Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Environmental assessment of a landfill leachate treatment plant:

Impacts and research for more sustainable chemical alternatives
Leonardo Postacchini*, Filippo E. Ciarapica, Maurizio Bevilacqua

Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Brecce Bianche 12, 60131, Ancona, Italy
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e Scienze Matematiche, Universita

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

Article history: The aim of this study is to evaluate, from an environmental point of view, the performance of various
Received 29 September 2017 technologies applied to the treatment of municipal landfill leachate. The study has been led in an Italian
Received in revised form wastewater treatment plant and it applies the principles of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) technique,
18 February 2018
using ReCiPe as the assessment method. This study shows how the operating stage of a wastewater
Accepted 20 February 2018
treatment plant, that applies chemical and physical treatments, can affect the following four environ-
Available online 21 February 2018
mental impact categories: “Freshwater Eutrophication”, “Freshwater Ecotoxicity”, “Marine Ecotoxicity”
and “Human Toxicity”. Within this operating stage, the study shows the relevant environmental impacts
Keywords:
Life Cycle Assessment
generated by the use of polyaluminum chloride (PAC) as a coagulant chemical agent and sodium hy-
Municipal landfill leachate droxide (caustic soda) as a pH control chemical agent. In order to investigate these results, and to
Polyaluminum chloride discover more eco-friendly alternatives, two LCA comparisons have been carried out, comparing
Ferric chloride respectively the above two agents to analogous and common substitutes: ferric chloride as a coagulant
Sodium hydroxide agent and calcium hydroxide (lime) as a pH control agent. These comparisons demonstrate the higher
Calcium hydroxide environmental impacts of the use of ferric chloride over PAC and of sodium hydroxide over calcium
hydroxide. Ferric chloride has shown to have more than double the environmental impact of PAC in 9
environmental categories out of the 10 considered, while calcium hydroxide has been able to cut down
the negative environmental impacts of the sodium hydroxide of more than 65% in all the environmental
categories. Considering the highly positive environmental results achieved from our study, whenever
possible, a substitution of calcium hydroxide to sodium hydroxide and of PAC to ferric chloride is strongly
recommended.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2015). The average characteristics of the leachate are evaluated

The landfill leachate is a liquid which draws its origin predom-
inantly by the infiltration of water in the mass of waste or from the
decomposition of the same. To a lesser extent, the landfill leachate
is also produced by the progressive compaction of the waste. The
leachate from the landfill, therefore, is a complex and highly
polluted wastewater. The pollution of the leachate is the result of
biological, chemical and physical processes that take place within
the landfill, along with the composition of the waste and the water
regime of the landfill. Thus, the leachate can have very different
chemical composition as a function of many parameters, including
the type of waste which produced it and the age of the landfill
(Kulikowska and Klimiuk, 2008; Huo et al., 2008; Müller et al.,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: l.postacchini@staff.univpm.it (L. Postacchini).
through indicators such as pH, Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD5), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and metal content.
Among the types of wastewater treatment, the treatment of landfill
leachate is certainly one of the most complex (Amor et al., 2015).
The difficulty is due not only to the entity of the pollutant load but
also to its variability in time. The selection of the process to be
applied for the required purification efficiency depends on the
regulations on discharges. When landfill leachate is treated in
waste water treatment plants (WWTPs), plant managers are
increasingly concerned about its impact on a WWTP's ability to
meet discharge limits (Brennan et al., 2016).
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique that can be used to
evaluate the overall environmental impact of a certain human ac-
tivity, such as wastewater treatment process. LCA is a well-
established procedure quantifying inputs and outputs as well as
the potential environmental impacts associated with a product, a
process, or a service throughout its whole life cycle (ISO, 2006a;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.219
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1022 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033
ISO, 2006b). In the field of wastewater treatment (WWT), LCA has
been applied since the 1990s. In the pursuit of more environmen-
tally sustainable WWT, Corominas et al. (2013a) stated that LCA is a
valuable tool to elucidate the broader environmental impacts of
design and operation decisions.
This paper has been organized as follows: after this introduc-
tion, section 2 presents a review of the analyzed literature con-
cerning LCA and WWTs; section 3 describes the research objectives
and approach; section 4 explains in details the LCA used for this
study; section 5 shows the outcomes of the LCA; section 6 reports a
discussion regarding the outcomes, together with the final con-
siderations of the study.
2. Literature review
Life Cycle Assessment has been applied to water treatment
systems (water treatment plants, sewer systems, and waste water
treatment plants) since this technique began to develop. Emmerson
et al. (1995) were the first to publish a study about the environ-
mental impact of small-scale sewage treatment works, using LCA.
In their analysis of three sewage-treatment works (with different
process options), they identified and quantified material use, en-
ergy use and environmental releases during construction, opera-
tion and demolition stage of the WWTPs.
Most of the LCA studies in WWT have been aimed to compare
the different wastewater treatment methods and their different
performance characteristics. Vlasopoulos et al. (2006) described
the implementation of LCA, to investigate the environmental
impact of 20 technologies suitable for treating wastewater pro-
duced during the oil and gas extraction processes. Their results
were then incorporated into a decision support system which
allowed identification and prioritization technology combinations,
capable of producing water for different designated industrial and
agricultural end uses. In 2011, a study of Rodriguez-Garcia et al.
(2011) evaluated the performance of 24 WWTPs using a stream-
lined LCA, with eutrophication potential (EP) and global warming
potential (GWP) as environmental indicators and operational costs
as economic indicators. They found out that, for organic matter
removal, WWTPs were less costly, both in environmental and
economic terms, if the volume was used as the functional unit. On
the other hand, more demanding typologies, such as reuse plants,
showed a trade-off between lower EP and higher cost and GWP.
However, this was overcome if a second functional unit (based on
EP reduction) was used instead, proving the sustainability of these
options and that this functional unit better reflected the objectives
of a WWTP. In 2016, Postacchini et al. (2016) used LCA to conduct a
comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of three
different methods of treating primary clarifier effluent in a WWTP.
They compared two conventional treatment systems, which are
activated sludge (AS) and trickling filter (TF) system, with a new
experimental one named, high rate anaerobic-aerobic digestion
(HRAAD). Their results showed TF having the smallest environ-
mental impacts and AS the largest, while HRAAD set itself in be-
tween the two but with much reduced impacts compared to AS.
LCA has also been used in WWT field to study the impact of
tertiary treatments, sludge treatment and disposal and nutrient
removal. Mun ~ oz et al. (2009) assessed the life-cycle environmental
impact of urban wastewater reuse for agricultural purposes, putting
special emphasis on the potential toxicity of priority and emerging
pollutants, present in the effluents to be reused. The study was
based on benchscale experiments, applying ozone and ozone in
combination with hydrogen peroxide to a wastewater effluent from
a sewage treatment plant. The results highlighted that wastewater
reuse, after applying any of the tertiary treatments considered,
appeared as the best choice from an ecotoxicity perspective.
Hospido et al. (2010) used LCA to evaluate the reuse of anaer-
obically digested sewage sludge in agricultural land, focusing on
the possible impacts caused by emerging micropollutants. They
also analyzed the influence of different operational conditions
applied during the anaerobic digestion process on the digested
sludge quality. They showed that, from an environmental point of
view, the disposal of undigested sludge is the less suitable alter-
native. Only the results on GWP contradict this fact, due to the
dominance of the indirect emissions associated with the electricity
used by the digesters. The digestion of sewage sludge before
application to agricultural soil is a meaningful activity, not only
because it is a requirement, according to the actual legislation, but
also because it reduces the environmental impact associated with
the pollutants present in the sludge. Corominas et al. (2013b)
presented a methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts
of enhanced process performance strategies, applied to wastewater
nutrient removal systems. They used LCA to assess three different
scenarios depending on the limitation of nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P), or both when evaluating the nutrient enrichment impact in
water bodies. According to them, decision-making in controlling
wastewater nutrient removal systems can be assessed using a
combination of mechanistic process models together with Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models. They found out that the
use of site-specific conditions, for the nutrient enrichment impact
category, is essential to define best environmental performance
strategies.
Recently, LCA has been adopted to compare WWTP control
strategies and management scenarios or the effectiveness and
applicability of a particular WWT in a specific location. Meneses
et al. (2015) showed the potential additional insight that results
from adding indicators based on LCA to the evaluation criteria of
plant performance, in the control strategies of wastewater treat-
ment plants. The authors combined plant-performance evaluation
criteria, as effluent quality and operational cost, jointly with a
detailed environmental evaluation for impact category provided by
LCA. In their comparison of the different control strategies, they
highlighted the importance of the environmental analysis as an
additional source of information for decision makers. A more recent
study of Lutterbeck et al. (2017) used LCA to investigate the effec-
tiveness, applicability, and environmental sustainability of a
wastewater treatment system located on a rural property. They
studied an integrated treatment system, consisting of anaerobic
reactors and constructed wetlands, in a rural area in Brazil. Their
study showed that the application of LCA can give valuable insights
for setting the best configurations for a WWT system in rural areas,
by identifying the most critical parameters and by the evaluation of
actions to reduce the environmental impacts.
Some studies have discussed the limits and the discrepancies of
the various impact assessment methods applied to WWT field. This
is the case of Renou et al. (2008), who discussed how LCA could be
applied to wastewater treatment projects, through a case study on a
full-scale plant, evaluating the influence of the selected impact
assessment method on the LCA outcome. They compared five LCIA
methods: CML 2000, Eco Indicator 99, EDIP 96, EPS and Ecopoints
97. They obtained consistent assessment between these methods
regarding greenhouse effect, resource depletion, eutrophication
and acidification. They pointed out that work was needed
 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033
concerning human toxicity impact categories, as large discrep-
ancies were noticed between the impact assessment methods. They
also discussed the relative importance of the WWTP operation
phase with respect to construction and dismantlement. They found
out that construction of a WWTP appears to be the least polluting
phase: construction greenhouse effect represents 11% of the oper-
ating phase, toxicity and eutrophication 1%, acidification 6% and
resource depletion 13%. They also stated that the end-of-life stage
could be considered as negligible when compared to the operation
phase, reporting also the fact that WWTPs are usually renovated on
site and not fully dismantled. The findings of Renou et al. (2008)
confirmed a previous study of Tangsubkul et al. (2005) in which
the construction phase was found to be responsible for 25e35% of
the GWP (which is a relative measure of greenhouse gas emission)
associated with a WWTP and the operating phase of the facility was
found far more relevant for the rest of the categories. Analougus
results and observations, about construction and end-of-life stage,
could be found in the studies of Emmerson et al. (1995), Zhang
(2000) and Vlasopoulos et al. (2006). A more recent study of
Teodosiu et al. (2016) discussed the validity and the limits of the
LCA itself as impact assessment tool for the WWT field, demon-
strating its weak and strong points. They assessed the environ-
mental impacts of a municipal wastewater treatment plant by using
three different impact assessment instruments: (1) LCA, (2) envi-
ronmental impact quantification (EIQ) and (3) grey water footprint
(GWF). They critically compared these three methodologies from a
practical and applicability point of view and pointed out the ne-
cessity for improving each method. According to them, widely used
LCIA methodologies have to be improved to represent water-
related impacts (including waterborne emissions) better and
could benefit from the other two impact assessment instruments to
better represent local conditions.
Although many LCA studies have been carried out in the WWT
field, showing a great potential and effectiveness for this technique,
the majority of them dealt with municipal wastewater or specific
industrial wastewater. There is a lack of research when it comes to
the application of LCA in landfill leachate treatment systems.
Nevertheless, the importance of leachate collection and treatment,
in reducing the overall environmental impact from a conventional
landfill, has been proved by a LCA study of Damgaard et al. (2011).
They modelled different landfills, using a waste LCA model, ranging
from a simple open dump to highly engineered conventional
landfills with energy recovery. In the case of leachate collection,
their results showed drastic improvements for most impact cate-
gories. For the dump landfill, the main impacts were impacts for
spoiled groundwater due to lack of leachate collection, 2.3 popu-
lation equivalent (PE) down to 0.4 PE when leachate is collected.
However, at the same time, leachate collection caused a slight in-
crease in eco-toxicity and human toxicity via water. This was due to
the fact that, even if the leachate was treated, slight amounts of
contaminants were released through emissions of treated waste-
water to surface waters. They concluded that the leachate collection
system, though economically expensive, gave large environmental
benefits compared to a no collection system. It has also been proved
that an accidental release of leachate to the groundwater might
have several risks to human health and to the environment (Klinck
et al., 1999). According to Regadío et al. (2012), the potential
pollution caused by leachates is the result of several factors,
including the release of ammonia, chlorinated and non-chlorinated
organic compounds and heavy metal ions into the environment, all
of which are toxic to living organisms.
In the last years, few studies have focused their attention on
landfill leachate treatment and LCA. Xing et al. (2013) investigated
the environmental impacts of leachate recirculation in landfill, in
an arid region where landfill produces a minimal amount of
1023
leachate. Using a LCA-model-based software, they modelled four
scenarios and compared the strategies of leachate recirculation
(with or without gas management), leachate evaporation and
leachate discharge. They found out that direct discharge of leachate
may result in ecotoxicity and human toxicity via water contami-
nated by heavy metals in leachate and that leachate recirculation
can be considered a cost-effective and environmentally viable so-
lution for arid regions, together with a proper landfill gas treat-
ment. Finally, Turner et al. (2017) applied a combined mechanistic
solute flow model and LCA approach to evaluate the potential im-
pacts of leachate leakage, over a 10 000 year time horizon, for four
different landfill aftercare scenarios. Their study investigated the
potential impacts caused by the loss of active environmental con-
trol measures and deterioration of engineering systems, during the
aftercare period of landfill management. The timing and duration of
active control loss during aftercare was found to be potentially
important in terms of the overall impact of landfilling. The authors
highlighted how the use of LCA could aid landfill operators, by
identifying opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts of
their landfill sites.
3. Research approach
Having established the importance of the LCA technique in
WWT field and the environmental benefits of collection and
treatment of landfill leachate, this study contributes to fill a gap in
research, applying the LCA technique to assess the environmental
impact of a landfill leachate WWTP. It does so, by analyzing an
operative landfill leachate WWTP that uses chemical and physical
treatments to treat the leachate (specifically chemical oxidation/
precipitation, coagulation, flocculation and adsorption technolo-
gies). This study aims at quantifying the environmental impacts of a
leachate treatment plant and at discovering which are the main
factors that contribute the most to these environmental impacts.
Furthermore, by locating the environmental “hot-spots” of this
WWTP, this paper aims at comparing alternative strategies, within
the same treatment technologies, while treatment performances
being equal (in terms of effluent quality). Therefore, in the second
part of this study, LCA has been used to identify the best environ-
mental chemical alternative, to reach analogous treatment results
in a more sustainable way. The validity of these comparison out-
comes is not case specific, and it can be easily extended to the
general wastewater treatment field. This study has been focused
exclusively on the operating phase of a WWTP. It has been decided
not to include the construction and end-of-life phase of the WWTP,
in accordance to the findings of Renou et al. (2008).
4. Materials and methods
This study has been carried out using the Life Cycle Assessment
technique. The following sections have been structured according
to the ISO 14040 technical standards (ISO, 2006a,b). The method
ReCiPe, in its midpoint hierarchist version, has been chosen and
used to assess the environmental impacts. The Life Cycle Assess-
ment has been focused on the following environmental issues:
climate change; acidification; eutrophication; toxicity; water
depletion and fossil fuel depletion. These issues have been linked to
10 ReCiPe midpoints, out of the 18 available in the ReCiPe method,
as shown in Table 1.
4.1. Goal and scope definition
The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the environ-
mental impact of a wastewater treatment plant in treating
municipal landfill leachate. The first part of this study is focused on
1024 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033
Table 1
Environmental issues and ReCiPe midpoints.
Environmental Issue ReCiPe midpoint
Climate Change Climate Change
Acidification Terrestrial Acidification
Eutrophication Freshwater Eutrophication
Marine Eutrophication
Toxicity Human Toxicity
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity
Freshwater Ecotoxicity
Marine Ecotoxicity
Water Depletion Water Depletion
Fossil Fuel Depletion Fossil Fuel Depletion
analyzing the different stages in which the leachate treatment
process can be divided. The second part of this study is focused on
comparing two chemical agent alternatives for the coagulant and
the pH control agent. In this second section, the polyaluminum
chloride (PAC), used as the coagulant agent, has been compared to a
similar coagulant agent, the ferric chloride (FeCl3), in dosage to
obtain the same COD removal (according to standard reference
literature and laboratory jar tests). Ferric chloride has been chosen
as the alternative coagulant to compare an aluminum-based
coagulant (the PAC) with an alternative iron-based coagulant.
Indeed, commonly used metal coagulants in WWTPs fall into two
general categories: those based on aluminum and those based on
iron. This is due to their effectiveness as coagulants and also to their
ready availability in forming multi-charged polynuclear complexes
in solution, with enhanced adsorption characteristics (Bratby,
2016). Moreover, in the past of the considered WWTP, ferric chlo-
ride has already been used with no significant differences in
treatment results (in terms of effluent quality) to PAC use.
Analogous comparison operation has been conducted between
sodium hydroxide (NaOH), used as a pH control chemical agent,
and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), in dosage to obtain the same pH
increment. Calcium hydroxide, also known as lime, has been cho-
sen as alternative pH agent because, according to Metcalf et al.
(2003), it is the most widely used chemical for pH adjustment in
WWT.
4.2. Functional unit
In the first part of this study, the single cubic meter of raw
leachate (1 m3 in volume, approximately equivalent to 1 metric ton
in mass) has been chosen as the functional unit.
In the second part of this study, two different functional units
have been used, respectively for the coagulant and the pH agent
comparison:
✓ Coagulant comparison: as the functional unit, the specific
dosage of coagulant (recommended in literature and tested in
the laboratory e jar tests) needed to obtain approximately a 50%
removal of COD in 1 L of leachate, has been chosen. The com-
parison resulted as 3000 mg of Ferric Chloride (FeCl3) and
2100 mg of Polyaluminum Chloride (PAC).
✓ pH agent comparison: as the functional unit, the specific
dosage of pH agent, calculated in a stoichiometric way, needed
to obtain a 1 point pH increment into 1 m3 of water solution
(from pH ¼ 7 to pH ¼ 8) has been chosen. The comparison
resulted as 80 mg of dilute Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH, 50% in
H2O) and 37.05 mg of Calcium Hydroxide (Ca(OH)2).
Unit Abbreviation
kg (CO2 to air) CC
kg (SO2 to air) TA
kg (P to freshwater) FE
kg (N to freshwater) ME
kg (1,4 dichlorobenzene to urban air) HT
kg (1,4 dichlorobenzene to industrial soil) TET
kg (1,4 dichlorobenzene to freshwater) FET
kg (1,4 dichlorobenzene to marine water) MET
m3 (water) WD
kg (oil) FD
4.3. Description of the system and system boundaries
The plant is located in the province of Fermo (Italy), and it can
treat a maximum of 240 m3/day of municipal landfill leachate. It
applies chemical and physical treatment technologies in order to
produce a final effluent matching the majority (but not the whole
set) of the quality requirements, set in the European urban
wastewater directive (EEC, 1991) and the Italian legislation, con-
cerning the discharge in sewage system (D.lgs 152/06). In order to
fully reach these discharge requirements, a further treatment stage
in the local municipal WWTP (MWWTP) is applied, abling
discharge into river water. The system boundaries of this study
include the raw leachate arrival at the WWTP and the discharge of
the treated effluent. No consideration has been given to upstream
infrastructure (e.g. landfill, pumping stations) and consumables
(e.g. oxygen for odour control). The system boundaries include
first-order processes (e.g. direct atmospheric emissions, effluent
discharges) and second-order processes (e.g. purchased electricity
generation, chemicals manufacture) for the operating phase only.
Therefore, this study considers the environmental impact associ-
ated with the operation of primary and secondary treatments, the
final discharge of the treated effluent as well as the sludge
treatment.
Fig. 1 shows the detailed process flow chart of the treatment
stage. After a first stage of “fine screening”, the raw leachate passes
to the next stage of “mixing and homogenizing”. Here, the leachate
is mixed in an open tank, in order to promote some oxidation re-
actions and it can be mixed with other different leachates (already
present into the system), in order to reach a homogeneous input
leachate. This tank is also where all the samples for raw leachate
analysis of this study have been taken. Next, the leachate goes to
the “coagulation” stage, where the coagulant chemical agent (pol-
yaluminum chloride) and the pH control agent (sodium hydroxide)
are added. The coagulation process, indeed, lowers the pH of the
liquid solution, thwarting the correct precipitation of some heavy
metals, so the pH value has to be constantly kept in a range of
7.6e7.9, by adding a liquid solution of sodium hydroxide. The next
stage is the “flocculation into clarifiers”. Here, a cationic poly-
electrolyte solution is added, in order to promote flocks agglom-
eration and makes particles settling down. The next stage for the
clarified liquid is the “dynamic filtering”. The filter allows the
reduction in the concentration of suspended solids. The solids are
separated from the filtering fabric present in the cylinder and
removed by the rotation of the same, and in turn, discharged into a
collection tank. The next stage, “activated carbon”, is the adsorption
stage using granular activated carbons (GAC). The filtered liquid is
pumped into a column containing GAC and leaves the column
through a discharge system. The last stage is the “ion-exchange",
 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033 1025

Fig. 1. Process flow chart of the WWTP.

Table 2
Leachate analysis in input and output of the WWTP.

Chemical Parameter Unit Input Value Output Value Removal Efficiency Discharge Limits (sewage system)

pH e 8.0 7.8 5.5e9.5

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 413 76 82% 200
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) mg/L 1712 691 60% 250
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 4128 1263 69% 500
Arsenic mg/L 0.02 0.01 46% 0.5
Cadmium mg/L 0.007 0.007 0% 0.02
Chromium (total) mg/L 4.07 0.94 77% 4
Chromium VI mg/L 0.02 0.02 0% 0.20
Iron mg/L 4.43 0.56 87% 4
Manganese mg/L 0.87 0.21 76% 4
Mercury mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0% 0.005
Nickel mg/L 0.40 0.19 54% 4
Lead mg/L 0.02 0.02 0% 0.3
Copper mg/L 0.23 0.09 61% 0.4
Zinc mg/L 0.19 0.10 49% 1.0
Cyanide (total) mg/L 0.10 0.08 23% 1.0
Sulphate mg/L 124 113 8% 1000
Chloride mg/L 1922 1332 31% 1200
Fluoride mg/L 1 1 54% 12
Phosphorus mg/L 10 1 87% 10
Ammonium (NH4) mg/L 1414 675 52% 30
Oil and Grease mg/L 10 3 71% 40
Hydrocarbons (total) mg/L 7 2 74% 10
Phenolics mg/L 0.72 0.31 57% 1
Aromatic Organic Solvents mg/L 0.01 0.01 0% 0.4
Nitrogen Organic Solvents mg/L 0.01 0.01 0% 0.2
Surfactants (total) mg/L 1z0 3 72% 4

using resins with a polystyrene structure and a functional group
ReSO3 (“ion-exchange resin”). The sludge, produced by the “floc-
culation into clarifiers” stage, is sent to a “sedimentation” stage.
Soon after being mixed and homogenized, it is ultimately sent to
the “centrifugation” stage, in order to be dewatered and being
disposed as “Primary sludge” in a landfill.
Table 2 shows the discharge requirements, for each specific
chemical parameter reported in the Italian wastewater legislation:
- the average value of the chemical parameter in input to the
plant (raw leachate value);
- the average value of the chemical parameter in output of the
plant (effluent value);
- the average percentage of treatment process efficiency;
- discharge limits reported by law, for discharging into the sewage
system.
1026 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033

4.4. Life cycle inventory (LCI) Table 4

Modelling the process.

All the data collected and presented in this study refer to a time Treated Leachate
period of three years of WWTP activity (July 2013eJuly 2016). The 1 metric ton
data have been collected monthly, and they have been referred to
Entry Amount Unit
the leachate quantity that has been treated in that relative month.
In the end, a mean over 36 sets of available data has been done, in Resources
Water 4.63E-02 m3
order to obtain average input values for 1 m3 of treated leachate
(output). Appendix A reports all the input data used in this study.
Materials/fuels
The software SimaPro 8.4 has been used for the LCA modeling, and Flocculant 1.02E-01 kg
all the LCI inputs have been taken from the Ecoinvent database pH control agent (Sodium Hydroxide) e NaOH 1.21Eþ00 kg
(version 3.3: Wernet et al., 2016). Any assumption made during this Coagulant (Polyaluminum Chloride) 2.18Eþ00 kg
phase, especially in the case of missing data, has been specifically Hydrochloric acid, 30% in H2O, at plant 3.83E-03 kg
Cationic resin, at plant 1.09E-02 kg
mentioned. The following sections explain how each stage/process Granular Activated Carbon 6.28E-03 kg
has been modelled.
Electricity/heat
Electricity, low voltage, at grid/IT 2.14Eþ00 kWh
4.4.1. Modelling the inputs
In the following section are reported all the inputs used in the
assessments.

- Electricity: “Electricity, low voltage {IT}” has been chosen as the
general electricity input. Included in this input are the electricity
production in Italy and from imports, the transmission network
as well as direct SF6-emissions to air. Electricity losses during
low-voltage transmission and transformation from medium-
voltage are also accounted for. Electricity production according
to related technology datasets (see Dones et al., 2007);
- Water: “Water, well, in ground, IT” has been chosen as general
water input. The plant uses well-water for its treatment activity
and this input represents the quantity of water extracted from
the ground. The energy consumption associated with its
pumping out of the ground is calculated and accounted into the
input “Electricity” (so to include the electrical consumption of
the extraction pumps);
- Coagulant (Polyaluminum Chloride): since there are no LCI data
available for this chemical product, a specific entry has been
created (see Table 3). According to information provided by the
manufacturer, the PAC usually contains at least 18% of Al2O3 and
22% of ion Cl- (usually from HCl).
- Coagulant (Ferric Chloride): “Iron (III) chloride, without water,
in 40% solution state” has been chosen to model the ferric
chloride;
- Flocculant: since there are no LCI data available for the cationic
polyelectrolytes solution, used as flocculant, according to Lopez
et al. (2011), it has been modelled as in Table 3.
- pH Agent (Sodium Hydroxide): “Sodium hydroxide, without
water, in 50% solution state” has been chosen to model the so-
dium hydroxide;
Table 3
Modelling the inputs.
Coagulant (Polyaluminum Chloride)
(1 kg)
Entry Amount
Materials/fuels
Aluminium oxide 0.18
Hydrochloric acid, without water, in 30% solution state 0.733
Flocculant(1 kg)
Entry Amount
Materials/fuels
Acrylic acid, at plant 0.5
Acrylonitrile, at plant 0.5
- pH Agent (Calcium Hydroxide): “Lime, hydrated, loose weight”
has been chosen to model the calcium hydroxide;
- Granular Activated Carbon: “Activated carbon, granular” has
been chosen to model the granular activated carbon.
- Ion-Exchange Resin: “Cationic resin” has been chosen as input
to model resin with a polystyrene structure and a functional
group ReSO3;
- Hydrochloric acid: “Hydrochloric acid, without water, in 30%
solution state” has been chosen as input to model the hydro-
chloric acid, used for the regeneration of the ion-exchange resin.
Table 4 shows all the inputs that have been used in the treat-
ment process, and they refer to 1 metric ton of treated leachate
(functional unit).
5. Results
5.1. Life Cycle Assessment of treated leachate
The first part of this study has regarded the environmental
impact associated with the treatment process of 1 m3 of leachate
(approximately 1 metric ton in mass). Table 5 represents the results
obtained by using the Characterization mode available in ReCiPe.
This assessment shows the high contributions of coagulant, pH
control agent and electricity in all the 10 characterization cate-
gories. In particular, the coagulant and the pH control agent have
been discovered to be responsible for the highest contribution in all
the categories, except for “Marine Eutrophication”, where the
flocculant has the highest contribution score. Table 6 shows the
results of the ReCiPe normalization, for the quantity of 240 metric
ton of treated leachate. This quantity corresponds to the maximum
Unit daily treating capacity of the WWTP (see section 4.3). The
normalization has been obtained using the “World ReCiPe H”
kg method, which means that these results refer to normalization
kg
factors for a world citizen. These results have allowed to discover
which are the most relevant characterization categories affected by
the WWTP operating stage, i.e.: “Marine Ecotoxicity”, “Freshwater
Unit
Ecotoxicity”, “Human Toxicity” and “Freshwater Eutrophication”.
For example, in the category “Marine Ecotoxicity”, the impact of
kg treating 240 metric ton of leachate is equivalent to 5.5 world citi-
kg
zens (in a year).
 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033 1027

Table 5
Life Cycle Assessment for 1 metric ton of treated leachate: ReCiPe characterization results.

Impact category Total % Contribution to the Total

Flocculant pH agent (Sodium Coagulant (Polyaluminum Hydrochloric Cationic Granular Electricity

Hydroxide) Chloride) acid resin activated carbon

Climate change 4.32Eþ00 kg CO2 eq 6.3% 36.8% 30.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% 25.3%
Terrestrial acidification 2.28E-02 kg SO2 eq 5.1% 35.4% 38.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.5% 20.4%
Freshwater eutrophication 2.11E-03 kg P eq 1.4% 43.0% 38.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 16.7%
Marine eutrophication 1.59E-03 kg N eq 36.5% 28.7% 23.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 11.1%
Human toxicity 2.46Eþ00 kg 1,4-DB eq 1.6% 35.9% 49.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 12.3%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 7.88E-04 kg 1,4-DB eq 1.5% 18.8% 66.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 13.1%
Freshwater ecotoxicity 6.87E-02 kg 1,4-DB eq 1.5% 32.8% 45.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 20.3%
Marine ecotoxicity 6.91E-02 kg 1,4-DB eq 1.4% 31.2% 48.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 18.5%
Water depletion 1.43E-01 m3 2.5% 34.2% 19.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 11.4%
Fossil depletion 1.33Eþ00 kg oil eq 12.1% 30.4% 32.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% 24.4%

5.2. Life Cycle Assessment of alternative chemical agents the PAC.

According to the results obtained in the first part of this study,

5.2.2. pH agents comparison
alternative chemical agents have been evaluated in order to
Table 8 presents the results obtained by using the Character-
improve the assessed environmental impact of the leachate treat-
ization mode available in ReCiPe. This assessment shows the
ment process. In particular, it has been evaluated an alternative
greater impact contribution of the sodium hydroxide over the
coagulant and pH agent, in dosage to obtain the same treatment
calcium hydroxide in all the characterization categories. In all these
results (as explained in section 4.2).
categories, calcium hydroxide has less than 35% of the correspon-
dent environmental impact than the sodium hydroxide.
5.2.1. Coagulants comparison
Table 7 represents the results obtained by using the Character-
6. Discussion and conclusion
ization mode available in ReCiPe. This assessment shows the
greater impact contribution of the ferric chloride over the poly-
Using ReCiPe as an assessment method, this study has shown
aluminum chloride (PAC) in 9 characterization categories out of 10.
what the negative environmental impacts of a WWTP are, in
In all the categories, except “Terrestrial Ecotoxicity”, the impact
treating the municipal landfill leachate with chemical and physical
score of the ferric chloride coagulant is more than double of that of
treatments. In particular, it has pointed out how the operating stage
of the WWTP affects mostly these four impact categories:
Table 6
ReCiPe normalization results (World ReCiPe H) for 240 metric ton of treated - “Freshwater Eutrophication”: this impact category is specif-
leachate. ically related to the phosphorus concentration in the aquatic
Impact category Total environment. The ReCiPe method divides eutrophication into
two different impact categories: one for nitrogen enrichment of
(in equivalent world citizens)
seawater (Marine Eutrophication) and another for phosphor
Climate change 0.2 enrichment of freshwater (Freshwater Eutrophication). Eutro-
Terrestrial acidification 0.2
Freshwater eutrophication 1.5
phication in inland waters, as a result of human activities, is one
Marine eutrophication 0.0 of the major factors that determine its ecological quality.
Human toxicity 1.6 - “Freshwater Ecotoxicity”, “Marine Ecotoxicity” and “Human
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 0.0 Toxicity”: the characterization factor of human toxicity and
Freshwater ecotoxicity 3.1
ecotoxicity accounts for the environmental persistence (fate),
Marine ecotoxicity 5.5
Water depletion 0.0 accumulation in the human food chain (exposure) and toxicity
Fossil depletion 0.3 (effect) of a chemical. In these three impact categories, the
chemical 1,4-dichlorobenzene was used as a reference sub-
stance in the midpoint calculations: to urban air for Human
Table 7 Toxicity, freshwater for Freshwater Ecotoxicity, and seawater for
Coagulant comparison: ReCiPe characterization results. Marine Ecotoxicity (Goedkoop et al., 2009)
Impact category Unit Polyaluminum Ferric Chloride
Chloride (PAC) Within this operating stage, this study has highlighted how the
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1.28E-03 3.28E-03
coagulant and pH control agents are the most responsible inputs for
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8.40E-06 1.85E-05 all the negative environmental impacts. In order to investigate this
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 7.79E-07 2.25E-06 result and to discover valid and further eco-friendly alternatives,
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.57E-07 9.85E-07 PAC has been compared to ferric chloride and sodium hydroxide to
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.18E-03 2.89E-03
calcium hydroxide.
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.03E-07 4.54E-07
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 2.99E-05 7.52E-05 The first comparison has shown PAC having a less environ-
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 3.23E-05 7.34E-05 mental impact than ferric chloride, in 9 characterization categories
Water depletion m3 2.66E-05 8.95E-05 out of the 10 considered. In particular, regarding these categories,
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 4.11E-04 8.35E-04 the impact score of the ferric chloride coagulant has shown to be
more than double of that of PAC. Concerning the “Water Depletion”
1028 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033

Table 8 ferric chloride is highly acidic, and the solution contains free hy-
PH agent comparison: ReCiPe characterization results. drochloric acid. Hence, the solution is highly corrosive to nearly all
Impact category Unit Sodium Hydroxide Calcium normally used metals, including all grades of stainless steel. This
Hydroxide latter fact, together with the greater sludge production, have been
Climate change kg CO2 eq 1.06E-04 3.46E-05 the main reasons for the WWTP management to dismiss the use of
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 5.36E-07 4.41E-08 ferric chloride in the past.
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 6.01E-08 1.01E-09 The second LCA comparison has pointed out the higher envi-
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.03E-08 1.36E-09
ronmental impact on the usage of sodium hydroxide over calcium
Human toxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 5.86E-05 1.50E-06
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 9.85E-09 1.27E-09 hydroxide. This latter pH control agent has been able to cut down
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.49E-06 3.06E-08 more than 65% of the negative environmental impacts of the so-
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq 1.43E-06 4.76E-08 dium hydroxide in all the characterization categories. Taking this
Water depletion m3 3.25E-06 4.55E-08
fact into account, Ca(OH)2 has demonstrated to be a considerably
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 2.68E-05 4.06E-06
more eco-friendly pH control agent than NaOH. The validity of
these comparison outcomes can be easily extended to the general
wastewater treatment field. In order to have a better understanding
of this result, it has been taken into account the consumption (for
category, the usage of PAC has allowed saving approximately 70% of the analyzed 36 months) of sodium hydroxide (50% diluted in H2O)
the water consumed by the usage of ferric chloride. Analogous recorded in the studied WWTP. Figs. 2e4 show the LCA comparison
savings have been reached by PAC in the Eutrophication sector between this sodium hydroxide consumption and the hypothetical
(Freshwater and Marine). The usage of PAC has shown to consume related calcium hydroxide consumption, analyzing three important
less water and release fewer nutrients into the aquatic environment impact categories: “Climate Change”, “Water Depletion” and “Fossil
than the usage of ferric chloride. From a technical point of view, PAC Depletion”. The results are expressed in the relative characteriza-
has shown to require lower dosages and to produce less amount of tion unit of measurement.
sludge than ferric chloride. Since the final disposal of the sludge The results of this last comparison show that 102 911 kg of CO2
involves a subsequent dewatering and transport operations, any- eq. emission, 4645 m3 of water and 33 003 kg of oil eq. (which in
thing that can reduce the volume of the sludge contributes to cost ReCiPe method are intended as “kg oil, crude, feedstock, 42 MJ per
savings for the WWTP management. PAC has also shown to affect kg, in ground-eq”) could have been saved, in these 36 months, by
less the pH and alkalinity of the wastewater. It requires less pH using the calcium hydroxide. It is now more evident that the cal-
correction, therefore less amount of pH agent is needed to raise the cium hydroxide is able to cut down the environmental impact of
pH after coagulation. On the negative side, PAC generally tends to the sodium hydroxide considerably. In addition, from a technical
produce smaller flocks than ferric chloride, that are slow to settle point of view, it is also known that calcium hydroxide is able to
down, and its market cost is usually greater than all the other co- carry out a coagulant action on the wastewater which could be used
agulants (ferric chloride included). Regarding the technical per- as a coagulant agent itself, and the use of it may easily decrease the
formance of ferric chloride, when compared to PAC, it has shown to dosage of the other coagulant agent. On the other hand, Ca(OH)2
have a higher sludge settling rate but also to produce the largest has some industrial application problems that have led WWTP
sludge quantities. Ferric chloride has also shown to consume managers to prefer the use of NaOH. First and foremost, it generates
alkalinity more and faster than PAC. Therefore, in order to ensure a considerable amount of residual sludge (primary sludge) that
that the treated water remains stable, pH agent addition is required must be dewatered and disposed. Dewatering the sludge,
in a greater amount than in the PAC coagulation process. Moreover,

Fig. 2. Sodium Hydroxide and Calcium Hydroxide comparison: Climate Change.

 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033 1029

Fig. 3. Sodium Hydroxide and Calcium Hydroxide comparison: Water Depletion.

Fig. 4. Sodium Hydroxide and Calcium Hydroxide comparison: Fossil Depletion.

transporting and disposing it are generally the most important and
highest costs in managing a WWTP. The second problem is that it
has the tendency of easily creating calcifications along the pipelines
of the WWTP, resulting in clogged pipes and ruined pumps. Thirdly,
due to its low solubility, it could create a problem in controlling its
dosage into the WW.
In addition to treatment effectiveness, technical considerations
and environmental effects, economic cost is certainly among the
most important factors that must be taken into consideration, in
selecting the most appropriate coagulant and pH agent. Therefore,
a cost analysis has been performed, in order to understand the
economic consequences of the chemical agent choice. Since,
currently, there is not an international nor a European market price
index for the cost of the chemicals used in wastewater, the
years of this study). These costs are representative of the Italian
market price of the time during this study and are reported in
Table 9.
Fig. 5 shows the trend of the cumulative costs over the 36
months considered in this study, for the two different coagulants. In
the end, WWTP management spent a total of 52 270 euro for the
use of PAC. If using the ferric chloride, the cost would have been
55 257 euro to obtain the same treatment results, which means
Table 9
Coagulants and pH agents cost.
Product Cost (euro/kg)

following analysis has taken in consideration the costs that the PAC 0,250
WWTP management company has reported as final costs in their Ferric chloride 0,185
Sodium hydroxide 0,260
financial statement of the WWTP activity (for the considered three
Calcium hydroxide 0,115
1030 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033

Fig. 5. Cumulative cost comparison - coagulants.

Fig. 6. Cumulative cost comparison e pH agents.

approximately 3000 euro higher. PAC is more expensive than ferric
chloride per kg of mass unit, however, in this case, requiring lower
dosages, it has shown to be a more convenient solution than ferric
chloride. PAC has confirmed to be a better coagulant choice in terms
of technical issues, environmental impacts and cost.
Fig. 6 shows the trend of the cumulative costs over the 36
months considered in this study, for the two different pH agents. In
this case, by using calcium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide,
the WWTP management could have saved approximately 24 000
euro. Calcium hydroxide is less expensive than sodium hydroxide
per kg of mass unit, and it also requires lower dosages. Calcium
hydroxide has confirmed to be a better pH agent choice in terms of
environmental impacts and cost. However, it needs to be assessed
also considering its technical issues related to its sludge production
that must be dewatered and disposed (considerably increasing also
the WWTP management costs).
In conclusion, considering the positive environmental results of
the PAC and, at the same time, the technical issues of the ferric
chloride use in a WWTP, whenever possible, a substitution of PAC to
ferric chloride is recommended. Considering also, the impressive
positive environmental results of the calcium hydroxide and, at the
same time, the technical issues of its use in a WWTP, additional
research would be recommended in order to confirm the positive
LCA results and to study new engineering solutions for its use in a
WWTP.
 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033 1031

Table A1
the inputs monthly consumption related to the amount of treated landfill leachate.

N. Sampling date Treated landfill leachate (metric ton) Consumption

Coagulant PAC (kg) Sodium Hydroxide (kg) Water (m3) Flocculant (kg) Electricity (kWh)

1 July 2013 1538.32 3325.77 1840.05 52.23 158.58 3373.57

2 August 2013 1987.57 4343.93 2413.39 102.92 194.74 4120.03
3 September 2013 1656.27 3668.67 2043.37 105.94 156.04 3216.76
4 October 2013 2147.82 4762.62 2650.88 137.95 199.62 4020.36
5 November 2013 2211.27 4771.43 2634.70 70.91 214.96 4546.52
6 December 2013 3074.19 6678.11 3705.48 127.91 304.52 6462.51
7 January 2014 3208.63 7058.30 3934.24 180.76 346.91 7370.68
8 February 2014 3352.41 7303.60 4041.30 141.88 306.24 6117.69
9 March 2014 3299.67 7192.27 3980.27 144.84 372.72 7897.58
10 April 2014 3149.50 6828.31 3784.41 118.56 338.47 6954.60
11 May 2014 3471.52 7521.44 4158.54 128.60 344.83 7312.56
12 June 2014 1798.71 3890.50 2152.85 61.57 183.61 3884.61
13 July 2014 1948.25 4297.99 2399.12 119.28 221.29 4683.54
14 August 2014 1553.51 3343.22 1849.55 44.46 153.01 3229.16
15 September 2014 2095.38 4538.20 2508.50 74.01 196.58 4067.13
16 October 2014 1348.34 2953.53 1639.44 74.40 147.75 3117.87
17 November 2014 1428.95 3095.02 1711.42 52.02 153.64 3268.65
18 December 2014 2702.41 5902.60 3279.61 137.44 253.47 5210.69
19 January 2015 2510.51 5443.72 3018.17 99.37 240.82 5005.76
20 February 2015 3477.84 7531.34 4163.47 121.06 339.26 7175.54
21 March 2015 3971.72 8612.09 4773.60 153.10 437.01 9247.06
22 April 2015 3611.27 7914.62 4391.22 201.34 342.50 7127.16
23 May 2015 3082.53 6785.04 3787.30 178.41 325.19 6776.75
24 June 2015 2531.94 5464.49 3020.03 81.76 257.35 5393.30
25 July 2015 1692.42 3710.12 2062.73 95.05 192.43 4154.63
26 August 2015 1716.19 3742.15 2071.05 77.40 193.07 4099.03
27 September 2015 1878.88 4158.61 2314.24 116.73 220.33 4751.67
28 October 2015 3645.43 8087.69 4511.03 243.25 370.41 7744.86
29 November 2015 2200.37 4778.70 2649.93 91.04 213.59 4418.19
30 December 2015 3024.95 6619.43 3673.64 162.95 302.22 6394.89
31 January 2016 2236.32 4879.91 2702.88 110.29 206.67 4137.05
32 February 2016 3302.47 7120.09 3932.70 96.02 358.94 7630.61
33 March 2016 4037.24 8801.64 4871.43 179.37 375.82 7611.40
34 April 2016 3313.45 7338.09 4084.15 209.34 314.14 6481.92
35 May 2016 4006.06 8696.22 4817.11 162.92 462.25 9937.45
36 June 2016 3632.03 7920.45 4388.21 175.32 354.84 7519.91

Table A2
the specific inputs monthly consumption referred to 1 single metric ton of treated leachate.

N. Sampling date Specific consumption referred to 1 metric ton of treated landfill leachate

Coagulant PAC (kg) Sodium Hydroxide (kg) Water (m3) Flocculant (kg) Electricity (kWh)

1 July 2013 2.162 1.196 0.034 0.103 2.193

2 August 2013 2.186 1.214 0.052 0.098 2.073
3 September 2013 2.215 1.234 0.064 0.094 1.942
4 October 2013 2.217 1.234 0.064 0.093 1.872
5 November 2013 2.158 1.191 0.032 0.097 2.056
6 December 2013 2.172 1.205 0.042 0.099 2.102
7 January 2014 2.200 1.226 0.056 0.108 2.297
8 February 2014 2.179 1.205 0.042 0.091 1.825
9 March 2014 2.180 1.206 0.044 0.113 2.393
10 April 2014 2.168 1.202 0.038 0.107 2.208
11 May 2014 2.167 1.198 0.037 0.099 2.106
12 June 2014 2.163 1.197 0.034 0.102 2.160
13 July 2014 2.206 1.231 0.061 0.114 2.404
14 August 2014 2.152 1.191 0.029 0.098 2.079
15 September 2014 2.166 1.197 0.035 0.094 1.941
16 October 2014 2.190 1.216 0.055 0.110 2.312
17 November 2014 2.166 1.198 0.036 0.108 2.287
18 December 2014 2.184 1.214 0.051 0.094 1.928
19 January 2015 2.168 1.202 0.040 0.096 1.994
20 February 2015 2.166 1.197 0.035 0.098 2.063
21 March 2015 2.168 1.202 0.039 0.110 2.328
22 April 2015 2.192 1.216 0.056 0.095 1.974
23 May 2015 2.201 1.229 0.058 0.105 2.198
24 June 2015 2.158 1.193 0.032 0.102 2.130
25 July 2015 2.192 1.219 0.056 0.114 2.455
26 August 2015 2.180 1.207 0.045 0.113 2.388
27 September 2015 2.213 1.232 0.062 0.117 2.529
(continued on next page)
1032 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033

Table A2 (continued )

N. Sampling date Specific consumption referred to 1 metric ton of treated landfill leachate

Coagulant PAC (kg) Sodium Hydroxide (kg) Water (m3) Flocculant (kg) Electricity (kWh)

28 October 2015 2.219 1.237 0.067 0.102 2.125

29 November 2015 2.172 1.204 0.041 0.097 2.008
30 December 2015 2.188 1.214 0.054 0.100 2.114
31 January 2016 2.182 1.209 0.049 0.092 1.850
32 February 2016 2.156 1.191 0.029 0.109 2.311
33 March 2016 2.180 1.207 0.044 0.093 1.885
34 April 2016 2.215 1.233 0.063 0.095 1.956
35 May 2016 2.171 1.202 0.041 0.115 2.481
36 June 2016 2.181 1.208 0.048 0.098 2.070

Table A3
the average input consumption values, calculated as mean values over the 36 sets of input consumptions presented in Table A2.

Specific consumption referred to 1 metric ton of treated landfill leachate

Coagulant PAC (kg) Sodium Hydroxide (kg) Water (m3) Flocculant (kg) Electricity (kWh)

Mean value 2.181 1.210 0.046 0.102 2.140

Principles and Framework. International Standards Organization, Geneva.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the company and its managers
that have provided the essential data and information for the
accomplishment of this research. In particular, our sincere gratitude
to Dr. Kathleen Pucci and Ms. Nicole Hesslink whose collaboration
was of great value, to Ms. Graziella Pagliaretta and Mr. Andrea De
Angelis for their support. We also thank the editor and the anon-
ymous reviewers for their constructive comments that led to this
improved version.
References
Amor, C., Torres-Socías, E. De, Peres, J.A., Maldonado, M.I., Oller, I., Malato, S.,
Lucas, M.S., 2015. Mature landfill leachate treatment by coagulation/flocculation
combined with Fenton and solar photo-Fenton processes. J. Hazard Mater. 286,
261e268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.036.
Bratby, J., 2016. Coagulation and flocculation in water and wastewater treatment.
Water 2nd 538. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780402321.
Brennan, R.B., Healy, M.G., Morrison, L., Hynes, S., Norton, D., Clifford, E., 2016.
Management of landfill leachate: the legacy of European union directives.
Waste Manag. 55, 355e363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.010.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A.,
2013a. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art.
Water Res. 47, 5480e5492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.049.
Corominas, L., Larsen, H.F., Flores-Alsina, X., Vanrolleghem, P.A., 2013b. Including
Life Cycle Assessment for decision-making in controlling wastewater nutrient
removal systems. J. Environ. Manag. 128, 759e767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.06.002.
Council of the European Union, 1991. Council directive of 21 May 1991 concerning
Urban Waste Water Treatment (91/271/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Commun. L 34, 1e16.
Damgaard, A., Manfredi, S., Merrild, H., Stensøe, S., Christensen, T.H., 2011. LCA and
economic evaluation of landfill leachate and gas technologies. Waste Manag. 31,
1532e1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.027.
Paul Scherrer Institut, Emmenegger, M.F., Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Tuchsmid,
M., ESU-services Ltd Dones, R., Bauer, C., Bolliger, R., Burger, B., Heck, T.,
Ro€ der, A., 2007. Life Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems: Results for Current
Systems in Switzerland and Other UCTE Countries, Ecoinvent report. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0838-7.
Emmerson, R.H.C., Morse, G.K., Lester, J.N., Edge, D.R., 1995. The life-cycle analysis of
small-scale sewage treatment processes. Water Environ. J. 9, 317e325. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.1995.tb00945.x.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., Van Zelm, R.,
2009. ReCiPe 2008, Potentials. https://doi.org/10.029/2003JD004283.
Hospido, A., Carballa, M., Moreira, M., Omil, F., Lema, J.M., Feijoo, G., 2010. Envi-
ronmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture:
potential impacts of emerging micropollutants. Water Res. 44, 3225e3233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.03.004.
Huo, S., Xi, B., Yu, H., He, L., Fan, S., Liu, H., 2008. Characteristics of dissolved organic
matter (DOM) in leachate with different landfill ages. J. Environ. Sci. 20,
492e498. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62085-9.
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040:2006eEnvironmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044:2006-environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -
Requirements and Guidelines (Geneva, Switzerland).
Klinck, B.A., Stuart, M.E., 1999. Human Health Risk in Relation to Landfill Leachate
Quality. British Geological Survey. Technical report WC/99/17.
Kulikowska, D., Klimiuk, E., 2008. The effect of landfill age on municipal leachate
composition. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 5981e5985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2007.10.015.
Lopez, A., Di Iaconi, C., Mascolo, G., Pollice, A., 2011. Innovative and Integrated
Technologies for the Treatment of Industrial Wastewater. IWA Publishing.
Lutterbeck, C.A., Kist, L.T., Lopez, D.R., Zerwes, F.V., Machado, E.L., 2017. Life cycle
assessment of integrated wastewater treatment systems with constructed
wetlands in rural areas. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 527e536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.02.024.
n, H., Vrecko, D., Vilanova, R., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment as
Meneses, M., Concepcio
an environmental evaluation tool for control strategies in wastewater treat-
ment plants. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 653e661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.
05.057.
Metcalf, E., Eddy, H., Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2003. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0309-1708(80) 90067e6.
Müller, G.T., Giacobbo, A., dos Santos Chiaramonte, E.A., Rodrigues, M.A.S.,
Meneguzzi, A., Bernardes, A.M., 2015. The effect of sanitary landfill leachate
aging on the biological treatment and assessment of photoelectrooxidation as a
pre-treatment process. Waste Manag. 36, 177e183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.10.024.
Mun ~ oz, I., Rodriguez, A., Rosal, R., Ferna
ndez-Alba, A.R., 2009. Life Cycle Assessment
of urban wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treatment. A focus on
toxicity-related impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 1245e1256. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.029.
Postacchini, L., Lamichhane, K.M., Furukawa, D., Babcock, R.W., Ciarapica, F.E.,
Cooney, M.J., 2016. Life cycle assessment comparison of activated sludge,
trickling filter, and high-rate anaerobic-aerobic digestion (HRAAD). Water Sci.
Technol. 73, 2353e2360. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.087.
Renou, S., Thomas, J.S., Aoustin, E., Pons, M.N., 2008. Influence of impact assessment
methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1098e1105. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.003.
Regadío, M., Ruiz, A.I., de Soto, I.S., Rodriguez Rastrero, M., Sa nchez, N.,
Gismera, M.J., Sevilla, M.T., da Silva, P., Rodríguez Procopio, J., Cuevas, J., 2012.
Pollution profiles and physicochemical parameters in old uncontrolled landfills.
Waste Manag. 32, 482e497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.008.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Molinos-Senante, M., Hospido, A., Hern andez-Sancho, F.,
Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2011. Environmental and economic profile of six ty-
pologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Res. 45, 5997e6010. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.053.
Tangsubkul, N., Beavis, P., Moore, S.J., Lundie, S., Waite, T.D., 2005. Life cycle
assessment of water recycling technology. Water Resour. Manag. 19, 521e537.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-005-5602-0.
Teodosiu, C., Barjoveanu, G., Sluser, B.R., Popa, S.A.E., Trofin, O., 2016. Environmental
assessment of municipal wastewater discharges: a comparative study of eval-
uation methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 395e411. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-016-1029-5.
Turner, D.A., Beaven, R.P., Woodman, N.D., 2017. Evaluating landfill aftercare stra-
tegies: a life cycle assessment approach. Waste Manag. 63, 417e431. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.005.
Vlasopoulos, N., Memon, F.A., Butler, D., Murphy, R., 2006. Life cycle assessment of
wastewater treatment technologies treating petroleum process waters. Sci.
Total Environ. 367, 58e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.03.007.
 L. Postacchini et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1021e1033 1033

Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21, 1218e1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
Xing, W., Lu, W., Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Deng, W., Christensen, T.H., 2013. Environ-
mental impact assessment of leachate recirculation in landfill of municipal solid
waste by comparing with evaporation and discharge (EASEWASTE). Waste
Manag. 33, 382e389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.10.017.
Zhang, Z., 2000. Life-cycle assessment of a sewage-treatment plant in South-East
Asia. Water Environ. J. 14, 51e56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2000.
tb00226.x.