% of terrestrial acidification, 51% of
eutrophication, and 43% of human toxicity. Tangsubkul et al. (2006) diverged slightly by observing different operating
scenarios instead of treatment scenarios. In the research, the flux of the membrane and transmembrane pressures of a
microfiltration (MF) system were manipulated. The most environmentally friendly result was a result of running MF at
a low flux but with a high maximum transmembrane strain. Distinguishing the effect of the operating scenario on the
environmental impact allows the use of cleaner production and a more efficient approach to reduce fouling in industrial
applications while maintaining high performance (Ho et al., 2021).
Of the studies on other membrane treatment systems, 24% only focusing on the gate-to-gate system boundary
concerning its operation phase, with the remaining using cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave. The FU varied with these
studies, with only two studies having a similar FU of 1 m3 of treated wastewater and 1 m3 of potable water supplied (Igos
et al., 2013; Amores et al., 2013), respectively).
The studies by Fajardo et al. (2016) and Pintilie et al. (2016) only evaluated one type of treatment system (a biological
treatment system and wastewater reclamation). The papers set differing FU and system boundaries, including gate-to-
grave and cradle-to-gate with only similar goals defined to classify them together in this section. From the study, the
consumption of electricity contributed almost 100% to the environmental impact. However, despite this, the biological
WWTP was observed to be more environmentally friendly for wastewater treatment (Fajardo et al., 2016). When using
coconut-based activated carbon, the operational phase was recognized as having the greatest impact on the production
of activated carbon (Arena et al., 2016). Furthermore, using renewable energy sources (such as biomass) to generate
electricity will minimize human toxicity (by up to 60%) and global warming (by up to 80%). Moreover, compared to
traditional AC, Joseph et al. (2020) discovered that AC derived from local residual biomass for the removal of organic
micropollutants at large-scale WWTPs has a lower environmental impact in terms of GWP and CED.
4.5. Challenges and limitations
The purpose of this paper was not to solve problems; rather, it was to list the challenges associated with conducting
LCA on membrane processes for WWT. Some of the challenges identified in this analysis relate to differences in defining
19
the FU, system boundaries, impact evaluation categories, and method of evaluating LCA, rendering comparisons difficult.
Even though the membrane systems evaluated were the same (such as MBR), different studies defined the FU and
impact categories differently to suit their defined goal. These existing variations in the implementation and outcomes
of the LCA application may be perplexing, particularly for non-experts in identifying the benefits or drawbacks of the
studied systems. Furthermore, most studies only opted for the gate-to-gate system boundary rather than a full cradle-
to-grave analysis, affecting a more thorough outcome of the environmental impact that considers the decommissioning
and disposal phase which is considerably overlooked. For most of the studies (84%), only the midpoint approach was
selected for the environmental impact evaluation, with only 16% including the endpoint approach in their LCA evaluation.
In communicating the LCA results with decision-makers, having a perspective on the environmental impact at the end
of the cause–effect chain allows a more simplified outlook on the environmental benefits that is easier to communicate.
Moreover, the description of the impact assessment and methodologies used were sometimes not included in the paper
constituting a lack of details on the life cycle inventory, which affected the reproducibility of the results.
There were a limited number of LCA studies on membrane technologies from certain geographical areas, with the
majority being from developed countries. The evaluation of sustainability following life cycle sustainability assessment
(LSCA) for a system is also limited by the type of LCA extensions applied to these studies. The extensions of environmental
LCA, such as social LCA (S-LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC), were not fully utilized by the majority of the studies, meaning
that evaluating the sustainability of a system would be incomplete and difficult. This would affect the decision-making
phase for improving existing systems, especially in the membrane and wastewater treatment plant systems. Nevertheless,
the limitations of LCA use in membrane based WWT have been underlined in this study.
4.6. Recommendations, harmonization, and future outlook
Despite membrane processes being presented as the preferred option from the analysis, there is still room for im-
provement, such as considering a more standardized implementation of the ISO framework for assessing its sustainability.
Accordingly, future LCA studies on membrane-based systems should consider the following:
• The FU should be defined and impact categories should be carefully selected and clearly defined to allow objective
comparisons between different studies. The selected FU and impact categories should also be reflected in the goal
of the study, with the impact categories being considered (including all categories).
• A full assessment of cradle-to-grave should receive increased focus so that the environmental impact can be
identified at each stage and the parameters.
• The endpoint approach should be included increasingly in future studies to understand and represent the impact
a system has on human health, the natural environment, and natural resources. This would offer a more holistic
assessment of LCA for membrane technologies that are constantly evolving and improving.
• A clearly defined methodology and inventory data should be included for future studies to ensure that the results
obtained are reproducible.
• More research into the long-term viability of membrane systems is required. Only a few studies have examined the
economic and social implications of using the extensions of LCA. By implementing these extensions of LCA, decision-
making for reducing the total impact can be perfected and harmonized for the membrane system being analyzed to
improve existing WWTPs.
5. Conclusions
It can be concluded that the LCA approach is increasingly being used as a decision support tool in sustainable water
management. This provides valuable insights into the environmental impact of existing membrane treatment systems,
on making improvements, and on future novel treatment processes. From the review, it can be noted that the overall
main contributor to membrane technology’s environmental impact is its energy consumption and from the operational
phase including MBR and RO membrane treatment system. Nonetheless, as MBR systems come in a variety of forms
and configurations, their environmental implications and energy consumption rates varies accordingly but proves to be
highly desired in decentralized wastewater treatment. This is quite similar with RO system in which the type of water
being treated and the stage at which the membrane is installed affects the impact it has environmentally.
With various types of software and methodologies available to conduct LCA, adapting it to a specific process or product
in a given system is easier. This is especially helpful considering wastewater treatment has a variety of treatment systems
depending on the types of wastewater being treated. However, with the broad application and set up of LCA within
the membrane technology itself, making a comprehensive comparison between systems poses a challenge. Some of the
challenges include inconsistencies in specifying the impact assessment and methodology used for some articles and the
lack of LCA studies in certain regional areas. Hence, it is suggested that a more uniform implementation of LCA should be
considered to ensure the harmonization, reliability, and reproducibility of results, allowing an improved implementation
on novel or existing membrane systems.
While limited to the application of LCA on membrane-based WWT technologies, this review reinforces the importance
on development of a more standardized LCA implementation that also serves as a convenient tool for decision-makers
20
who must make critical decisions regarding the current state of LCA in wastewater treatment technology selection. As a
result, future research should concentrate on addressing these shortcomings in order to achieve a better comprehension
and harmonized outcome on the environmental consequences of different WWT treatment systems in relation to the
environment and human health. Subsequent studies could also concentrate on creating a uniform system for identifying
the impact assessment techniques and impact categories for LCA. It is critical to support decisions based on the
results of quantitative and objective tools when creating and/or implementing membrane processes in reality, with LCA
methodology currently being the technique of choice for evaluating the environmental impact of products/services or
processes.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Khalisah Khairina Razman: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Marlia M. Hanafiah: Supervision, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Abdul Wahab Mohammad: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by grant code KK-2019-001. Marlia M. Hanafiah was financed by the National University of
Malaysia (GUP-2020-034).
References
Abbas, A.A., Hanafiah, M.M., 2021. Removal of inorganic pollutants using electrocoagulation technology: A review of emerging applications and
mechanisms. J. Environ. Manag. 300, 113696. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113696.
Agoro, M.A., Adeniji, A.O., Adefisoye, M.A., Okoh, O.O., 2020. Heavy metals in wastewater and sewage sludge from selected municipal treatment
plants in Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Water 12 (10), 2746.
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. Cleaner Prod. 43, 84–92.
Arden, S., Morelli, B., Schoen, M., Cashman, S., Jahne, M., Ma, X.C., Garland, J., 2020. Human health, economic and environmental assessment of onsite
non-potable water reuse systems for a large, mixed-use urban building. Sustainability 12 (13), 5459.
Arena, N., Lee, J., Clift, R., 2016. Life cycle assessment of activated carbon production from coconut shells. J. Cleaner Prod. 125, 68–77.
Arias, A., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2020. Environmental profile of decentralized wastewater treatment strategies based on membrane technologies.
In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier., pp. 259–287.
Ashraf, M.A., Hanafiah, M.M., 2019. Sustaining life on earth system through clean air, pure water, and fertile soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26,
13679–13680.
Ashraf, M.A., Hanfiah, M.M., 2017. Recent advances in assessment on clear water, soil and air. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 22753–22754.
Aziz, N.I.H.A., Hanafiah, M.M., 2020. Application of life cycle assessment for desalination: Progress, challenges and future directions. Environ. Pollut.
115948.
Bai, S., Wang, X., Zhang, X., Zhao, X., Ren, N., 2017. Life cycle assessment in wastewater treatment: influence of site-oriented normalization factors,
life cycle impact assessment methods, and weighting methods. RSC Adv. 7 (42), 26335–26341.
Banch, T., Hanafiah, M.M., Alkarkhi, A., Amr, S.A., 2019. Factoral design and optimization of landfill leachate treatment using tannin-based natural
coagulant. Polymers 11, 1–15.
Banti, D.C., Tsangas, M., Samaras, P., Zorpas, A., 2020. LCA of a membrane bioreactor compared to activated sludge system for municipal wastewater
treatment. Membranes 10 (12), 421.
Bare, J., 2011. TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
13 (5).
Bonton, A., Bouchard, C., Barbeau, B., Jedrzejak, S., 2012. Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 284, 42–54.
Büyükkamacı, N., Karaca, G., 2017. Life cycle assessment study on polishing units for use of treated wastewater in agricultural reuse. Water Sci.
Technol. 76 (12), 3205–3212.
Caballero, J.A., Labarta, J.A., Quirante, N., Carrero-Parreño, A., Grossmann, I.E., 2020. Environmental and economic water management in shale gas
extraction. Sustainability 12 (4), 1686.
Cabling, L.P.B., Kobayashi, Y., Davies, E.G., Ashbolt, N.J., Liu, Y., 2020. Life cycle assessment of community-based sewer mining: Integrated heat recovery
and fit-for-purpose water reuse. Environments 7 (5), 36.
Cashman, S., Ma, X., Mosley, J., Garland, J., Crone, B., Xue, X., 2018. Energy and greenhouse gas life cycle assessment and cost analysis of aerobic and
anaerobic membrane bioreactor systems: Influence of scale, population density, climate, and methane recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 254, 56–66.
Cetinkaya, A.Y., Bilgili, L., 2019. Life cycle comparison of membrane capacitive deionization and reverse osmosis membrane for textile wastewater
treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut. 230 (7), 149.
Chen, Z., Wang, D., Sun, M., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Wu, G., Hu, H.Y., 2018. Sustainability evaluation and implication of a large scale membrane bioreactor
plant. Bioresour. Technol. 269, 246–254.
Chong, W.C., Chung, Y.T., Teow, Y.H., Zain, M.M., Mahmoudi, E., Mohammad, A.W., 2018. Environmental impact of nanomaterials in composite
membranes: Life cycle assessment of algal membrane photoreactor using polyvinylidene fluoride–composite membrane. J. Cleaner Prod. 202,
591–600.
Climate Policy Watcher, 2021. Membrane processes for advanced wastewater treatment. Retrieved from https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/
wastewater-treatment/membrane-processes-for-advanced-wastewater-treatment.html.
21
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A., 2013. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State
of the art. Water Res. 47 (15), 5480–5492.
Damtie, M.M., Woo, Y.C., Kim, B., Hailemariam, R.H., Park, K.D., Shon, H.K., Choi, J.S., 2019. Removal of fluoride in membrane-based water and
wastewater treatment technologies: Performance review. J. Environ. Manag. 251, 109524.
Dhote, J., Ingole, S., Chavhan, A., 2012. Review on wastewater treatment technologies. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 1 (5), 1–10.
Dodbiba, G., Nukaya, T., Kamioka, Y., Tanimura, Y., Fujita, T., 2009. Removal of arsenic from wastewater using iron compound: Comparing two
different types of adsorbents in the context of LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 53 (12), 688–697.
Dominguez, S., Laso, J., Margallo, M., Aldaco, R., Rivero, M.J., Irabien, Á., Ortiz, I., 2018. LCA of greywater management within a water circular economy
restorative thinking framework. Sci. Total Environ. 621, 1047–1056.
Fajardo, T., Pinilla, P., Bojacá, V., Corzo, R.Pinilla., Ortiz, J., Acevedo, P., 2016. Life cycle assessment to identify environmental improvements in an
anaerobic waste water treatment plant. Chem. Eng. Trans. 49, 493–498.
Friedrich, E., 2002. Life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool in the production of potable water. Water Sci. Technol. 46 (9), 29–36.
Gallego-Schmid, A., Tarpani, R.R.Z., 2019. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in developing countries: A review. Water Res. 153, 63–79.
Ghani, L., Ali, N.A., Nazaran, I.S., Hanafiah, M.M., 2021. Environmental performance of small-scale seawater reverse osmosis plant for rural area water
supply. Membranes 11 (1), 40.
Goga, T., Friedrich, E., Buckley, C.A., 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment for potable water production–a case study of seawater desalination
and mine-water reclamation in South Africa. Water SA 45 (4), 700–709.
Guinée, J., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L., Sleeswijk, A.W., Suh, S., de Haes, H.U., De Brujin, H., van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., et al., 2002. Handbook on LCA, operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hanafiah, M.M., Yussof, M.K.M., Hasan, M., AbdulHasan, M.J., Toriman, M.E., 2018. Water quality assessment of Tekala river, Selangor, Malaysia. Appl.
Ecol. Environ. Res. 16, 5157–5174.
Hancock, N.T., Black, N.D., Cath, T.Y., 2012. A comparative life cycle assessment of hybrid osmotic dilution desalination and established seawater
desalination and wastewater reclamation processes. Water Res. 46 (4), 1145–1154.
Harclerode, M., Doody, A., Brower, A., Vila, P., Ho, J., Evans, P.J., 2020. Life cycle assessment and economic analysis of anaerobic membrane bioreactor
whole-plant configurations for resource recovery from domestic wastewater. J. Environ. Manag. 269, 110720.
Harun, N.S., Hanafiah, M.M., Nizam, N.U.M., Rasool, A., 2020. Water and soil physiochemical characteristics of different rice cultivation areas. AEER
18 (5), 6775–6791. http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1805_67756791.
Ho, K.C., Teoh, Y.X., Teow, Y.H., Mohammad, A.W., 2021. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electrically-enhanced POME filtration: Environmental impacts
of conductive-membrane formulation and process operating parameters. J. Environ. Manag. 277, 111434.
Høibye, L., Clauson-Kaas, J., Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F., Jacobsen, B.N., Dalgaard, O., 2008. Sustainability assessment of advanced wastewater treatment
technologies. Water Sci. Technol. 58 (5), 963–968.
Holloway, R.W., Miller-Robbie, L., Patel, M., Stokes, J.R., Munakata-Marr, J., Dadakis, J., Cath, T.Y., 2016. Life-cycle assessment of two potable water
reuse technologies: MF/RO/UV–AOP treatment and hybrid osmotic membrane bioreactors. J. Membr. Sci. 507, 165–178.
Igos, E., Benetto, E., Venditti, S., Köhler, C., Cornelissen, A., 2013. Comparative and integrative environmental assessment of advanced wastewater
treatment processes based on an average removal of pharmaceuticals. Water Sci. Technol. 67 (2), 387–394.
International Organization for Standardization ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework:
International standard 14040. International Standards Organisation, Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines.
International Standards Organisation, Geneva.
Jeong, H., Broesicke, O.A., Drew, B., Crittenden, J.C., 2018. Life cycle assessment of small-scale greywater reclamation systems combined with
conventional centralized water systems for the city of Atlanta, Georgia. J. Cleaner Prod. 174, 333–342.
Jhaveri, J.H., Murthy, Z.V.P., 2016. A comprehensive review on anti-fouling nanocomposite membranes for pressure driven membrane separation
processes. Desalination 379, 137–154.
Jiménez-Benítez, A., Ferrer, J., Rogalla, F., Vázquez, J.R., Seco, A., Robles, Á., 2020. Energy and environmental impact of an anaerobic membrane
bioreactor (AnMBR) demonstration plant treating urban wastewater. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier, pp.
289–310.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., Rosenbaum, R., 2003. IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment
methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505.
Jørgensen, K.R., Villanueva, A., Wenzel, H., 2004. Use of life cycle assessment as decision-support tool for water reuse and handling of residues at a
Danish industrial laundry. Waste Manag. Res. 22 (5), 334–345.
Joseph, B., Kaetzl, K., Hensgen, F., Schäfer, B., Wachendorf, M., 2020. Sustainability assessment of activated carbon from residual biomass used for
micropollutant removal at a full-scale wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (6), 064023.
Kalbar, P.P., Karmakar, S., Asolekar, S.R., 2012. Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute decision-making. Technol.
Soc. 34 (4), 295–302.
Kamble, S., Singh, A., Kazmi, A., Starkl, M., 2019. Environmental and economic performance evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants in
India: A life cycle approach. Water Sci. Technol. 79 (6), 1102–1112.
Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N.J., Davies, E.G., Liu, Y., 2020. Life cycle assessment of decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different
scales in cold regions. Environ. Int. 134, 105215.
Lam, C.M., Leng, L., Chen, P.C., Lee, P.H., Hsu, S.C., 2017. Eco-efficiency analysis of non-potable water systems in domestic buildings. Appl. Energy
202, 293–307.
Lazarova, V., Martin Ruel, S., Barillon, B., Dauthuille, P., 2012. The role of MBR technology for the improvement of environmental footprint of
wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 66 (10), 2056–2064.
Lijó, L., Malamis, S., González-García, S., Moreira, M.T., Fatone, F., Katsou, E., 2016. Decentralised schemes for integrated management of wastewater
and domestic organic waste: The case of a small community. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 732–740.
Liu, Y., Syberfeldt, A., Strand, M., 2019. Review of simulation-based life cycle assessment in manufacturing industry. Prod. Manuf. Res. 7 (1), 490–502.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2019.1669505.
Mahmood, S., Hemdi, A.R., Saman, M.Z.M., Yusof, N.M., 2013a. Sustainability assessment of membrane system for wastewater treatment: A review
and further research. In: Re-Engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability. Springer, pp. 487–492.
Mahmood, S., Saman, M.Z.M., Noordin, M.Y., 2013b. Life cycle assessment of membrane system for wastewater treatment: A review and further
research. In: Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 315. Trans Tech Publications Ltd., pp. 186–191.
Manda, B.K., Worrell, E., Patel, M.K., 2014. Innovative membrane filtration system for micropollutant removal from drinking water–prospective
environmental LCA and its integration in business decisions. J. Cleaner Prod. 72, 153–166.
Martins, A.A., Caetano, N.S., Mata, T.M., 2017. LCA for membrane processes. In: Sustainable Membrane Technology for Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Springer, Singapore, pp. 23–66.
22
Maynard, E., Whapham, C., 2020. Quality and supply of water used in hospitals. Biomaterials Decontamination in Hospitals and Healthcare, 2nd ed.
Woodhead Publishing, pp. 45–69.
Monticelli, C., Zanelli, A., 2016. Life cycle design and efficiency principles for membrane architecture: towards a new set of eco-design strategies.
Procedia Eng. 155, 416–425.
Muñoz, I., Aktürk, A.S., Ayyıldız, Ö., Çağlar, Ö., Meabe, E., Contreras, S., Ferrer, O., 2020. Life cycle assessment of wastewater reclamation in a petroleum
refinery in Turkey. J. Cleaner Prod. 121967.
Nasution, M.A., Wulandari, A., Ahamed, T., Noguchi, R., 2020. Alternative POME treatment technology in the implementation of roundtable on
sustainable palm oil, Indonesian sustainable palm oil (ISPO), and Malaysian sustainable palm oil (MSPO) standards using LCA and AHP methods.
Sustainability 12 (10), 4101.
Niaz, F., Khan, Q., Ali, M., Shen, W., 2020. Life-cycle assessment of gingko-wood three-dimensional membrane for wastewater treatment. ACS Omega
5 (10), 4900–4906.
Obotey Ezugbe, E., Rathilal, S., 2020. Membrane technologies in wastewater treatment: A review. Membranes 10 (5), 89.
Ortiz, M., Raluy, R.G., Serra, L., 2007. Life cycle assessment of water treatment technologies: wastewater and water-reuse in a small town. Desalination
204 (1–3), 121–131.
Pintilie, L., Torres, C.M., Teodosiu, C., Castells, F., 2016. Urban wastewater reclamation for industrial reuse: An LCA case study. J. Cleaner Prod. 139,
1–14.
Potting, J., Hauschild, M.Z., 2004. Background for spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment. The EDIP 2003 methodology.
Pretel, R., Moñino, P., Robles, A., Ruano, M.V., Seco, A., Ferrer, J., 2016. Economic and environmental sustainability of an AnMBR treating urban
wastewater and organic fraction of municipal solid waste. J. Environ. Manag. 179, 83–92.
Pretel, R., Shoener, B.D., Ferrer, J., Guest, J.S., 2015. Navigating environmental, economic, and technological trade-offs in the design and operation of
submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs). Water Res. 87, 531–541.
Rashidi, J., Rhee, G., Kim, M., Nam, K., Heo, S., Yoo, C., Karbassi, A., 2018. Life cycle and economic assessments of key emerging energy efficient
wastewater treatment processes for climate change adaptation. Int. J. Environ. Res. 12 (6), 815–827.
Razman, K.K., Hanafiah, M.M., Mohammad, A.W., Ang, W.L., 2022. Life cycle assessment of an integrated membrane treatment system of
anaerobic-treated palm oil mill effluent (POME). Membr. 12 (2), 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes12020246.
Razman, K.K., Mohammad, A.W., Hanafiah, M.M., 2021. Life cycle design and efficiency strategy for sustainable membrane technology. IOP Conf. Ser.
Earth Environ. Sci. 880 (1), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/880/1/012053.
ReCiPe, 2021. Recipe. Retrieved from https://pre-sustainability.com/articles/recipe/.
Remy, C., Miehe, U., Lesjean, B., Bartholomäus, C., 2014. Comparing environmental impacts of tertiary wastewater treatment technologies for advanced
phosphorus removal and disinfection with life cycle assessment. Water Sci. Technol. 69 (8), 1742–1750.
Ronquim, F.M., Sakamoto, H.M., Mierzwa, J.C., Kulay, L., Seckler, M.M., 2020. Eco-efficiency analysis of desalination by precipitation integrated with
reverse osmosis for zero liquid discharge in oil refineries. J. Cleaner Prod. 250, 119547.
Sabeen, A.H., Kamaruddin, S.N.B., Noor, Z.Z., 2018. Environmental impacts assessment of industrial wastewater treatment system using electroless
nickel plating and life cycle assessment approaches. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (7), 3171–3182.
Silva, D.A.L., Nunes, A.O., Piekarski, C.M., da Silva Moris, V.A., de Souza, L.S.M., Rodrigues, T.O., 2019. Why using different life cycle assessment
software tools can generate different results for the same product system? A cause–effect analysis of the problem. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 20,
304–315.
Singh, S.P., Pandey, A., Sharma, R., Sharma, M.K., 2019. Life cycle assessment on membrane bio-reactor and activated sludge systems. Indian J. Environ.
Prot. 39, 989–994.
Skrydstrup, J., Larsen, S.L., Rygaard, M., 2020. Eco-efficiency of water and wastewater management in food production: A case study from a large
dairy in Denmark. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (5), 1101–1112.
Su, X., Chiang, P., Pan, S., Chen, G., Tao, Y., Wu, G., et al., 2019. Systematic approach to evaluating environmental and ecological technologies for
wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 218, 778–792.
Tangsubkul, N., Parameshwaran, K., Lundie, S., Fane, A.G., Waite, T.D., 2006. Environmental life cycle assessment of the microfiltration process. J.
Membr. Sci. 284 (1–2), 214–226.
Tariq, M., Anayat, A., Waseem, M., Rasool, M.H., Zahoor, M.A., Ali, S., Alkahtani, S., 2020. Physicochemical and bacteriological characterization of
industrial wastewater being discharged to surface water bodies: Significant threat to environmental pollution and human health. J. Chem. 2020,
1–10.
Teow, Y.H., Chong, M.T., Ho, K.C., Mohammad, A.W., 2021. Comparative environmental impact evaluation using life cycle assessment approach: a
case study of integrated membrane-filtration system for the treatment of aerobically-digested palm oil mill effluent. Sustain. Environ. Res. 31
(1), 1–14.
Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F., Clauson-Kaas, J., Høibye, L., Jacobsen, B.N., 2008. Weighing environmental advantages and disadvantages of advanced
wastewater treatment of micro-pollutants using environmental life cycle assessment. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (1), 27–32.
Yadav, M., Gupta, R., Sharma, R.K., 2019. Green and sustainable pathways for wastewater purification. In: Advances in Water Purification Techniques.
Elsevier, pp. 355–383.
Yang, X., López-Grimau, V., Vilaseca, M., Crespi, M., 2020. Treatment of textile wastewater by CAS, MBR, and MBBR: A comparative study from
technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Water 12 (5), 1306.
Yoonus, H., Mannan, M., Al-Ghamdi, S.G., 2020. Environmental performance of building integrated grey water reuse systems: Life cycle assessment
perspective. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2020: Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater and Water Desalination and
Reuse. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 1–7.
Zhang, J., Yuan, H., Deng, Y., Abu-Reesh, I.M., He, Z., Yuan, C., 2019. Life cycle assessment of osmotic microbial fuel cells for simultaneous wastewater
treatment and resource recovery. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24 (11), 1962–1975.
Zhang, J., Yuan, H., Deng, Y., Zha, Y., Abu-Reesh, I.M., He, Z., Yuan, C., 2018. Life cycle assessment of a microbial desalination cell for sustainable
wastewater treatment and saline water desalination. J. Cleaner Prod. 200, 900–910.
Zhu, J., Jin, Q., Dongming, L., 2017. Investigation on two integrated membrane systems for the reuse of electroplating wastewater. Water Environ. J.
32 (2), 267–275.
Zuin, S., Scanferla, P., Brunelli, A., Marcomini, A., Wong, J.E., Wennekes, W., Gené, I., 2013. Layer-by-layer deposition of titanium dioxide nanoparticles
on polymeric membranes: A life cycle assessment study. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (39), 13979–13990.
23

An Overview of LCA Applied To Various Membrane (Profress, Challenges, and Harmonization)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Overview of LCA Applied To Various Membrane (Profress, Challenges, and Harmonization)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Technology & Innovation 27 (2022) 102803

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Technology & Innovation

An overview of LCA applied to various membrane

1. Wastewater treatment technology

2. Life cycle assessment of membranes for wastewater treatment technology

Fig. 2. Classification of common membrane filtration.

Fig. 3. Membrane technology commonly analyzed using LCA.

Fig. 4. LCA flow of membrane wastewater treatment (Martins et al., 2017).

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Selection of LCA studies

Fig. 5. Sources of publication of reviewed studies.

3.2. Review method

4. Analysis and results

4.1. Goal and scope definition

Fig. 6. LCA software frequently used in reviewed studies.

4.2. Inventory analysis

4.3. Impact assessment

4.4. Interpretation of reviewed studies

Fig. 7. LCA studies on membrane technology by country of origin.

4.4.1. LCA of membrane bioreactor in treating wastewater

Fig. 8. LCA studies based on specific countries.

4.4.2. LCA of reverse osmosis in treating wastewater

4.4.3. LCA of other membrane treatment systems in treating wastewater

4.5. Challenges and limitations

4.6. Recommendations, harmonization, and future outlook

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

You might also like