Environmental Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS
by Thi Kieu Loan Nguyen
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for

the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
under the supervision of

Prof. Huu Hao Ngo, Prof. Wenshan Guo, and Dr. Vinh Tien
Nguyen
University of Technology Sydney

Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
July, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
I, Thi Kieu Loan Nguyen, declare that this thesis, is submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology at the
University Technology Sydney.
This thesis is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. In
addition, I certified that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the
thesis.
This document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic
institution.
This research is supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program.
Production Note:
Signature: Signature removed prior to publication.
Date: 11/7/2021
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincerest
gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Huu Hao Ngo, Prof. Wenshan Guo, and Dr. Vinh Tien
Nguyen. Without their dedicated guidance and continuous support, this thesis would not
have been accomplished. My most profound appreciation and heartfelt thanks go to my
principal supervisor, Prof. Huu Hao Ngo. He was the one who guides me, help me in
my Ph.D. journey with his insightful vision, invaluable advice, and endless support. He
has spending hours suggesting my directions, revise my journal papers and my thesis.
His noble personality and positive energy deeply impressed me. Not only being a
supervisor, but he is also an understandable friend. His endless help and warm
encouragement took me to overcome the difficulties in academics and stress in my life.
Influenced by his optimism, I was confident enough to face the troubles then enjoy my
Ph.D. student’s life. I am also deeply grateful for my co-supervisor, Prof. Wenshan Guo
and Dr. Vinh Tien Nguyen, whose constructive comments and inspirations were
essential to completing my thesis.
I would like to acknowledge the Vietnam International Education Development (VIED)
for awarding me the 911 scholarship and the University of Technology Sydney (UTS)
for providing me the International Research Scholarship.
My special thanks also to Thuy Nguyen Hong Le for lending me SimaPro software,
making my research more valuable and precise. I am thankful to the academic and
administrative staff from the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology and
the Graduate Research School of UTS, and Hanoi Architectural University. During my
student years at UTS, I was fortunate to meet my excellent groupmates, including Dora,
Khan, Jerry, and Phong, who share their interests and experiences. My warm thanks are
ii
for my friends, Lan Uong, Hang Do, Allie Nguyen, Quyen Nguyen, Thuy Nguyen, An
Le, who have been sharing the joy and sorrow with me.
Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my family, who are the
most ardent supporters of my study. My parents made phone calls every week to
encourage me, gave me unconditional sacrifice. My husband stayed side by my side,
providing me unfailing support. They are my love, my strength, and my motivation in
my life. My last but not least words are for my kids, Sally and Mark, who have been
accompanying me since I first came to Australia. This thesis is dedicated to my family
and my two little sweeties.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ....................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................... iix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................... xii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1. OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.1. RESEARCH SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 1-4
1.2. RESEARCH NOVELTY AND SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................... 1-5
1.3. THESIS STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 1-5
Chapter 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.2. GHG EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER SECTOR ....................................................... 2-3
2.3. DIRECT EMISSIONS FROM AAO TREATMENT PROCESS ............................. ……. 2-9
2.3.1. Methane emissions ........................................................................................................ 2-10
2.3.2. Carbon dioxide .............................................................................................................. 2-12
2.3.3. Nitrous oxide ................................................................................................................. 2-14
2.4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM SBR PROCESS ....................................................................... 2-16
2.4.1. Methane emission .......................................................................................................... 2-17
2.4.2. Carbon dioxide .............................................................................................................. 2-18
2.4.3. Nitrous oxide ................................................................................................................. 2-19
2.5. GHG EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION METHODS........................................................ 2-22
2.5.1. Direct measurement ...................................................................................................... 2-22
2.5.2. Guideline tool ................................................................................................................ 2-24
2.5.3. Modelling tool ............................................................................................................... 2-30
2.6. CHALLENGES IN QUANTIFYING GHG EMISSIONS FROM TREATMENT PROCESS
.................................................................................................................................................... 2-33
2.7. ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FOR WWTP......................................... 2-37
2.7.1. The current use of LCA applications to WWTP .......................................................... 2-37
2.7.2. Integration of LCA and GHG quantification method .................................................2-477
2.8. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 2-50
Chapter 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT METHOD .......................................................... 3-2
3.2.1. Goal and scope definition................................................................................................ 3-2
iv
3.2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis ......................................................................................... 3-33
3.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment ........................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.4. Improvement analysis and interpretation ...................................................................... 3-6
3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT METHODS AND CATEGORIES ..................................... 3-7
3.3.1. EDP 2018 ......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.2. ReCiPe 2016 .................................................................................................................. 3-77
3.4. ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE .............................................................................................. 3-10
Chapter 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
CONTRIBUTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .... 4-1
4.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.1. Life cycle assessment ....................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.2. Case study description .................................................................................................... 4-8
4.2.3. Environmental burdens caused by construction reported in the literature ................. 4-8
4.3. RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... ....4-13
4.3.1. Environmental impacts of Girona WWTP’s construction .............................................4-13
4.3.2. Contribution of construction at Mill Creek WWTP ...................................................... 4-8

4.4. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.4.1. Influence of materials to impact categories .................................................................. 4-19
4.4.2. Reinforcing steel, concrete, and their environmental impacts ..................................... 4-21
4.4.3. The impact of individual treatment unit on the construction phase ............................ 4-23
4.5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 4-24
Chapter 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1
ANALYSING THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CUMULATIVE ENERGY
DEMAND BASED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.2.1. Goal and scope ................................................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.2. Life cycle inventory ......................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.1. Environmental impacts assessment for the operation phase ........................................ 5-10
5.3.2. GHG Protocol assessment ............................................................................................. 5-15
5.3.3. Cumulative energy demand analysis ............................................................................ 5-16
5.3.4. Uncertainty analysis...................................................................................................... 5-17
5.4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 5-18
Chapter 6 .......................................................................................................................................... 6-1
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FROM THE COMMON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ....................... 6-1
6.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 6-2
v
6.2.1. Case study description .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.2. Life cycle assessment ....................................................................................................... 6-5
6.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................... 6-9
6.3.1. Contribution of construction and operation phases to environmental problems .......... 6-9
6.3.2. Environmental impacts and GHG assessment for conventional and nature-based
WWTPs .................................................................................................................................. 6-15
6.4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 6-21
Chapter 7 .......................................................................................................................................... 7-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT FOR
ENERGY RECOVERY AND MATERIAL RECYCLE ................................................................. 7-1
7.1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 7-2
7.2.1. Recycle waste from construction demolitions activities ................................................. 7-5
7.2.3. Life cycle assessment (LCA) ......................................................................................... 7-10
7.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................................... 7-15
7.3.1. Building materials recycling and environmental impacts ................................................ 7-15
7.3.2. Environmental analysis for biogas utilization .............................................................. 7-19
7.4. INTERPRETATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................... 7-21
7.4.1. Recycling – advantages and limitations ........................................................................ 7-21
7.4.2. Energy recovery and GHG emissions mitigation ......................................................... 7-23
7.5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 7-25
Chapter 8 .......................................................................................................................................... 8-1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 8-1
8.1. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 8-6
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. R-1
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. A-1
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Methane emitted from each zone. Source (Liu et al., 2014; Wang 2-11
et al., 2011)
Table 2.2 CO2 emissions from each unit in the AAO treatment process, 2-13
source (Bao et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2014)
Table 2.3 N2O emission in AAO process, source (Ren et al., 2013; Sun et 2-15
al., 2013a; Yan et al., 2014)
Table 2.4 N2O emitted from each zone in SBR process, source (Bao et al., 2-21
2016; Sun et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2013a)
Table 2.5 Reviewed studies on the influence of DO, aeration efficiency and 2-35
dissolved GHGs on GHGEs
Table 2.6 Articles included in the review and main characteristics 2-39
Table 4.1 Summary of inventory for Girona WWTP 4-6
Table 4.2 Inventory for Mill Creek WWTP 4-6
Table 4.3 Characteristic of the case studies WWTPs 4-8
Table 4.4 Summary of LCA studies concerning the construction phase 4-16
since 2015
Table 4.5 Reinforcing steel and concrete used for construction per 4-22
functional unit (FU)
Table 4.6 Material usage in the primary and secondary treatment units 4-23
Table 5.1 Summary of the energy consumption in the case study 5-6
Table 5.2 Data inventory for case study WWTP, obtained from research of 5-8
Morera et al. (2017)
vii
Table 5.3 The proportion of the operation phase to the entire environmental 5-14
impacts of the WWTP
Table 5.4 Component of GHG emissions from the treatment process 5-15
Table 5.5 Uncertainty analysis for data inventory per impact category 5-17
Table 6.1 Case study systems description 6-5
Table 6.2 Data inventory for each case study 6-6
Table 6.3 Damage assessment at endpoint level of the case studies 6-16
Table 6.4 Uncertainty analysis for CW and HRAP 6-19
Table 7.1 CDW disposal methods 7-10
Table 7.2 Bekkelaget WWTP characteristic 7-11
Table 7.3 The summary of construction data inventory for plant 1 7-13
Table 7.4 Data inventory for operation phase recover pathways in Plant 2 7-13
Table 7.5 Influence of production variation 7-24
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Global Methane Emission by sectors in 2012 2-5
Figure 2.2 Total global N2O emission and N2O emission from domestic 2-6
wastewater
Figure 2.3 Global sewage CO2 production 2-7
Figure 2.4 Methane emitted from different units in the SRB process 2-18
Figure 2.5 Influences of processes condition to GHGEs 2-35
Figure 2.6 The advantages of using LCA in WWTPs 2-37
Figure 2.7 Level of LCA coverage in 25 reviewed papers 2-47
Figure 3.1 The connection between data inventories, midpoint, and 3-9
endpoint indicators
Figure 4.1 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) using EPD 2018 4-9
indicators for Girona WWTP
Figure 4.2 LCIA using ReCiPe 2016 indicators 4-10
Figure 4.3 LCIA using ReCiPe 2016 for a single unit in the construction of 4-11
the Girona WWTP
Figure 4.4 ReCiPe method for construction material in Mill Creek WWTP 4-12
Figure 4.5 Contribution of the individual treatment unit 4-13
Figure 4.6 ReCiPe’s weighted endpoint damage categories for case studies 4-14
Figure 4.7 Diesel’s impacts in our study and that by Morera et al. (2020). 4-20
Figure 5.1 The environmental impacts of the operation phase 5-11
Figure 5.2 The proportion of troubles cause by WWTP through damage 5-12
assessment
Figure 5.3 The percentage of trouble caused by materials through damage 5-13
assessment
ix
Figure 5.4 The proportion of energy type utilized in treatment processes 5-16
Figure 6.1 (A) LCIA for AS; (B) LCIA for CW; (C) LCIA for HRAP 6-10
Figure 6.2 Proportion of problems caused by construction and operation 6-14
Figure 6.3 Indicators corresponding to three areas of protection 6-18
Figure 6.4 GHG emissions evaluation using the GHG Protocol method 6-29
Figure 7.1 The proportion of recycled concrete and steel in some countries 7-7
Figure 7.2 LCIA for C+D in plant 1 – case B 7-17
Figure 7.3 GHG emissions and damage assessment 7-18
Figure 7.4 GHG emissions from biogas conversion methods 7-19
Figure 7.5 Environmental impact analysis for six scenarios 7-20
Figure 7.6 Uncertainty analysis for Case D 7-22
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
WWTPs Wastewater Treatment Plants
MWWTPs Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
GHG Greenhouse Gas
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
TN Total Nitrogen
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
DO Dissolved Oxygen
SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
AAO Anaerobic Anoxic Oxic
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
GWP Global Warming Potentials
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal
ASM Activated Sludge Model
BSM Benchmark Simulation
BSM2G Benchmark Simulation no.2 Gas
PAOs Phosphorus Accumulating Organisms
ICA Instrumentation, Control and Automation
CH4 Methane
N2O Nitrous oxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
xi
HH Human health
TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity
PE Population equivalent
CO2 eq Carbon dioxide equivalent
Mg Milligram
T Ton
m3 Cubic meter
D Day
Yr Year
PM Particular matter
I Individualist
H Hierarchist
E Egalitarian
DALYs Disability adjusted life years
xii
Ph.D. DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
Author: Thi Kieu Loan Nguyen
Thesis title: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS
Faculty: Faculty of Environmental and Information Technology
School: Civil and Environmental Engineering
Supervisors: Prof. Huu Hao Ngo (Principal supervisor)
Prof. Wenshan Guo (Co-supervisor)
Dr. Tien Vinh Nguyen (Co-supervisor)
ABSTRACT
Due to the impact of methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide on global warming, the
quantity of these greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from municipal wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) has attracted more and more attentions. For decades, there
has been a strong interest in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The amount of GHG emitted depends on the
influent and effluent characteristics, type of energy, and operation condition. Numerous
tools have been developed to measure the emissions and propose the quantification,
while Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) assesses the potential environmental impacts.
However, the current knowledge for suggesting proper strategies towards sustainable
development for WWTP is still limited due to the complex situation.
This thesis investigated the environmental issues concerning the construction, operation,
and demolition phases of the WWTP. Production and end-of-life solution activities for
material, chemicals, energy, and all treatment processes were considered for the
xiii
research. Detailed data inventories for various type of wastewater treatment systems,
consists of natural-based and activated-based, were collected for calculation. ReCiPe
2016, EPD 2018, and TRACI life cycle impact assessment methods were employed via
SimaPro 9.1 to measure all impact categories at both midpoint and endpoint levels. Two
single-issue approaches, including Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Cumulative Energy
Demand, were applied to support the results ensuring the hypotheses.
The uncertainty analyses presented the accuracy of data, which significantly
influenced the outcomes of the LCA. Obtaining information from other studies or using
representative data from a single unit led to imprecision results. Therefore, the inclusion
of construction and demolition phases in the assessment is vital. Moreover, results show
that 12.8% of the total impacts were generated by construction and destruction
activities. Their consequences on ozone depletion were 34%. The main contributors for
the construction and demolition stage are concrete and reinforcing steel, while
electricity and sludge are responsible for operation phase problems. It was found that
operation period creates the most significant burdens and GHG emissions due to 90% of
consumed energy are non-renewable fossil type.
Regarding the benefit of nature and GHG emissions mitigation, materials recycling and
different biogas conversion techniques are considered. The thesis concludes that 100%
of recycled concrete and metal could reduce 4 ktons of CO2 equivalent. The method of
producing electricity and heat from biogas for internal utilization becomes the most
optimistic when being avoided 115 g of CO2 per m3 of wastewater.
xiv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1. OVERVIEW
Increasing the quantity of wastewater leads to either escalating the environmental
troubles and exhausting the water resources. Wastewater generated from different
sources shows varying characteristics. Municipal wastewater's component consists of
water, the concentration of suspended, dissolved organics, and inorganic solids (Mateo-
Sagasta et al., 2013). Improperly treated wastewater leads to water contamination and
destroys the ecosystem. The quality of effluent should be ensured before discharging to
limit climate change's effects and protect the aquatic environment.
Wastewater treatment is a process where contaminants are removed from wastewater
via physical and chemical activities in a wastewater treatment system (WWTS). The
quality of treated wastewater is defined through a set of pollutant concentrations.
WWTS, including wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and natural wastewater
systems, consumes chemicals and energy to ensure the effluent's quality is acceptable
for end-of-life purposes (Nguyen et al., 2019). Therefore, WWTS itself is considered a
source of environmental trouble and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which
contributes to climate change.
GHG emissions from WWTP consist of CH4, CO2, and N2O under direct and indirect
elements. The generation of the former type relates to biological treatment activities,
while the latter is the result of energy consumption (Nguyen et al., 2019). GHG emits
from WWTS were estimated to be 5% of global GHG emissions (Nghiem et al., 2017).
N2O produced from wastewater handling account for 26% of the total GHG emissions
of the water sector (Hass, 2018). The rising volume of wastewater resulted in increasing
GHG emitted from WWTP. Numbers of strategies to control GHG emissions were
2
proposed. However, difficulties in GHG measurement limit the efficiency of the
existing strategy.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an environmental management tool that can investigate
a system throughout its whole lifetime while preventing transferring troubles among
places (Nguyen et al., 2020d). Besides identifying the potential impacts, LCA can be
used to compare different processes or products to determine the most beneficial one.
The results are presented in a set of environmental impact categories and can be further
integrated to measure consequences on human health, resources, and the ecosystem
(Nguyen et al., 2021). LCA has first applied in the wastewater area thirty years ago and
is employed in massive research (Sabeen et al., 2018). However, the gap across the
studies due to confliction in assumption and variation approach causes struggling when
synthesizing the results (Corominas et al., 2020b). Furthermore, GHG emissions in
conducting LCA are necessary to capture both the WWTP's performance and entire
environmental impacts (Nguyen et al., 2020d).
There are several methods to minimize GHG emissions, including (1) improvement of
the operation condition, (2) application of new treatment technology, and (3) capturing
and handling the gas stream (Campos et al., 2016). In considering environmental and
economic aspects, GHG collection and conversion option receives high interest from
global researchers. Captured biogas can be utilized for internal purposes as an
alternative renewable energy source or offsite usage as fuel substitution (Nguyen et al.,
2021). GHG is generated from all phases of WWTP's lifespan, such as construction,
operation, and demolition. Mitigation of GHG from each stage helps to reduce total
GHG emissions from the whole plant. Metal, plastic, and paper recycling is a standard
material treatment method. However, profit from concrete reprocessing is still limited.
Energy recovery and materials recycling are proved to reduce WWTP's GHG emissions
3
and environmental problems (Nguyen et al., 2021). Consequently, the end-of-life
handling method also influences WWTP's troubles and volume of emissions. In
addition, the recovery process can compensate for the risks caused by construction
activities.
1.1. RESEARCH SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
This thesis focuses on analyzing environmental impacts and GHG emissions from the
life cycle of WWTPs through multiple quantitative evaluations. The research has the
potential for the application of resource recovery and material recovery. The concept
could be applied for the sustainable development of WWTS. The data statistic and
analysis method have direct influences on the assessment outcome in configuration
selection or in developing the policy and/or strategies. This can guarantee the
environmental function of the WWTP through the total performance. The findings of
this thesis are expected to be beneficial to a wide range of stakeholders such as
scientists, government authorities, wastewater treatment plant operators, and the
community.
The research objectives were structured in a logical sequence and consist of the
followings:
• To critically review the existing situation in GHG emissions and environmental
consequences from WWTP for the holistic evaluation;
• To identify the research gap and opportunities in GHG emissions management;
• To define the efficiency evaluation framework and integration methodology for
WWTP total assessment;
• To conduct LCA quantitative analysis and explore the role of materials and single
process to WWTP total impacts;
4
• To investigate the relationship of GHG emissions, energy consumption, and
environmental troubles of WWTS via LCA application;
• To exam the benefit on nature and GHG reduction of several WWTSs; and
• To propose end uses for waste materials and GHG emissions from WWTP.
1.2. RESEARCH NOVELTY AND SIGNIFICANCE
This research provides evidence for the inclusion of GHG emissions measurement when
analyzing the total environmental impacts of the WWTPs. The influences of data
quality and quantity on the research outcomes are proved through multiple analytical
assessments and uncertainty analyses. The results are integrated into single-score
values, which are easy to understand and compare between systems. The benefit of
concrete recycling for WWTP is calculated for the first time. This research also presents
several options for resource recovery with their benefits and drawbacks, which are
significant and valuable for future research. SimaPro 9.1, the most recent version of the
software with the comprehensive database, was employed to ensure the accuracy of the
results.
1.3. THESIS STRUCTURE
The thesis comprises eight chapters and formulates as follows: Besides the Introduction
in Chapter 1, Chapters 2 – 7 finalize the thesis objectives. Finally, chapter 8 presents the
conclusions on environmental impacts and GHG emissions regarding quantification and
mitigation methodologies.
Chapter 1 describes the existing situation and issues concerning GHG emissions and
the environmental impacts of WWTS. The research objectives and scope are presented
afterward.
5
Chapter 2 presents the importance of the inclusion of GHG emissions analysis in life
cycle assessment for WWTP. It also demonstrates a critical review of GHG estimation
methods; each method's advantages and drawbacks are discussed here. The current
application of LCA in measuring environmental impacts is included in this chapter.
Chapter 3 demonstrates the research methodologies on GHG measurement and impacts
categories for LCA. The environmental mechanism of each method and its eco
indicators are exhibited here.
Chapter 4 analyses the environmental impacts of the construction phase and its
proportion to the total troubles. Moreover, the influence of different materials on nature
was investigated in this chapter.
Chapter 5 explores the consequences of the operation phase to the environment. GHG
emissions and cumulative energy demand assessments are conducted for the wastewater
line and sludge line to support the results.
Chapter 6 discovers the environmental impacts and GHG emissions from conventional
WWTP and two nature-based WWTSs, including constructed wetland and a high rate
algal pond. Again, the single score method was employed to integrate the results for a
better comparison.
Chapter 7 identifies the potential for GHG reduction by materials recycling and energy
recovery methods. Again, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were calculated for
accuracy assessment.
Chapter 8 summarizes the results, statements, and conclusions of the thesis, then
proposes the recommendations for future research.
6
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2-1
2.1. INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment plants are important systems in the water treatment sector
because they ensure the quality of the aquatic environment. However, under various
treatment processes, given their usage of chemicals and energy, greenhouse gas is
produced and emitted from wastewater treatment plants. The quantity of these
emissions is increasing and been reported in the Global Atlas of the three major types of
greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970-2012 (Janssens-Maenhout et al., 2017a).
Therefore, wastewater treatment plants do contribute to global warming. GHG
emissions become the key factor when evaluating the overall performance of a WWTP.
The inclusion of GHG emissions is an additional criterion when evaluating control
strategies in a WWTP, offering a better idea about their overall sustainability (Flores-
Alsina et al., 2014). Quantifying GHG emissions originating from WWTPs has its
challenges. For example, carbon dioxide, which makes up the largest part of the total
GHG from WWTPs, is usually neglected in reports (Schneider et al., 2015). Numerous
papers focus on GHG emissions from the biological treatment process. However, very
few studies were conducted to investigate the factors influencing overall emissions of
carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. The results vary across the different studies,
which vary in terms of influent concentration, process method and measurement
technology. The conflicts between reports are essentially due to underestimation,
especially for nitrous oxide the most significant GHG. In recent years, various methods
of quantification and measurement have been proposed in order to increase the available
data and literature on GHG emissions. It is also pointed out that our incomplete
knowledge of GHG production influences the output results. The direct measuring
methods have certain uncertainties and limitations due to the variability of the influent,
complexity of treatment process, operational time and different standard evaluation
2-2
criteria. There is a need for developing new tools to estimate and evaluate GHG
emissions from different processes that prevent or mitigate their generation in WWTPs
(Flores-Alsina et al., 2011).
In this chapter, situation of GHG emissions from WTTP and measurement methods are
critically reviewed. The current application of life cycle environmental assessments are
also discussed to support for inclusion of GHG emission estimation when analysing the
total trouble of the WWTP.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem,
L.D., Liu, Y., Ni, B.J. & Hai, F.I. 2019, 'Insight into greenhouse gases
emissions from the two popular treatment technologies in municipal
wastewater treatment processes', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 671,
pp. 1302-13.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem,
L.D. & Nguyen, T.V. 2020b, 'A critical review on life cycle assessment and
plant-wide models towards emission control strategies for greenhouse gas from
wastewater treatment plants', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 264,
p. 110440.
2.2. GHG EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER SECTOR
Many recent studies have revealed that wastewater sanitation operations are related to
global warming and climate change (Koutsou et al., 2018). Greenhouse gases (GHG)
emanating from the waste and wastewater sector account for 2.8% of GHG (IPCC,
2007). While they are an important part of wastewater conservation strategy,
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) contribute to GHG emissions (Koutsou et al.,
2-3
2018) and global warming. GHG emissions from WWTPs including methane, carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide are categorized as direct GHG emissions and indirect GHG
emissions (Polruang et al., 2018). Direct GHG emissions are emitted from biological
treatment processes. Carbon dioxide is major released from microbial respiration
activities while nitrous oxide is fluxed from denitrification, nitrification stages, and
methane mainly comes from anaerobic digestion (Zhang et al., 2017). Indirect GHG
emissions consist of internal and external emissions. The indirect internal gases are
related to power consumption (Parravicini et al., 2016), or thermal energy, and the
indirect external emissions are from activities outside the WWTPs (Mannina et al.,
2016). The most significant GHG emissions are emitted from electricity and biological
treatment, while indirect emissions from construction materials, chemicals and
transports account for 6%, 0.18% and 0.4% of the total GHG, respectively (Chai et al.,
2015).
The combined effect of different gases in the differing times is estimated by using the
global warming potential (GWP) and referenced to carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2014a).
Methane is a significant contributor to climate change, equivalent to 28 times of carbon
dioxide over a 100-year time horizon based on the Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC,
2014b). Methane emissions originate from human activities increased 2 times since
1700s (Pérez-Barbería, 2017). Methane emissions from wastewater treatment are
estimated to increase by 1.3 times between 1970 and 2012 (the equivalent 6.6 to 8.8
billion tons of carbon dioxide), especially in the rapidly developing countries of Africa,
the Middle East, Central and South America (Janssens-Maenhout et al., 2017b).
Janssens-Maenhout et al. (2017a) reported that wastewater treatment contributed 37
million tons of methane, accounting for more than 55% of global methane emissions
from the waste sector in 2012 (Figure 2.1). Methane gas is generated as a by-product of
2-4
anaerobic digestion in sewage treatment systems. It can be collected and used as an
energy source inside the WWTPs, and indirectly reduces carbon dioxide emissions
(Oshita et al., 2014). During the anaerobic digestion stage of the treatment process,
methane gas is emitted, which amounts to 97.6% of the total methane from the WWTP
(Préndez et al., 2008).
Fig 2.1. Global Methane Emission by sectors in 2012, source (Janssens-Maenhout et al.,
2017a)
Nitrous oxide is an important GHG, which has a GWP of 265 carbon dioxide
equivalents and contributes significantly to the GHG footprint of WWTPs (IPCC,
2014b). In some cases, the quantity of nitrous oxide emissions accounts for over 88% of
the total greenhouse gases released from the WWTPs (Daelman et al., 2013). The
nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater management accounts for about 26% of the
total GHG emitted from the water sector (Frison et al., 2015). Centralised aerobic
WWTPs with nitrification and denitrification processes produce small but distinct
amounts of nitrous oxide (IPCC, 2006). Estimates of global nitrous oxide emissions
2-5
from wastewater are incomplete and are based only on human sewage treatment.
However, global nitrous oxide emissions indicate an increase from 153.5 kiloton (kt) of
nitrous oxide to 315.7 kt nitrous oxide between 1970 and 2012 as shown in Figures. 2.2
(Janssens-Maenhout et al., 2017a).
Fig 2.2. Total global N2O emission and N2O emission from domestic wastewater,
source (Janssens-Maenhout et al., 2017b)
Carbon dioxide emissions from WWTPs relate to energy consumption, chemical usage
and microbial activities (Bao et al., 2015). Direct carbon dioxide emissions from
biological wastewater treatment processes are a short-lived biogenic carbon type and do
not contribute significantly to total GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014b). However, the results
show that current GHG accounting guidelines, which assume that all carbon dioxide
emissions from WWTPs are biogenic, may lead to underestimation of total GHG
emissions (Law et al., 2013). Indirect carbon dioxide is generated from energy and
chemical consumption. Therefore, carbon dioxide emissions are assessed based on the
energy demand of the WWTPs. Some studies on carbon dioxide emissions from
2-6
WWTPs focus on both direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions (Campos et al.,
2016). Some studies ignore the notion that carbon dioxide emissions from wastewater
are of biogenic origin and assert that both non-biogenic and biogenic sources are
significant in mitigating emissions (Kosse et al., 2018a). The studies showed that 25%
of the dissolved organic carbon in wastewater is fossil carbon (Chai et al., 2015) and
more than 10% of the carbon dioxide emissions from WWTP are derived from fossil
sources which contributed short-term organic carbon dioxide, and to the unaccounted
for GHG (Schneider et al., 2015). The fossil carbon component are emitted via effluent
discharge, along cwith biosolids and aerobic biodegradation (Law et al., 2013). All
sources of carbon dioxide should be taken into account when estimating the quantity of
GHG emissions from WWTPs (Garrido-Baserba et al., 2015). There is a global trend of
increasing carbon dioxide emissions from wastewater treatment, as in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3. Global sewage CO2 production (Rosso et al., 2008)
In recent years, biological wastewater treatment is favoured over chemical treatment
(Mulkerrins et al., 2000). Biological sewage treatment is an effective process to remove
organic matter and nutrients to discharge and reuse, however, contributes significant
2-7
sources of GHG emissions (Spinelli et al., 2018). The performance of biological
wastewater treatment process is based on the activity of microbial for nitrogen and
phosphorus removal. According to the principles of biological wastewater treatment, the
amount of GHG emissions from WWTPs is related to the type of treatment process
(Yan et al., 2014). Both anaerobic/ anoxic/ oxic (AAO) and sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) are popular biological nutrient removal systems in many developing countries
where wastewater plants’ odour is a significant problem. This situation not only affects
the community’s health but also contributes to global warming as the result of the
greenhouse effect. The quantity of GHG emissions from WWTPs was calculated based
on on-site and off-site gases. The on-site GHG emissions are collected from the
biological treatment process, sludge treatment area and biogas combustion activities.
The off-site gases emissions from energy consumption; sludge combustion, disposal and
reuse and wastewater discharge. The quantity of GHG emissions from biological
wastewater treatment processes tends to increase annually and contributes to total GHG
emissions.
Only a few studies on GHG emissions from both AAO and SBR WWTPs measure the
volume of GHG emissions calculated or identify the main emissions (Chai et al., 2015;
Ren et al., 2015). Certain studies focused solely on specific emissions, such as methane
(Liu et al., 2014), nitrous oxide (Massara et al., 2017) or carbon dioxide (Kosse et al.,
2018a). Several factors affecting the emissions have been reported and studied.
Although various quantification methods were applied, there is a high degree of
uncertainty. Due to the variation in the results, it is difficult to determine the
relationship between these factors and the quantity of GHG emissions through the
existing estimation methods. None of the studies indicated the overall impact of these
factors in respect to total GHG emissions from biological treatment processes. The
2-8
limitations of the existing measurement methods and the relationship between these
factors makes it difficult to develop effective mitigation strategies for GHG emissions
from WWTPs.
2.3. DIRECT EMISSIONS FROM AAO TREATMENT PROCESS
The AAO process is one of the most popular biological nutrient removal techniques,
and consists of an anaerobic stage followed by an anoxic and oxic stage, where large
amounts of GHG are emitted under various conditions. The AAO process requires a
combination of anaerobic tanks, anoxic tanks and oxic tanks, with recirculation from the
oxic tank to the anoxic tank for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. The treatment
process consists of three steps. Firstly, the influent return activated sludge flows into the
anaerobic tanks. Secondly, the wastewater flows into anoxic tanks with propellers to
control water flow, where denitrification and nitrogen removal occur. Thirdly and
finally, wastewater enters the oxic tanks via aeration equipment. In the initial anaerobic
tanks, the organic substrate is sequestered by phosphorus accumulating bacteria under
anaerobic condition. This results in low or no organic substrate available for denitrifiers
in anoxic tank, and the denitrification performance of the AAO process is poor (Fang et
al., 2016). A study conducted over 153 WWTPs involving eight technologies, that is
conventional activated sludge, anoxic-oxic, anaerobic-anoxic-oxic, oxidation ditch,
sequencing batch reactor, biological filter, biological contact oxidation, and membrane
bioreactor. AAO emerged as having the second best efficiency in term of technologies
investment, energy consumption, pollutant removal and GHG emissions (Zeng et al.,
2017). When comparing conventional activated sludge plants of the same size, with the
same volume of treated wastewater per day, the AAO plants have a similar level of
investment, but less electricity input. Furthermore, the AAO plants could also achieve
2-9
the greater removal of pollutants, with lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total
phosphorus (TP) and with less methane and nitrous oxide generated.
2.3.1. Methane emissions
One of the first studies that measured the quantity of direct methane gas emissions
emitted from the treatment process was undertaken in 1993 (Czepiel et al., 1993). The
main source of methane emissions is the sludge line units, which contribute 72% of total
methane released from a WWTP. The remaining emissions are from the biological
reactors (Campos et al., 2016). Previous experiments showed that methane emissions
occur in all processing units (Liu et al., 2014). Wang et al. (2011) measured methane
from each processing unit of Jinan WWTP in China, which adopts AAO process
treatment. The capacity of Jinan WWTP is 3×105 m3 day -1 with serving size population
of about 1,500,000. The number of sampling points was determined due to the dissolved
oxygen (DO) change and the water surface area. In the aerated area, which includes
aerated grit chambers and oxic tanks, a 40 L polyethene bag was used to measure
methane emission. Methane emitted from remaining treatment units in non-aerated
places was collected by flux hood technique. The total result of annual methane of each
unit showed that most of the methane was emitted from the anaerobic tanks and oxic
tanks (Wang et al., 2011) and presented in Table 2.1.
Another full-scale research showed the same trend of methane emission from each
treatment units under different conditions (Liu et al., 2014). In that study, methane was
quantified with a similar technique from the AAO process in a municipal WWTP in
China. This WWTP serves a population of 1,200,000 with a capacity of 5×105 m3/day.
Liu et al. (2014), in their experiment, discovered that most methane was emitted from
the oxic tanks. The anaerobic tanks produced the second highest amount of methane as
summarised in Table 2.1 (Liu et al., 2014).

2-10
Table 2.1. Methane emitted from each zone. Source (Liu et al., 2014; Wang et al.,
2011)
(Liu et al., 2014) (Wang et al., 2011)
Surface Dissolved
Process Surface Dissolved Emission area CH₄ Emission
unit area (m2) CH₄ (mg/L) (g CH4/m3) (m2) (mg/L) (g CH4/m3)
Aerated
grit tank 504 0.6 0.026 350 0.015 0.022
Anoxic
tank 3,564 0.13 0.007 6,300 0.001 0.004
Anaerobi
c tank 3,564 0.15 0.019 6,400 0.006 0.073
Oxic 0.0005 -
tank 24,945 0.02 0.371 9,400 0.0002 0.086
One more full-scale research investigated the quantity of GHG emissions from AAO
treatment process in a WWTP in China over a nine-month period. The plant’s capacity
was 23 × 104 m3 per day with wastewater source from domestic. The results indicated
that the highest methane emissions were emitted from the grit tank at a rate of 2.2
g/(m2.hr). The aerobic area released nearly three times the volume of methane than the
grit tank, which amounted to 57.4 kg/day and 18.3 kg/day, respectively (Yan et al.,
2014).
In these experiments, there is no detailed description of the operating conditions of each
unit and the varying results may be due to conditions. The major conclusion is that oxic
2-11
tank, the largest of all units, released most of the methane. Referring to the second
highest quantity of methane produced in Table 2.1. This illustrates how the anaerobic
tank and the primary settling tank are the main components. The factors that may
influence these emissions have been identified. The volume of dissolved methane was
measured in these tanks, and the highest concentration of dissolved methane was found
in the primary settling tank, followed by the aerated grit tank. Under the mechanical
aeration, the DO concentration increased and inhibited methane formation. The
dissolved methane released significant amounts of methane emissions and this appears
to explain the quantity of GHGEs from these two tanks. Finally, when analysing GHG
emissions using aeration efficiencies, the dissolved methane in the oxic tank unit was
lowest; the largest quantity of methane is the result of high aeration stripping under
specific conditions. In addition, other indicators explain these results as a factor of the
surface area of each tank and the process. For example, the plant described by Liu et al.
(2014) had a total capacity of more than 1.5 times than that of the plant described by
Wang et al. (2011), and the oxic tank was 2.6 times larger. In the Table 2.1, the larger
oxic tank shows greater emissions compared to the smaller oxic tank. Similar trend
could be found in the anaerobic tanks. Moreover, Ren et al. (2015) found that the
concentration of organic material in the wastewater is another condition for methane
emissions. There is a need for future research on the impact of DO concentration on
methane emissions.
2.3.2. Carbon dioxide
Only a few of the studies undertaken on carbon dioxide from WWTPs focused on the
direct emissions. Bao et al. (2015) measured the volume of carbon dioxide in each
treatment tank in the AAO process, namely the aerated grit tank, primary sediment tank,
anoxic tank, anaerobic tank, oxic tank and final clarifier. The aerated grit tank, which
2-12
has the smallest surface area, produced the largest volume of carbon dioxide emissions
over the largest range of dissolved carbon dioxide. This was followed by the carbon
dioxide emissions from the oxic tank as a result of the respiration and aeration stripping
processes. In contrast, the primary sedimentation tank and final clarifier, which had the
largest surface areas, emitted the smallest quantity of carbon dioxide due to limited
biological activities and little microbial respiration, respectively. A similar trend was
found in the research of Kyung et al. (2015).
Table 2.2 shows that in the AAO process, in the aerated units, direct emissions are 96%
of the total emissions. Although the oxic tank has a large surface area, high emissions of
carbon dioxide were found during the early stages of aeration the oxic tank and carbon
dioxide decreased dramatically at a later stage.
Results from other studies showed that carbon dioxide emission rate in the oxic tanks
was much higher than in the anaerobic and anoxic tank (Ren et al., 2015). The highest
rate of emission flux was from the aerobic zone, which amounted to 68.2 g/(m2.hr),
whilst there were negligible emissions of carbon dioxide from the anaerobic tank and
anoxic tank (Yan et al., 2014). Level of carbon dioxide emissions from the grit tank and
the oxic tank differ between reports and season. However, the aerobic area emitted
significant volumes of carbon dioxide.
Table 2.2. CO2 emissions from each unit in the AAO treatment process, source (Bao et
al., 2015; Yan et al., 2014)
(Bao et al., 2015) (Yan et al., 2014)
TREATMENT UNIT CO₂ emission CO₂ emission
Area (m²) (kg/d) Area (m²) (kg/d)
2-13
Aerated grit tank 504 1,879.13 346 78
Anoxic tank 3,564 215.66 - 172
Anaerobic tank 3,564 242.00 - 70
Oxic tank 25,011 72,651.20 15,051 24,637
In the AAO process, the inducements for releasing of carbon dioxide are the mechanical
aeration and the concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the influent. In general,
carbon dioxide is produced through two processes, namely the degradation of organic
pollutants by microbial communities and biomass respiration. The latter produces less
carbon dioxide emission when compared with the biological process (Schneider et al.,
2015). In the initial stages in the oxic tank, carbon dioxide is generated mainly through
the degradation of organic matter through aerobic respiration. During the latter stages of
the oxic tank, there is a reduction of carbon dioxide flux during the endogenous
respiration period (Bao et al., 2015).
2.3.3. Nitrous oxide
In the WWTP, most nitrous oxide is emitted in the biological nitrogen removal process,
which consists of nitrification and denitrification. Denitrification involves the anoxic
reduction of nitrates which is converted into dinitrogen gas by the microorganism.
Nitrification includes two steps: ammonia is oxidised to nitrite and nitrite is transferred
to nitrate by nitrite-oxidising bacteria (Aboobakar et al., 2013). In the WWTPs, the
production of nitrous oxide mainly occurs in the activated sludge units (Yang et al.,
2009). In the biological treatment process, zones that have intermittent aeration have
higher nitrous emissions than other zones (Kosonen et al., 2016).
2-14
The largest amount of nitrous oxide was emitted in the oxic zone due to nitrifying
activities of the ammonia-oxidising bacteria (AOB) (Massara et al., 2017), followed by
anaerobic zone and then the aerated grit tank, as indicated in Table 2.3. Foley et al.
(2010) collected results from seven WWTPs and found that the amount of emissions
from the anoxic surface area and the anaerobic surface area is much smaller than
emissions from aerated zones. Ren et al. (2015) measured nitrous oxide emissions under
different influent carbon: nitrogen (C/N) ratio. Using six case studies, it was found that
the oxic tank contributed the most nitrous oxide emissions while emissions from the
anoxic tank and anaerobic tank were insignificant (Ren et al., 2015).
Table 2.3. N2O emission in AAO process, source (Ren et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2013a;
Yan et al., 2014)
TREATING UNIT N2O EMISSION (kg d-1)
Aerated grit tank 5.51 24.60 6.00
AAO anoxic zone 1.32 22.10 14.05
AAO anaerobic zone 7.59 10.80 7.66
AAO oxic zone 471.70 9745.90 6030.00
Reference Sun et al. (2013) Yan et al. (2014) Ren et al. (2013)
The results show that nitrous oxide is mainly produced in the oxic zone (Kosonen et al.,
2016) instead of transported from previous non-aeration zones (Wang et al., 2016).
Kampschreur et al. (2009) showed that nitrous oxide was produced in the anoxic stage
and stripped to the gas phase in the aerated zone. Only a small amount of nitrous oxide
was found in the anoxic zone because the recycling between aerobic and anoxic tank
resulted in the nitrate being mixed with the wastewater in the anoxic zone. The nitrate
2-15
was reduced by denitrifying bacterial in the anoxic tank (Soda et al., 2013). Emission
fluxes from the anaerobic and anoxic zone contributed little to the total emissions
(Wang et al., 2016).
Factors related to the quantity of nitrous oxide include DO, dissolved nitrous oxide and
the aeration rate. While some scientists agree that the concentration of dissolved nitrous
oxide in the wastewater is one of the main factors (Wang et al., 2016), Masuda et al.
(2018) found that there was a very difference across studies on the influence of
dissolved nitrous oxide to nitrous oxide emissions. Thus, more research on the
relationship between dissolved nitrous oxide and nitrous oxide emission is required. An
intermittent aeration process makes it possible for biological removal of nitrogen to
occur, which controls nitrous oxide emissions. Therefore, low DO concentrations and
efficient aeration influence the quantity of nitrous oxide emissions.
2.4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM SBR PROCESS
The SBR is an alternative to conventional processes for removing nutrient from
wastewater. The SBR is a fill-and-draw activated sludge system for domestic and
industrial wastewater treatment. In SBR, all processes are conducted in a single reactor
following a sequence of fill, reaction, settling and decanting phase (Puig, 2008). The
influent flows into the swirl grit tank to remove solids, then passes through the sewage
distribution tank and finally is treated in the SBR tank. The biological nutrient removal
process alternates between anoxic and aerobic periods within the treatment cycle.
The SBR has been widely applied in wastewater treatment because it has greater
flexibility, control and requires a low-cost investment (Real et al., 2017). The SBR
processes are believed to achieve high effluent quality in a very short aeration time as
2-16
well as to save more than 60% of the operating cost when compared with the
conventional activated sludge process (Singh et al., 2011).
2.4.1. Methane emission
Prior studies have determined the level of methane emissions in each unit and in each
phase of the SBR process (Liu et al., 2014). An experiment was conducted in a WWTP,
Beijing, China, which has a capacity of 8×104 m3/day and serves a population of
231,000. The biological treatment process included six cycles, which were divided into
three phases as follows: feeding and aeration phase, settling phase and decanting phase.
In the primary treatment units, the swirl grit tank and the sewage distribution tank, the
dissolved methane concentrations were higher than in the SBR tanks. There were large
amounts of methane emissions originating from the swirl grit tank and the first phase of
the SBR process. The wastewater that was stirred intensively in the swirl grit tank led to
the dissolved methane was fluxed, subsequently causing a large amount of methane to
be emitted. The gas flux from the feeding and aeration phase was the highest for the
whole SBR process due to strong mechanical aeration (Figure 2.4).
Another study was conducted by Bao et al. (2016) in which the SBR process was
divided into 4 phases that in total lasted 4 hours: 1 hour for aeration feeding, 1 hour for
aeration-non-feeding, 1 hour for settling and remaining 1 hour for decanting phase. The
study indicated that the first two phases of biological treatment produced the most
methane during the SBR process, ranging from 2.5 to 73.3 g CO2 equivalent (gCO2-eq)
m-3 wastewater with an average of 4.5 gCO2-eq m-3 wastewater or 0.16 gCH4 m-3
wastewater (Bao et al., 2016). In the feeding and aeration phases, methane oxidation
occurred, and a great deal of methane was stripped. However, the quantity of methane
produced in aeration during the feeding stage was even higher than that of the aeration
2-17
in the non-feeding stage. The settling and decanting phases did not contribute to
methane emissions.
The results are varied, but the same trend is found in these papers and is shown in
Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4. Methane emitted from different units in the SRB process, source (Bao et al.,
2016; Liu et al., 2014)
2.4.2. Carbon dioxide
In the SBR tank, the organic matters present in the influent was degraded biologically
and produced a large amount of carbon dioxide. A full-scale study about carbon dioxide
in SBR WWTP found that the swirl grit tank produced a small amount of carbon
dioxide (0.045 gCO2 –eq m-3 wastewater) as a result of using a swirl mixer instead of
2-18
aeration equipment (Bao et al., 2016). The volume of emissions from the sewage
distribution tank was small because of the low levels of nitrification and denitrification
with shorter hydraulic retention time. However, previous research has confirm that the
largest amount of carbon dioxide was detected in the feeding and aeration phases due to
the aeration respiration and aeration stripping processes (Bao et al., 2015). The amount
of carbon dioxide released from feeding and aeration period was an average of 334.6
gCO2 –eq m-3 wastewater (Bao et al., 2015) and 343.86 gCO2 –eq m-3 wastewater (Bao
et al., 2016), which amounted to 99% of the total emission. Most of the carbon dioxide
was emitted at the initiation of the feeding and aeration phases.
Aeration during the feeding and aeration periods make it possible for nitrification and
denitrification to occur during the treatment process. The experiment showed that the
concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the swirl grit tank was much higher than in
the aerated tank. In the settling phase and decanting phase, only a small amount of
carbon dioxide was generated in the absence of aeration due to anaerobic respiration.
Only 1.06 and 0.84 gCO2 –eq m-3 wastewater was fluxed during the settling and
decanting phase (Bao et al., 2015).
2.4.3. Nitrous oxide
Nitrous oxide has a large impact on the overall carbon footprint of the WWTP using
SBR for the biological wastewater treatment. Many different quantification techniques
are applied to measure nitrous oxide emission from WWTPs. Research at full-scale
WWTPs, using both gas sensor and online gas analyser methods, indicated that nitrous
oxide could be emitted during nitrogen removal; however, a large variation in reported
emission values is evident (Foley et al., 2010b). Marques et al. (2016) conducted a
nitrous oxide measurement in a full-scale SBR plant by using a conventional online gas
analyser. According to this research, liquid-phase nitrous oxide measurements coupled

2-19
with liquid-gas mass transfer estimations constituted an alternative methodology for
assessing emission factors. Nitrous oxide produced in liquid-phase can transfer to the
gas-phase when nitrous oxide is over-saturated, or stripped by aeration, which facilitates
the transfer of dissolved nitrous oxide (Law et al., 2011). Marques et al. (2016)
discovered differences in the results of these two methods, and the anoxic emissions
were relatively low. More than 90% of nitrous oxide emissions occurred during the
aeration phase due to air-stripping of dissolved nitrous oxide (Kampschreur et al.,
2009). Some differences observed between nitrous oxide flux in the feeding phase and
aeration period as shown in Table 2.4. However, these phases produce much higher
nitrous oxide emissions than others phases (Sun et al., 2014). Nitrous oxide emissions
during the aeration feeding period were 100 g CO2-eq m-3, which was higher than the
aeration non-feeding period (Bao et al., 2016). Organic matter influences the
nitrification efficiency and nitrous oxide production because firstly, organic matter
promotes the growth of heterotrophic microorganisms; and secondly, consumes DO
(Toor et al., 2015). During the first 30 minutes of the feeding phase, less oxygen was
consumed because organic matters existed in small concentrations in wastewater, which
led to the value of DO increasing. At that time, nitrous oxide emissions mainly came
from the dissolved nitrous oxide in the influent. Following the feeding period, organic
matter gradually accumulated, and more oxygen was consumed, which resulted in DO
value declining. Poorly DO led to a large quantity of nitrous oxide, indicating the
occurrence of incomplete nitrification (Frison et al., 2015). The total amount of nitrous
oxide emitted from the aeration phase ranged from 394.2 to 1782.4 g CO2-eq m-3, with
an average of 480.2 g CO2-eq m-3 (Bao et al., 2016).
Nitrous oxide was emitted during the aeration stage, which included dissolved nitrous
oxide produced through incomplete denitrification in the anoxic period and nitrous
2-20
oxide through incomplete nitrification during the low DO aeration period.
Denitrification and nitrification took place during the aeration period, in which most of
the emissions occurred, in the feeding and non-feeding period (Sun et al., 2013a).
Another reason for the large quantity of nitrous oxide was the high concentration of
dissolved nitrous oxide during the feeding and aeration phases and the strong aerobic
stirring. The nitrous oxide flux during the settling and decanting phases was nearly
undetectable, although a certain amount of nitrous oxide was dissolved in these periods
(Sun et al., 2013b).
Table 2.4. N2O emitted from each zone in SBR process, source (Bao et al., 2016; Sun et
al., 2014; Sun et al., 2013a)
TREATING UNIT N2O EMISSION (g m-3)
Sun et al. (2014) Sun et al. (2013) Bao et al.(2016)
Swirl grit tank 0.000032 0.00001 0.00
Sewage distribution tank 0.000016 0.000003 0.00
Feeding period 2.2356 1.13

1.78
Aeration period 2.00187 0.75
Settling period 0.00174 0.00187 0.0018
Decanting period 0.0013 0.0011 0.0015
Law et al. (2011) indicated that the dissolved nitrous oxide was stripped during the
aeration phase and nitrous oxide in the non-aerated zone contributed 94±4% to the total
nitrous oxide emission in the first 15 minutes of the aeration phases. The reason is that
the aerobic stage takes place after the anoxic stage. The nitrous oxide air bubbles are
formed during the anoxic are and are stripped off in the aerobic stage (Frison et al.,
2-21
2015). During the aeration phase, nitrous oxide continuously flux and the most transfer
occurred, resulting in the high volume of emission (Law et al., 2011). Moreover, nitrous
oxide flux from the aeration stage decreased when the aeration rate increased (Law et
al., 2012). The provision of sufficient aeration time to achieve full ammonia oxidation
could mitigate the overall nitrous oxide emissions (Rodriguez-Caballero et al., 2013).
2.5. GHG EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION METHODS
2.5.1. Direct measurement
Gas samples were collected from multiple points to obtain the quantity of gas emitted.
The number of sampling points based on the wastewater surface area and the dissolved
oxygen variation in AAO process, while in SBR treatment process the sampling
frequency was determined by the duration of each phase (Wang et al., 2011).
Sample collection from the aerated area
Polyethylene bag was used to collect gas samples emitted from aerated surfaces. The
bag was fastened to inside of a support frame. The bag was collapsed and emptied of
air. The frame was then immersed several inches in the water. Gas samples were
withdrawn from the plastic bag to the aluminium foil plastic bags (Yan et al., 2014).
When measuring the off-gas flow rate, a tracer gas is introduced into the chamber. The
off-gas flow rate E (μg/(m2.hr)) is calculated based on the mass balance of the tracer gas
equation (2.1):
(2.1)
where,
V is the volume of the flux hood (m3); A is the enclosed surface area (m2); ρ is the
density of the gas (mol/m3); and Δc/Δt is the gas concentration in the chamber.
2-22
Sample collection from non-aerated area
A floated flux chamber was used to measure the fluxes from non-aerated wastewater
zones. A thermocouple probe was installed inside the flux chamber and floats made
from tires are fastened to the flux hood’s sides. The hood was kept stable to minimize
chamber movement caused by surface turbulence. The sampling point was one metre
from the bank of each processing unit or under the centre of the raised walkway across
the unit tank. The gas within the chamber was transferred via a blower and a closed loop
of the tube(Bao et al., 2016). The gas flux F (μg/(m2.hr)) was calculated by equation
(2.2)
(2.2)
where,
ρ is the density of the gas (mol/m3); c is the sample gas concentration (mg/L); Q is the
total diffuse air flow (m3/min); A is the total surface area (m2)
GHGs sample analysis methods
The samples were transported to the lab and analysed for GHG concentration after
collected. A gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID-GC)
was used for methane measurement. The carbon dioxide concentration was determined
by a thermal conductivity detector (TCD-GC) (Guérin et al., 2007). While nitrous oxide
was analysed using a gas chromatograph with an electron capture detector (Hwang et
al., 2016).
Analysis of the direct measure method
Static floating chamber method is widely used to evaluate the direct GHG emissions
because of its convenience and low cost (Xiao et al., 2016). Static chamber with gas
2-23
chromatography is widely applicable as this method has simple principle operation,
cheap instrument, less time consuming and multisite observations (Wang et al., 2003).
Gas chromatography has been widely used to quantify nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide
concentrations in gas emissions from wastewater biological treatment process (Pascale
et al., 2017). However, there are uncertainties in gas flux estimates using this method.
They are less sensitive, low precision and poor accuracy when compare with other
methods (Pascale et al., 2017). The poor accuracy comes from the experimental
conditions such as outside temperature (Guérin et al., 2007), wind speed and rainfall
intensity (Matthews et al., 2003), which is believed to increase the rate of GHG fluxes.
The other factors that influence the accuracy are the limitation in the equipment and the
methodology used to quantify emissions. The turbulence caused by the chamber’s wall
can affect the results (Xiao et al., 2016). The sensitive of the data is depending on the
operating conditional, and the emission factors depend on load. For example, results at
start-up and shut down are different with results in steady conditions.
Effective methods should be a focus to minimising the variation between studies and
solve the limitations of these estimation methods.
2.5.2. Guideline tool
One of the most popular methods used to estimate GHG emissions is the IPCC
Guidelines for National GHG Inventory (IPCC, 2006). Emissions of methane and
nitrous oxide from wastewater treatment are reported under the Waste sector. The
quantity of gas was estimated through the application of models or equations.
Calculation of methane emission
The formulation used to calculate total CH4 emitted from domestic wastewater is
described in IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2006). Using IPCC guidelines is a simple and
2-24
straightforward method for methane estimating. The formulation based on the annual
organic matter in the wastewater, the fraction of wastewater treated anaerobically, the
emission factor and the amount of methane recovered from wastewater treatment.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) is one of the principal factors that determine the
generation of methane from wastewater. The emission factor is the key to the emission
inventory and represents the value of methane released to the atmosphere with activities
associated with the pollutant (US.EPA, 2016). Default emission factor for methane is
recommended when available data is limited.
- Total CH4 emissions from domestic wastewater
(2.3)
where,
CH4 Emissions = CH4 emissions in inventory year, kg CH4/yr
TOW = total organics in wastewater in inventory year, kg BOD/yr
S = organic component removed as sludge in inventory year, kg BOD/yr
Ui = fraction of population in income group i in inventory year
Ti,j = degree of utilisation of treatment/ discharge pathway of system, j, for
each income group fraction i in inventory year
i = income group: rural, urban high income and urban low income
j = each treatment/ discharge pathway or system
EFj = emission factor, kg CH4/kg BOD
R = amount of CH4 recovered in the inventory year, kg CH4/yr
2-25
- CH4 emissions factor for each domestic wastewater treatment/discharge pathway
or system.
(2.4)
where,
EFj = emission factor, kg CH4/kg BOD
j = each treatment/ discharge pathway or system
Bo = maximum CH4 producing capacity, kg CH4/kg BOD
MCFj = methane correction factor
- Total organically degradable material in domestic wastewater
TOW = P . BOD . 0.001 . I . 365 (2.5)
where,
TOW = total organics in wastewater in inventory year, kg BOD/yr
P = country population in inventory year, (person)
BOD = country-specific per capita BOD in inventory year, g/person/day
0.001 = conversion from grams BOD to kg BOD
I = correction factor for additional industrial BOD discharged into sewers
Determining the methane correction factor (MCF) is one of the most difficult part as it
based on the fraction of wastewater treated anaerobically. The guidelines suggest a large
range of this fraction with the limited condition to apply.
2-26
Calculation of nitrous oxide emission
The equation to calculate total N2O emitted from domestic wastewater is described in
IPCC guidelines (IPCC, 2006). These formulations could be applied for collected and
uncollected wastewater as they are based on nitrogen component in the wastewater.
- N2O emissions from wastewater effluent
N2O Emission = NEFFLUENT . EF EFFLUENT . 44/28 (2.6)
where,
N2O Emission = N2O emissions in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
NEFFLUENT = nitrogen in the effluent discharge to aquatic environments, kg
N/yr
EF EFFLUENT = emission factor for N2O emissions from discharged to
wastewater, kg N2O-N/kg N
44/28 = conversion of kg N2O-N into kg N2O
- Total nitrogen in the effluent
NEFFLUENT = (P . Protein . FNPR. FNON-CON . FIND-COM ) – NSLUDGE (2.7)
where,
NEFFLUENT = total annual amount of nitrogen in the wastewater effluent, kg
N/yr
P = human population
Protein = annual per capita protein consumption, kg/person/yr
FNPR = fraction of nitrogen in protein, default = 0.16, kg N/yr
FNON-CON = fraction for non-consumed protein added to the wastewater

2-27
FIND-COM = factor for industrial and commercial co-discharged protein into
the sewer system
NSLUDGE = nitrogen removed with sludge (default = 0), kg N/yr
- N2O emission from centralized wastewater treatment processes
N2OPLANTS = P . TPLANT . FIND-COM . EFPLANT (2.8)
where,
N2OPLANTS = total N2O emissions from plants in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
P = human population
TPLANT = degree of utilization of modern, centralized WWTPs, %
FIND-COM = fraction of industrial and commercial co-discharged protein,
(default = 1.25)
EFPLANT = emission factor, 3.2 g N2O/person/yr
Benefits of using IPCC guidelines
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories are valuable tools
supporting to estimate and control GHGEs. The guidelines for WWTPs emission could
be found in chapter 6 of volume 5. The IPCC method shows out the relationship
between different components and bases sorely on the annual organic matter and the
amount of nitrogen. By adjusting these elements, the total emissions could be mitigated.
Opportunities to mitigate methane emission are increasing portion of methane recovered
and removed organic component. Nitrous oxide emission could be reduced when
improving the portion of nitrogen removed in the sludge treatment process.
2-28
Limitations of IPCC guidelines
- Lack of information
WWTPs emit direct and indirect carbon dioxide due to microbial activities and energy
consumption. Results found that a significant amount of carbon dioxide could be
verified during biological wastewater treatment process, which excluded from IPCC
guidelines (Kosse et al., 2018a). Methane is produced from closed sewer systems and
those resulting from dissolved methane in the influent are not considered in the
formulations, which can lead to underestimation. The relationship between organic and
nitrate production is not indicated, which may limit the mitigating approach.
- Uncertainties with emission factors
The emission factor is the most influential parameter that influences the total emissions
(Brown et al., 2001). The IPCC provides default emission factors in most cases.
However, these indicators are typically determined through field-scale monitoring.
Thus, it is suggested to use the country-specific factors when available (Zhan et al.,
2017). Estimation based on emission factors can be high uncertainty due to the lack of
reliable information on the operation of the treatment process and the local
environmental situation (Noyola et al., 2018). Also, the default emission factors have
been used for years and need to be revised. Dissolved concentration in the influent
wastewater, one of the important sources of emission, was not considered in the
guidelines result in need of a revision of correction factor.
- Accuracy of data
IPCC guidelines use some default data, which based on the experiment under specific
conditions or particular circumstances. Applying the data representation for one specific
2-29
case to others might affect the accuracy of the results. For example, the emission factor
for N2O is currently based on a single study in which the WWTP was not designed for
removal of nitrogen. For methane estimation, the formula mostly based on BOD while
the other impact factors were excluded.
2.5.3. Modelling tool
WWTPs include many different processes and these comprise biological, transports and
hydraulic phenomena. These factors make it difficult to propose control and operation
alternatives. For a better understanding of GHG emissions that originate from
wastewater treatment plants, models are used as effective and low-cost tools to examine
the new technologies and control strategies in GHG management. The application of
models to estimate and mitigate GHG estimation has been demonstrated for many years
(BaniShahabadi et al., 2009). Furthermore, improving measurement techniques to
reduce uncertainty related to GHG emissions, means that models can describe the GHG
production from each process in the WWTPs (Corominas et al., 2012). Therefore, the
modelling of GHG emissions from WWTPs was proposed in many publications to
provide an accurate estimate of how much GHG was being emitted from wastewater
treatment plants (Barbu et al., 2017; Vilanova et al., 2017).
According to previous research, these models can be divided into three main types. The
first group, which has a high level of uncertainty and variability, consists of the
empirical models based on data for emission factors at treatment units (Pagilla et al.,
2009). The second group includes simple comprehensive process-based models at
treatment units (Corominas et al., 2012; Flores-Alsina et al., 2011). The third group
consists of dynamic mechanistic models at treatment units or plant scale (Mannina et
al., 2016). For a quick evaluation of GHG emissions, the second group is more popular
than the third one (Mannina et al., 2019). The process models combine with
2-30
instrumentation, control and automation (ICA) to create the benchmarking tool for
assessment.
The benchmark is a simulation environment consisting of a plant layout, a simulation
model, influent loads, treatment procedure and a set of evaluation criteria. Benchmark
models are effective tools for the design and testing of the control strategies of WWTPs,
and their function is to overcome the difficulties in engineering techniques (Barbu et al.,
2017). The first version, named Benchmark Simulation Model no. 1 (BSM1), was
proposed in 2002 to develop efficient control strategies for WWTPs (Copp, 2001) and
then followed by the BSM2 in 2007. Both the BSM1 and BSM2 include simulation for
all treatment units, influent loads, test procedures and evaluation criteria. However, the
BSM1 does not allow for evaluation of the interaction between processes, only local
strategies can be evaluated. The BSM2 is available for different simulation platforms so
it can easily to compare the results of different control strategies of different platforms
(Henze et al., 2000). The BSM2 consists of existing models that can describe processes
in the WWTP. It includes all the units within the WWTP, and makes it possible to fully
evaluate the plant’s performance. This model consists of the biological reactions, liquid-
gas interactions and GHG production as well. BSM2 calculates the GHG through the
following stages: biotreatment, sludge treatment, sludge reuse, chemical usage, power
consumption and biogas usage. Many studies use benchmarks on applying control
strategies by simulation or on building control frameworks in real plants (Santín et al.,
2017; Santín et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2011). The limitation of BSM2 is that the
reduction of nitrate to nitrogen is considered as a one-step process that leads to N2O
production, which cannot be accurately determined (Sweetapple et al., 2013).
An extended version of the BSM2, BSM2G, was proposed later on. BMS2G includes
GHG emissions within the model and considers all the units in which the emissions may
2-31
occur (Corominas et al., 2012; Flores-Alsina et al., 2014; Flores-Alsina et al., 2011).
This model allows the dynamic evaluation of the GHG emissions in the biological
treatment units. BSM2G was employed in some case studies to investigate the influence
of some control actions and operational strategies on GHG emissions (Corominas et al.,
2012; Flores-Alsina et al., 2011; Sweetapple et al., 2015).
The diffusive emissions estimation model (DEEM) was developed to focus on CO 2 and
N2O emissions originating from biological processes (Rodriguez-Garcia et al., 2012).
The biological model was divided into four main categories: oxidation of organic
matter, nitrification, denitrification and hydrolysis. DEEM takes into account the CO 2
emissions associated with endogenous decay and microbial growth of autotrophs. N 2O
can be captured in the nitrification and denitrification processes where the possibility of
AOB reducing nitrite and the possibility of N2O increasing due to NO inhibition are
considered. DEEM can be applied only to the water line, but nonetheless it presents the
benefit of simplicity and is suitable for LCA.
A new plant-wide model was developed by Mannina et al. (2019), which can quantify
both direct and indirect GHG emissions from the biological and physical processes of a
WWTP. This model considers both the contribution of the water line and the sludge
line. The model is based on COD, TSS mass balance. The novel features of the model
include the following mass-balance-based model regarding nitrogen; a two-step
nitrification process; and the ability to quantify N2O generation both in dissolved and
gas forms (Mannina et al., 2019).
Numerous of existing models were developed but none of them consists of multi-
criteria evaluation combining GHG with effluent quality and operational cost.
Moreover, each model has limitations in measuring GHG emissions due to complex
2-32
condition. Therefore, more effort should be paid on improving the accuracy of
quantifying GHG emissions.
2.6. CHALLENGES IN QUANTIFYING GHG EMISSIONS FROM
TREATMENT PROCESS
Quantifying GHG emissions originating from WWTPs has its challenges. For example,
carbon dioxide, which makes up the largest part of the total GHG from WWTPs, is
usually neglected in reports (Schneider et al., 2015). Numerous papers focus on GHG
emissions from the biological treatment process. However, very few studies were
conducted to investigate the factors influencing overall emissions of carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide and methane. The results vary across the different studies, which vary in
terms of influent concentration, process method and measurement technology. The
conflicts between reports are essentially due to underestimation, especially for nitrous
oxide the most significant GHG.
In AAO WWTPs, the oxic tank is the major unit of aeration zone that has the largest
area of surface water and contributes the most GHG. Nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide
emitted from the oxic zone in the bio-treatment tank of AAO WWTPs accounted for
97% and 96% of the total emissions, respectively. The proportion of methane may vary
according to various reports, but the bulk of the methane was collected from the oxic
tank. The aerated grit tank and anaerobic tank are also important units due to the
quantity of methane and carbon dioxide emitted. However, there are conflicting results
from the various studies, and for this reason, future research is needed.
In the SBR treatment process, most GHG emissions were produced in the feeding and
aeration phases, while the settling phase and the decanting phase did not contribute to
GHG emissions. The primary treatment units, which include the swirl grit tank and
2-33
sewage distribution tank, generated small amounts of GHG emissions despite the high
concentration of dissolved matter. One-third of the carbon dioxide in the SBR was
related to the carbon dioxide produced when oxidising the organic matter; another third
was related to power production while the remaining third represented the carbon
dioxide equivalent due to the emission of methane and nitrous oxide (Real et al., 2017).
When analysing the quantity of GHG emissions from the AAO and SBR treatment
processes, the results show that the latter produced more than the former. Carbon
dioxide and methane emissions in WWTPs with SBR amounted to 347 g/m3 and
0.5g/m3 of wastewater, respectively, and were approximately double that of the AAO
WWTPs. The volume of nitrous oxide emitted from AAO was five times smaller than
the SBR approximately 0.9 g/m3 and 4.2g/m3, respectively. We can conclude that
quantity of nitrous oxide emitted from a WWTP employing SBR for the biological
treatment of municipal wastewater was larger than other bioreactor configurations
(Rodriguez-Caballero et al., 2015). According to these results, aerated units contributed
the major proportion of GHG emissions in both AAO and SBR WWTPs (Kyung et al.,
2015). Non-aerated zones produced small amounts of GHGs for three important
reasons. The first reason is due to the limited surface areas of the aerated zone. The oxic
tank and the SBR tank are the largest of the treatment units. The second reason is that
the substantial amounts of GHG emissions dissolved and accumulated in wastewater
can be stripped off and released under aeration condition (Kyung et al., 2015). Third
and finally, aeration process involves nitrification that produces nitrous oxide, as well as
microbes that respire to generate carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide was the major
contributor towards to total GHG emissions during both two processes. During
operation, aeration units consume the most energy and increase the quantity of carbon
dioxide.
2-34
The concentration of DO is one of the most important parameters when controlling
GHG emissions released from WWTPs. A low concentration of DO limits the growth of
microorganism while high concentration could influence the denitrification process.
Therefore, poorly dissolved oxygen leads to a reduction in indirect carbon dioxide
emissions. Poorly dissolved oxygen could result in a large quantity of nitrous oxide
occurring as a result of incomplete nitrification. In a few studies, the effect of aeration
on emissions showed that strong aeration would lead to a higher volume of GHG
emissions. Increasing aeration in both type of reactors would increase emissions. The
aeration stripping rate of dissolved methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide can affect
the quantity of these gas emissions, as illustrated in Figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5. Influences of processes condition to GHGEs
Table 2.5. Reviewed studies on the influence of DO, aeration efficiency and dissolved
GHGs on GHGEs
GHGEs Factors Impact Result References
N₂O DO N₂O increases when AGREE (Wunderlin et al., 2012)
low DO concentrations
AGREE (Aboobakar et al., 2013)
2-35
AGREE (Jefferson et al., 2011)
AGREE (Peng et al., 2015)
AGREE (Wang et al., 2015)
AGREE (Massara et al., 2017)
NO (Rodriguez-Caballero et
al., 2014)
Aeration rate High N₂O at lower AGREE (Hu et al., 2010)
aeration rates
AGREE (Tumendelger et al.,
2014)
Dissolved High dissolved N₂O AGREE (Baresel et al., 2016)
N₂O cause high emission

AGREE (Pan et al., 2016)
NO (Masuda et al., 2018)
AGREE (Rodriguez-Caballero et
al., 2015)
CH₄ Dissolved Correlate AGREE (Rodriguez-Caballero et
CH₄ al., 2014)
AGREE (Noyola et al., 2018)
AGREE (Masuda et al., 2018)
DO Negative impact AGREE (Rodriguez-Caballero et
al., 2014)
2-36
CO₂ Aeration Correlate AGREE (Caniani et al., 2019)
AGREE (Bellandi et al., 2017)
Dissolved Correlate AGREE (Kosse et al., 2018b)
CO₂
2.7. ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FOR WWTP
2.7.1. The current use of LCA applications to WWTP
LCA completes the whole picture as much as is possible, and all the environmental
impacts are taken into account (Guinée, 2002). Use of LCA ensures that all
environmental impacts are analysed within the LCA framework. There are three types
of LCA models, namely the process-based LCA, input-output LCA, and hybrid LCA
(Chen et al., 2012). The first type focuses on energy and materials flow in a
manufacturing process, while input-output LCA emphasises the environmental data
(Awad et al., 2019).
Figure 2.6. The advantages of using LCA in WWTPs
2-37
LCA can determine what technique and management tools provide the best
environmental performance (Niero et al., 2014). LCA aims to determine the
environmental impact indicators by analysing the emissions from all relevant processes
(Yoshida et al., 2014). LCA can identify improvement alternatives for a single plant and
to compare different technologies. LCA could be applied to evaluate different types of
WWTPs, to compare the environmental impacts (Delre et al., 2019), and to select the
best treatment unit process operating scenario (Tangsubkul et al., 2006). The application
of LCA to WWTP is summarized and illustrated in Figure 2.6.
Despite the advantages, LCA has some limitations as follow. Firstly, the results and
influence indicators do vary among papers. The reason for this may due to different
assessment methods, simulated inventory data, and integration of different models to
quantify the environmental impacts (Zang et al., 2015). Secondly, although the
environmental impacts of WWTPs are assessed in detail by using LCA, the economic
variables are excluded from LCA because they might affect the control strategies.
Thirdly and finally, the data availability and data quantity are limited in the life cycle
inventory. In some cases, the researcher used secondary data to model effluent
emissions (Niero et al., 2014). In other cases, the impact categories were site-dependent
(Corominas et al., 2013b).
Existing studies have limited scope, either in terms of alternative processes, size of
facility or exclusion of significant aspects of the WWTP system (Foley et al., 2010a). A
limited number of studies have examined the relative environmental impacts of different
treatment standards. As research has developed over the years, the objective of LCA
research has changed from protecting human health, minimising the consumption of
finite resources, reducing the amount of energy required, and reusing pollutants so that
they can help in the nutrients recycling process.

2-38
While numerous LCA studies investigate the total environmental impacts and potential
outcomes from a whole wastewater treatment system cycle, few examined the relevant
environmental influences, especially with reference to GHG emissions from wastewater
treatment plants. When considering GHG emissions from WWTPs, the majority of LCA
studies concentrate on: firstly, carbon dioxide emissions originating from energy
consumption; and secondly, methane emissions from sludge treatment. To the best of
our knowledge, only 24 studies quantify GHG emissions when using LCA to evaluate
the WWTPs performance as can be seen in Table 2.6. The papers which quantified the
volume of GHG emissions from WWTPs while doing life cycle assessment were
selected for review in this study.
Table 2.6. Articles included in the review and main characteristics
Reference GHG Method Goal Process
(Emmerson et CO2 Estimation Evaluate LCA All treatment
al., 1995) framework and processes,
alternative energy
process options consumption
(Vidal et al., CO2, CH4, N2O ASM1 Assess the Energy
2002) environmental consumption
outcomes in a and sludge
WWTP under treatment
three scenarios
(Houillon et al., CO2, CH4, N2O Literature The Sludge
2005) review contribution of treatment
2-39
energy and process
emissions to
global warming
(Hospido et al., CH4, N2O Literature Evaluate the Sludge
2007) review most common treatment
technical
options to
remove organic
matter
(Foley et al., CO2, CH4, N2O BioWin Using LCA All treatment
2010a) simulator framework to processes
analyse
alternative
process options
(Wu et al., CO2, CH4 Not specificed Assess a All treatment
2010) WWTP based processes
on energy and
material flows
(Pan et al., CO2, CH4, N2O IPCC Estimate GHG All treatment
2011) from a vertical processes,
subsurface flow energy
constructed consumption
wetland; and
compare with a
2-40
group of five
WWTPs by
using LCA
(Rodriguez- N2O IPCC Assess the Sludge
Garcia et al., environmental treatment
2012) performance of
24 WWTPs
using LCA
with
Eutrophication
Potential, GWP
and operation
costs
(Godin et al., CH4, N2O IPCC Propose a new All treatment
2012) methodology to processes
perform LCA
on WWTPs
(Wang et al., CO2, CH4, N2O Literature Employ LCA Biological
2012a) review to construct treatment
and evaluate 6 process and
AAO energy
wastewater consumption
treatment
systems to
2-41
meet standards
(Wang et al., CO2 BioWin To choose the Biological
2012b) simulator wastewater treatment

CH4
treatment process and
N2O
processes that energy
mitigate the consumption
environmental
impacts and
promote
bioenergy and
nutrient
recovery
(Corominas et CO2, CH4, N2O Neptune Using LCA to Biological
al., 2013b) Simulation evaluate the treatment
Benchmark environmental process and
(NSB) impacts of energy
enhancing consumption
strategies
applied to
wastewater
nutrient
removal
(Zhu et al., CO2, CH4, N2O Literature Present a Biological
2013) review methodology to treatment
2-42
evaluate the process and
environmental energy
impacts of consumption
process
performance
(Cao et al., CO2 equivalent Literature LCA was used Energy
2013) review to evaluate and consumption
compare the and sludge
energy and treatment
GHG emissions
implications of
two sewage
sludge-to-
energy systems
(Rodriguez- CO2, CH4, N2O Literature The potential All treatment
Garcia et al., review environmental processes
2014) impacts of 3
different side-
stream
treatment
technologies
were assessed
by LCA
2-43
(Yoshida et al., CO2, CH4, N2O IPCC, direct The influence All treatment
2014) measurement of data processes
and literature inventory to
LCA outcomes
(Lorenzo-Toja CH4, N2O Direct The role of All treatment
et al., 2016b) measurement direct GHG processes
emissions in
the GWP of
two WWTPs
(Piao et al., CH4, N2O Assumed to be Evaluate All treatment
2016) based on several WWTP processes,
literature and based on LCA energy
IPCC and economic consumption
efficiency
analysis
(Lu et al., CO2, CH4, N2O Not specified Complement Biological
2017) the economic treatment
criteria and process
environmental
implications
with suggested
management
policies
2-44
(Casas Ledón CO2, CH4, N2O Not specified LCA was used All treatment
et al., 2017) to assess GHG processes,
emissions, energy
environmental consumption
remediation
costs and the
specific
environmental
remediation
costs
(Garfí et al., CO2, CH4, N2O Literature Three All treatment
2017) review wastewater processes
treatment
systems were
assessed to
compare the
total
environmental
impacts
(Polruang et CO2, CH4, N2O IPCC The All treatment
al., 2018) environmental processes,
impacts of energy
seven WWTPs consumption
were
2-45
investigated
(Awad et al., N2O, CH4, CO2 Literature LCA was Biological
2019) review applied to four treatment
scenarios to
Sludge
study the
treatment
environmental
impacts of a
WWTP
(Delre et al., CO2, CH4, N2O IPCC LCA was used The whole
2019) to calculate the plants
site-specific
carbon
footprints for
WWTPs
(Note: data was collected on 3/2020 on https://www.sciencedirect.com/ for all the LCA
studies which specify the amount of GHG emissions).
Table 2.6 indicates that GHG emissions from WWTPs can be quantified by different
methods, including assumption, modelling application and direct measure. The
boundary of existing studies focus on biological treatment unit rather than the whole
WWTP.
The level of coverage is illustrated in four main steps for the LCA in Figure 2.7.
2-46
25
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
100% 100% 100% 100%
91%
20 86%
72%
Number of paper
15
10
22%
5
13%
9%
s
s
it
n
G
n
on
ity
s
FU
e
ct
ar
tio
tio
m
H
su
iti
iv
pa
nd
Li
lG
ra
uc
Is
ol
sit
m
u
pe
str
em
ta
Bo
n
lI
O
Se
To
n
ia
D
Co
nt
te
Po
Figure 2.7. Level of LCA coverage in 25 reviewed papers
2.7.2. Integration of LCA and GHG quantification method
LCA and plant-wide models have been considered helpful tools to evaluate the
environmental impacts and operational condition, respectively. However, when using
LCA, the performance evaluation was limited to nitrogen and phosphorus removal. For
an optimal overall assessment, models are suggested for use in the LCA research
(Corominas et al., 2013b). It is essential to combine LCA with other indicators so that
evaluation is more reliable and accurate; this combination can fill the gap in our
knowledge concerning what happens between process control and environmental
performance (Flores-Alsina et al., 2010). It can be seen that LCA was applied to assess
the impact of some control strategies demonstrated by simulation models. The models
2-47
were used to measure the quantity of resource inputs and outputs, including GHG
emissions, while LCA captured the environmental impacts caused by an increase or
decrease inputs and options for recovery. In these situations, the outcomes of LCA
could be used for deciding which strategy to use. Once again, plant-wide models are
good options to assess the WWTPs’ performance.
The integrated LCA and plant-wide models were applied in some studies. Flores-Alsina
et al. (2010) first suggested adding the environmental assessment carried out by LCA
with economic, technical and legal criteria. The main purpose of their research was to
investigate the character and impact of twelve controllers. The evaluation process
followed the method of LCA research. Most of the inventory data were collected from
the results of the dynamic simulation BSM2. Some other data was adapted from the
literature and relevant databases. GHG emissions from treatment processes were not
considered in the study, and instead methane and nitrous oxide emissions from sludge
were tested for their application to agriculture.
Combination of LCA and another plant-wide model were conducted in a study of
Corominas et al. (2013b). They set out to compare the environmental impacts of
different controllers. The WWTP layout was simulated with Neptune Simulation
Benchmark (NSB) while the direct GHG emissions were estimated using ASM3 Bio-P.
The advantage of this research includes the weights, which reflect the relationship of
different categories and the results. The main findings were (1) implementing controls
for reducing energy consumption is beneficial but does not lead to ideal environmental
performance; and (2) nutrient enrichment is the most important factor as it strongly
influences selecting the best operational strategies. There are some limitations in the
research, such as only the water line was modelled and uncertainty in the N 2O emissions
2-48
factors was envident. According to the research, significant increasing in the total CO 2
equivalent emissions might result in no change in the final LCA outcomes.
Multiple evaluation criteria for WWTP performance and as environmentally defined by
BSM2 jointly with LCA criteria were applied in the study by Meneses et al. (2015). The
main objective of their analysis was to compare the environmental profile of the four
control strategies implemented by BSM2 from the environmental impact perspective.
The impact categories included acidification potential, global warming, eutrophication,
photochemical oxidation, depletion of abiotic resources, ozone layer depletion, and
terrestrial ecotoxicity. GHG emissions from the biological treatment process were
excluded from the study due to the limitations of BSM2. The outcomes of the LCA
showed that information on the environmental impacts for each category was evaluated.
Since the number of assessed parameters was large, it was difficult to determine the
differences and compare them. However, by understanding the relationship of each
assessment to obtain the best results, it helps the decision-maker to choose suitable
strategy.
According to Arnell et al. (2017), older studies are limited in choosing their boundaries
and analysing the operational costs. The dynamic character of GHG production is based
on static emission factors that could underestimate the outcomes. The study indicated
that it is possible to combine a simulation model and LCA to explore the dynamic
effects, operational cost and global environmental impact, including GHG emissions
(Arnell et al., 2017). The goal of their study was to evaluate the change in
environmental impacts from the different strategies where the same effluent quality was
assumed. Findings showed that adding chemically enhanced primary treatment reduced
the volume of total direct GHG emissions due to the significant reduction of N 2O
emitted from the activated sludge unit. The limitation of this research is that the
2-49
weighting step was not undertaken, but nonetheless it pointed out that combining the
simulation model and LCA can both describe the processes, and evaluate the
environmental impact (Arnell et al., 2017).
The application of different model such as BSMs for GHG quantification has been
conducted in existing studies. Future research should be applied for this direction or
propose a tool that combine LCA and GHG estimation, for example SimaPro or
OpenLCA.
2.8. CONCLUSIONS
WWTPs are complex operational processes that consist of transportation, treatment, and
resources consumption. Regarding the overall performance of a WWTP, four aims need
to be considered and balanced when proposing the control strategy: (1) mitigate the
pollutant discharge including GHG emissions; (2) ensure the quality of effluent; (3)
maintain costs for the lifetime of a WWTP; and (4) minimise the global environmental
impact. For better controlling of WWTPs, there is a need for developing effective
quantification methods with low uncertainty and investigate the key impact factors
inducing emissions and mitigation solution for GHGEs.
2-50
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3-1
3.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of common methods and impact indicators for life cycle
assessment and life cycle impact analysis. This thesis used an extensive database
collected from different sources, including literature and engineering reports. Hence, the
materials and specific tools are presented individually in each chapter. Information
about the employed software, SimaPro, is also provided.
3.2. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT METHOD
3.2.1. Goal and scope definition
Goal and scope definition help to understand the main purpose of the assessment. It is
necessary to describe in detail the function of the systems and to ensure they operate
exactly as determined in the event where different WWTPs are being compared. The
functional unit (FU) should be clarified. During this step, reference flow is verified to
measure product components and materials. All data used in the LCA must be
calculated or scaled by the reference flow. Futhermore, all the reviewed papers have
identified the FU and described the system boundary.
The FU provides a reference from which inputs and outputs of the process can be
standardised. The potential impacts of a WWTP can be calculated and referred to the
FU. When defining the FU of a WWTP, different choices were selected. The most
common FU is the quantity of treated water at a certain time (m3d-1), named FU1; it is
based on the realistic data as used in 86% of reviewed articles. Some studies chose FU
based on treated wastewater associated with a population equivalent (PE) to minimise
the difference between the influent composition and flow. In addition to this, FU
considers the removal of nutrients and organic matter and this is known as FU2 (kg
PO43- eq) (Zhu et al., 2013). FU1 has the ability to indicate the differences between
facilities with reference to influent characteristics, while FU2 focuses on the differences
between environmental and economic costs of mitigating the potential eutrophication of
3-2
the effluent (Rodriguez-Garcia et al., 2011). When investigating the pollution removal
capacities of the WWTPs, Delre et al. (2019) used the FUs in term of 1 kg of carbon
removed, 1 kg of total nitrogen removed, and 1 kg of phosphorus removed. The reason
for choosing these FUs was to separate the pollution removal abilities according to the
relevant pollutant. The life-span of the plants has improved from fifteen years
(Emmerson et al., 1995) to twenty years (Foley et al., 2010a) and now their maximum
life-span is fifty years (Piao et al., 2016).
System boundary definition plays an important role in describing which processes will
be included or excluded from the system, so the system boundary should be consistent
with the objectives of the study. Choosing the system boundary is one of the challenges
when implementing LCA. Various system boundaries lead to different results because
choosing the system boundary defines which flows of information, energy or material
transfer from one system to another (Pan et al., 2018). With reference to GHG
emissions, only 9% of the papers could be defined as the “Cradle to Grave” approach,
and 22% represented the “Cradle to Gate” research. Most papers focus on the “Gate to
Gate” analysis when only the operational phases are being considered. Among the
reviewed articles, half of these considered all treatment processes in the water line and
sludge line contexts. Three of these focused on sludge treatment only. It was concluded
that the construction phase contributed to a negligible impact compared with the
operational phase. The effectiveness of these boundary influences on the LCI is
discussed in the following section.
3.2.2. Life cycle inventory analysis
Life cycle inventory (LCI) is a list of all the material and energy inputs and outputs.
This step includes the collection and definition of inputs and outputs of a system
throughout its life cycle. LCI is defined as the procedure of data collection and data
3-3
calculation. For example, inputs comprise raw materials, energy, products or semi-
finished products, which are outputs from other processes. Conversely, outputs are
emissions, products, semi-finished products, and energy emitted to the environment or
used in another process. The input and output data are based on the boundary selection
in step 1. The construction and demolition processes are normally excluded from
WWTP studies because the operation stage contributes approximately 80% of
environmental impacts (Polruang et al., 2018). Yoshida et al. (2014) conducted a
research study to determine the influence of the inventory data on the outcomes of an
LCA study.
Data availability
One of the most critical issues is establishing reliable inventory data (Yoshida et al.,
2014). Data collection is time- and labor-consuming because establishing the on-site
data monitoring process is expensive or even impossible in some cases. Due to the lack
of data, some processes were excluded from the studies, and this meant that the output
from the whole cycle and its impact on the environment was underestimated. The input
data was based on the WWTP design standards, environmental reports, plant operator
communications, or on-site measurements. The output data was obtained from on-site
measurements, modeling, or simulations. Of the 20 papers that investigated the
treatment processes only, 9 of them covered all the treatment stages, whilst the number
of papers that reviewed biological and sludge treatment was 6 and 5, respectively.
Regarding GHG emissions, 68% of the articles quantified total GHG emissions in terms
of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The remaining papers covered only one
or two gases in their research.
Data quality
3-4
The number of reviewed papers indicating the method to quantify GHG emissions
based on the literature review and IPCC guidelines, accounted for 63.6%. Using IPCC
has some limitations, such as the exclusion of direct carbon dioxide emissions,
uncertainties with default emissions factors, and the accuracy of default data. There are
two types of emission factors used to report the quality and quantity of the data. Most of
the emission factors are based on the IPCC guidelines or have been calculated on-site.
To ensure the quality and reduce the uncertainties, the data need to be updated and less
than three years old. Approximately 20% of the studies excluded the evaluation method,
which was similar to the proportion of articles assessing GHG emissions through the
use of models. Only one study was conducted with an on-site measurement technique
(Lorenzo-Toja et al., 2016a). The uncertainties of this method might relate to technical
problems, the number of sampling points, the position of sampling points, and the
operator’s experience.
3.2.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The impact assessment step aims to study the potential effects on human health, the
availability of resources, and the natural environment. This step makes the results of an
LCA easier to interpret. The energy use and emissions generated are classified and
characterised into impact categories and impact potentials, including global warming,
acidification and eutrophication (ISO, 2006b; UNEP, 2003). Because of the limitation
of the boundaries, the reviewed papers mostly considered the environmental impacts
associated with the operation phase, which included primary, secondary, tertiary
treatments, and effluent discharge.
Total GHG emissions from WWTP, including methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous
oxide, are the sum of direct and indirect emissions. The direct emissions are GHG
emitted from each treatment processes within the system boundary while the indirect
3-5
emissions are related to energy consumption. For the treatment processes, the energy
inputs are strongly correlated to the potential outcomes such as global warming, and
contributing up to 70% of several impact categories (Sabeen et al., 2018). However, half
of the reviewed papers excluded energy utilisation.
3.2.4. Improvement analysis and interpretation
In the interpretation phase, LCA users aim to identify the most important aspects of the
inventory analysis and the impact assessment. Furthermore, they evaluate the study’s
outcomes, do a completeness check, undertake a sensitivity analysis and uncertainty
analysis, check for consistency, make conclusions, and recommendations (UNEP, 2003;
VanDuinen et al., 2009). The reason for interpreting data are to: firstly, determine the
contribution of each component to each environmental outcome; and secondly, evaluate
the level of confidence in the results. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the
effect of each environmental indicator when the inventory data varied ±10%. The
uncertainty analysis confirms the absence of any outcome caused by sensitive factors on
the findings. The recommendations of the proposed strategies were made in term of the
objectives of this research. These included several improvements that would mitigate
GHG emissions from the WWTPs. The result was that the power produced from the
total GHG emissions exceeded 59% (Zhu et al., 2013). There is an opportunity to
reduce life cycle impacts relating to energy utilisation (Emmerson et al., 1995; Wu et
al., 2010). The largest proportion of the energy consumption was used in the aeration
unit, which accounted for a maximum of 58.8% (Wang et al., 2012a). In contrast low
aeration reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions but increases the emissions of
nitrous oxide (Nguyen et al., 2019). It is necessary to maintain a suitable level of
aeration to balance operational efficiency and energy requirements. However, these
3-6
reviewed studies were limited in the outcomes of the weighting step (Corominas et al.,
2013b).
Most of the LCA studies involved the overall assessment of large wastewater treatment
systems. However, regarding GHG emissions, the performance of each treatment unit
may lead to different outcomes. Therefore, what is essential here is to propose the best
system for the WWTP in term of how each treatment unit operates.
3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT METHODS AND CATEGORIES
3.3.1. EDP 2018
This method was developed from EPD 2008, EPD 2013, and used to create the
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) (PRe', 2019). In the EPD, the volume of
materials and energy used to manufacture a product is declared. Therefore, this method
provides documented and comparable information about the impact of a single product
during its whole life cycle. EPD 2018 helps to provide a reliable source of data on the
environmental burdens of a product and compare it to choose better materials. By using
EPD 2018, eight impact categories are reported. Especially, eutrophication, global
warming, ozone depletion, and abiotic resource depletion are taken from the CML-IA
baseline method, while acidification adapted from CML-IA nonbaseline method. Water
scarcity and photochemical oxidation are based on the AWARE method and ReCiPe
2008, respectively (PRe', 2019). The EPD method is only applicable to the European
context.
3.3.2. ReCiPe 2016
This method is an updated and extended version of ReCiPe 2008, which involved
midpoint and endpoint impact categories (PRe', 2019). ReCiPe was known as the
method with the broadest set of impact categories. A key benefit of ReCiPe 2016 is its
3-7
ability to provide global characterization factors while maintaining a number of
indicators to implement at the national and international levels.
ReCiPe at midpoint level
18 impact categories were quantified to observe the relative importance of emissions or
extraction, including ozone depletion, human toxicity, ionizing radiation, photochemical
oxidant formation, particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification, climate change,
terrestrial ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity and eutrophication, freshwater eutrophication,
ecotoxicity, and depletion, fossil fuel depletion, minerals depletion, and three indicators
in land occupation.
ReCiPe at endpoint level
All of these indicators are multiplied by damage factors to analyze the damage
pathways to the endpoint area. The endpoint categories were calculated and comprised
of human health, ecosystems, and resource scarcity (PRe', 2019), to reflect the potential
effect. Water consumption on human health, terrestrial ecosystems, and freshwater
ecosystems are newly added to focus on the water footprint. The advantage of the
ReCiPe method is that single scores analyses help to compare damage categories easily.
Using the endpoint factors could solve the limitation of the midpoint method where the
impacts are presented in multiple characterization categories. All the effects are
normalized, weighted, and aggregated into endpoint values, which is convenient for
summary and comparation. Figure 3.1 presents the procedure to convert midpoint to
endpoint values (PRe', 2020). These endpoints are further integrated into the form of
one indicator, known as the single score, where overall environmental performance is
counted in point (Pt).
3-8
Ozone depletion Ozone depletion
Cancer
Ozone formation `
Hazard waste
Human toxicity cancer Respirator

disease
Absorbability
Ionizing radiation Human
health
(DALYs)
PM10 Particulate matter

concentration Other disease
Infrared Human toxicity non cancer

forcing
Raw
materials
Land use Climate change Malnutrition
GHG Saturation
emissions
Terrestrial acidification
Single
Damage to Ecosystems score
species (species.yr) (Pt)
Land use Land use
Eutrophication Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Increase
Fossil fuel extraction cost
consumption
Fossil resource scarcity
Resources
(USD)
Mineral
consumption
Mineral resource scarcity
Increase energy
cost
Water
consumption Water use
ENVIRONMENTAL MIDPOINT DAMAGE FACTORS ENDPOINT AREAS SINGLE

TROUBLES INDICATORS SCORE
Figure 3.1. The connection between data inventories, midpoint, and endpoint indicators.
Figure 3.1 shows the procedure to convert midpoint to endpoint values (PRe', 2020)
and how multiple impacts categories are integrated into single value. The requirements
of raw materials and land use, and GHG emissions led to problems in several aspects.
The problems are analysed and presented through 14 environmental midpoint

3-9
indicators. Those indicators will be multiplied with matching damage factors to define
the impacts on three endpoint areas, including damage to human health, destroy to
ecosystems, and ruin to resource availability. These endpoint values are further
integrated into the form of one indicator, known as the single score, where overall
environmental performance is counted in eco-point (Pt).
3.4. ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE
SimaPro is software to collect, evaluate, and control the sustainable performance
information of a product or a system of the trusted tools. SimaPro 9.1, the latest version
of SimaPro, was utilized for environmental assessment in this thesis. In addition, an
updated database system and impact assessment methods were included in this version,
which increases the efficiency and accuracy of the analysis process.
3-10
Chapter 4
CONTRIBUTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PHASE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4-1
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is to remove contaminants from
the effluent before they are released to receiving water bodies. Besides generating
dischargeable effluent, WWTPs also cause problems during their operational lifetimes,
such as global warming and climate change (Nguyen et al., 2019). Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) is one of the most trusted methodologies for measuring the impacts
of a WWTP throughout its life cycle and assessing its performance (Gallego-Schmid et
al., 2019). Evaluation is generally done by analyzing the emissions from an individual
relevant process or the whole system. LCA can assess the environmental sustainability
of a process by measuring the impacts on different categories (Corominas et al., 2020a).
LCA has been conducted to analyze the environmental performance of WWTPs since
the 1990s, and it has resulted in many papers (Nguyen et al., 2020d). Most studies focus
on the operation phase, which is deemed to make the most significant contribution to
the state of the natural environment. The construction and demolition phases are
commonly ignored in many papers as their proportion is assumed to be negligible
compared with the operation stage (Sabeen et al., 2018). The consumption of chemical
and other related energy during the treatment process resulting in a considerable amount
and various types of emissions and wastes (Nguyen et al., 2020d). Compared to the
operation process, construction generally occurs in a short time. Other reasons
explaining the exclusion of the construction stage from the research are the limited
information and time-consuming costs associated with building the data inventories
(Morera et al., 2020). Moreover, published LCA studies lack transparency in data
provided (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019), which leads to limitations in choosing the
research boundary and minimize the results.
4-2
According to some recent reviews, Gallego- Schmid et al. (2019) indicated that 32% of
the LCA studies in developing countries include construction, while another study
reported that only 22% of the LCA papers review the construction process (Nguyen et
al., 2020d). The relative contributions between construction and operation need more
evidence (Morera et al., 2020). According to Emmerson et al. (1995), the construction
stage contributes less than 5% of the overall potential impacts. Meanwhile, some other
research highlights the significant role of construction on some impact categories
(Morera et al., 2017; Resende et al., 2019), which are described in detail below in this
study. The differences between studies might come from the availability and quality of
the inventory data. There are different methods to build up the inventory data for each
case. Previous analyses have primarily fallen short in considering the formation of the
individual treatment unit. The WWTP is a system, that can serve to improve the
accuracy of the remediation assessment process, all the relevant activities need to be
included. Despite the differences in technology, data inventories, and assessment
methodology, more LCA studies are needed for better and comparable assessments.
Only a limited number of existing studies identify the contribution of construction
works and analyze the proportion of each unit process to the total environmental
impacts wielded by WWTP. Assessing the stage contribution at the unit process is
necessary to explore the biggest contributors to mitigation strategies (Xue et al., 2019).
Moreover, the construction stage has a greater influence when a broad range of
construction materials list is provided (Morera et al., 2017). Previous studies have
problems in calculating the burdens of building materials. Most previous papers
concerning materials focused only on Global Warming Potential (GWP), while other
environmental impacts are ignored (Jeong et al., 2019). This paper examines in more
detail the construction activities of different units in WWTPs, such as pumping, primary
4-3
treatment, secondary treatment, sludge treatment, and other processes (building and
exterior landscaping). To bridge the gaps in our knowledge, LCA in our study considers
the materials component of each unit process and analyses their impacts on various
environmental indicators.
This chapter aims to present a complete report on the influence of various parts of the
WWTP to the environment. LCA is conducted to: (1) classify and quantify the materials
used in the construction phase; (2) carry out an analysis on the significant impacts
categories; (3) explain the role of some primary elements. The scope of the research
focuses on the construction phase solely. Most studies have an interest in comparing the
proportion of construction with operational aspects (Morera et al., 2020; Xue et al.,
2019). However, this chapter is to understand the impacts of each unit in various
categories and to explore the differences by analyzing the amount of related material.
As specific Environmental Product Declaration (EDP) is not available for all the
devices, equipment was excluded. Moreover, this research only considers the core units
without the inclusion of the collection sewer system.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S., Nguyen, D.D., Nguyen, T.V.
& Nghiem, D.L. 2020a, 'Contribution of the construction phase to environmental
impacts of the wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment,
vol. 743, p. 140658.
4.2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.2.1. Life cycle assessment
Goal and scope
4-4
The goal of this chapter is to analyze the impacts of different units during the
construction phase for two WWTPs. The chosen case studies are Girona, located in
Catalonia, Spain, and Mill Creek in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. There are various
functional units depend on the objective of the research. The functional unit of this
study is 1 m3 of influent wastewater.
System boundaries comprise the input and output flow of materials and energy
resources for the construction phase. It is essential to mention here that the operation
and demolition phases are not considered as part of this research. In this study, all the
material input for infrastructure site and earthworks are comprised, which include the
building components (wall, insulation, foundations, etc.) and treatment components.
Production of materials, their transportation from the factory to the WWTP sites, and
consumption to build the infrastructure systems are covered here.
Data inventories
The LCI includes all the materials required to build the infrastructure and all the
resources for material production (ISO, 2006a). The data for the target systems and raw
materials were obtained from published reports in the literature (Arden et al., 2019;
Morera et al., 2017; Xue et al., 2019). More details about the plant configuration at the
Girona WWTP are documented in the work of Morera et al. (2017), while the Mill
Creek plant is part of the research by Arden et al. (2019). Inventory data on systems
construction referred to the functional unit are shown in Table 4.1 for Girona WWTP
and Table 4.2 for Mill Creek WWTP. The full material list for two WWTPs has been
gathered and provided in the supporting documents.
Table 4.1 Summary of inventory for Girona WWTP, values are referred to 1 m3 of
influent
4-5
Material/Process Unit Value
Inputs
Diesel MJ 2.96E-02
Transport tkm 1.61E-02
Reinforcing steel kg 4.92E-03
Other steel kg 1.61E-04
Cast iron kg 2.68E-05
Aluminium kg 1.96E-06
Wire copper kg 1.34E-09
Elastomeric rubber kg 2.68E-05
Polyester reinforced with glass fiber kg 1.15E-03
PVC kg 3.49E-05
Wood m3 1.55E-07
Concrete m3 5.33E-05
Brick kg 6.42E-04
Other concrete kg 2.36E-03
Roofing tile kg 7.48E-05
Plastering kg 5.11E-09
Synthetic oil kg 6.61E-06
Mastic asphalt kg 3.74E-06
Gravel kg 1.03E-02
Adhesive kg 5.00E-07
Cement + mortar kg 1.45E-03
Paper kg 2.10E-09
Windows kg 3.16E-06
Paint kg 1.29E-07
Butyl kg 2.01E-09
Crushed rocks kg 2.99E-03
Resin kg 3.29E-06
Bitumen kg 3.87E-06
Water kg 9.44E-04
Rock wool kg 2.10E-06
Output
Material deposition ton 3.23E-04
Table 4.2. Inventory for Mill Creek WWTP, values are referred to 1 m3 of influent
Material unit Value
Inputs
Concrete m3 2.54E-05
Reinforcing Steel kg 2.59E-03
4-6
Electrical steel kg 2.27E-05
Stainless 18/8 coil kg 3.84E-06
Other steel kg 4.89E-06
HDPE kg 2.96E-05
Cast Iron kg 5.78E-05
Aluminum kg 1.36E-06
Copper kg 3.99E-06
Output
Earthworks kg 3.40E-02
Detailed inventories for the construction phase include three steps: firstly, gathering and
classifying the material list; secondly, searching for an equivalent element in the
Ecoinvent database; and thirdly, calculating the material inventories. By applying these
steps, all the resources used to manufacture and transport the materials are included.
After being normalized to the functional unit, the amounts of all materials are presented
in the list. Ecoinvent database provides information about raw materials and energy
required to produce each element.
Five WWTP units are considered in this case study: (1) pumping, (2) primary treatment,
(3) secondary treatment, (4) sludge line, and (5) others.
Impacts assessment
The potential environmental impacts have been calculated through the use of LCIA
characterization factors related to the subset of impact categories from ReCiPe 2016 and
EPD 2018 (PRe', 2019).
4-7
4.2.2. Case study description
All the information on these two plants configuration is based on the 2016 reports
(Commission, 2016; Institute, 2016), as presented in Table 3. These WWTPs function
by removing nutrients in an advanced way, but they differ from each other regarding
treatment capacity and technology.
Table 4. 3. Characteristic of the case studies WWTPs
WWTP Design Design Design Influent Effluent Removal
Location PE flow treatment BOD efficiencies

BOD-
(m3.d-1) (mg/l) BOD-TN-TP
TN-TP
(%)
(mg/l)
Girona 206,250 55,000 BNP 167.46 10 – 7.94 94 – 77.6 –
Spain – 0.74 86.2
Mill 850,000 454,200 B/TSS 218.75 2.17 – 99.2 – NR –
Creek 0.54 – NR
0.10
United
States
4.2.3. Environmental burdens caused by construction reported in the literature
Construction of low-tech wastewater systems
In most studies done utilizing low-tech and low-energy processes, construction can be
responsible for up to 80% of the impacts for some categories (Corominas et al., 2013a;
Resende et al., 2019). There are two main reasons for this outcome. Firstly, due to the
low-tech, low-energy treatment process, the impacts of electricity, and the volume of
4-8
emissions from the operation phase are quite small. Secondly, is that this system
requires a large area, and therefore, a massive amount of materials is needed for
construction. In total, there is an increase in construction impacts and a decline in
operation burdens. Lutterbeck et al. (2017) reported that the development of the upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket combined with an anaerobic filter (UASB/BF) contributes
36% to the total impacts of the system. The consumption of fiberglass material is the
cause of the burden. Moreover, the production of the silicon wafer and copper wire
makes the greatest contribution to the photoreactors’ construction and the single total
score for environmental impacts, accounting for 45% of the points (Pt). Regarding three
endpoint categories, resource estimates for the most significant burdens being shared
concerning the construction, while the operational matters mostly influence human
health and ecosystems.
According to Garfi et al. (2017), the construction stage accounted for 25-35% of the
total impact. Nevertheless, construction shares 60-65% of the burden on metal depletion
potential. Based on prior studies, it was suggested that the longer the distance of
materials transportation, the significantly higher would be the impacts of construction
(Garfí et al., 2017). Resende et al. (2019) recently explored the contribution of some
primary materials and found that although the amount of steel was much smaller than
brick, its influence is still sizeable.
Construction of conventional WWTPs
Several LCA studies have shown an interest in the construction phase, and they are
listed in Table 4.4. Regarding the construction phase of these studies, Award et al.
(2019) asserted that it made the smallest contribution when compared to the operations
phase. An exception here is freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, which reached 42% due to
4-9
cement and steel production. Jeong et al. (2015) discovered that infrastructure
construction for wastewater collection and treatment share 27 % of the impact on
carcinogenic effects, even more than the proportion of electricity consumption. The
highest contribution of construction is documented in Risch et al. (2015), as only four
among 18 impact categories are less than 5%. Especially, 81% of urban land occupation
and 91% of terrestrial ecotoxicity are those reported for construction.
The results in the research by Morera et al. (2017) and Xue et al. (2019) have
similarities. Morera et al. (2017) reported that for climate change (CC), ozone depletion
(OD), and freshwater eutrophication (FE), the contribution of construction varies from 5
to 10% of the total impact. The percentage of human toxicity (HT) and fossil depletion
(FD) are approximately 16%. Metal depletion (MD) has the largest share of 63%. Xue
et al. (2019) contended that the construction stage (WTP combined WWTP) contributed
less than 5% to most of the environmental impacts. MD shows the significant role
played by construction, which accounts for 68%, followed by human health and
ecotoxicity, of which the percentages are 13% and 7%, respectively.
Table. 4.4. Summary of LCA studies concerning the construction phase since 2015. (C:
construction phase, O: operation phase, D: demolition phase)
Reference Boundary Phase Data Functiona Data source LCIA

include inventor l unit method
d y
(Risch et Sewer C, O, D Provide Collection Ecoinvent ReCiPe
al., 2015) system, d and Midpoint
WWTP treatment and
of a Endpoint
wastewate V1.07
r load
from 5200
PE/d
4-10
(Jeong et Water C, O, D Not 1 m3 of NA TRACI
al., 2015) supply, provided water v2.1
wastewate distribute
r d to point-
collection/ of-use
treatment,
stormwate
r
collection
system
(Hernández WWTP C, O Provide 1 m3 of Literature IW+,
-Padilla et d treated ReCiPe,
al., 2017) wastewate Impact
r 2002+
(Garfí et WWTP C, O Provide 1 m3 of Ecoinvent ReCiPe
al., 2017) d water Midpoint
(Morera et WWT C, O, D Provide 1 m3 of Plant ReCiPe
al., 2017) P d treated project Midpoint
wastewate budget
r
(Zepon WWTP C, O, D Provide 1000 m3 Ecoinvent, ReCiPe
Tarpani et d of reports 2008
al., 2018) wastewate
r
(Rashidi et WWTP C, O Not 100,000 Literature Local
al., 2018) provided m3 d-1 for methodolog
20 years y
(Awad et WWTP C, O Provide 1 m3 of Ecoinvent CML 2000
al., 2019) d treated
wastewate
r
(Li et al., WWTP C, O Not 1 m3 of NA Traci 2.1
2019) provided treated
wastewate
r
(Xue et al., Urban C, O, D Provide 1 m3 of Plant Traci 2.0
2019) water d treated document,
system and US
distribute database
d water,
and 1 m3
of treated
4-11
wastewate
r
(Morera et WWTP C Provide 1 m3 of Constructio ReCiPe
al., 2020) d treated n budget, Midpoint
wastewate literature,
r Ecoinvent
(Lopes et WWTP C, O Provide 1 m3 of WWTP CML 2
al., 2020) d treated project baseline;
wastewate report Cumulative
r energy
demand
Concerned about the impacts of different materials, Lopes et al. (2020) found that
materials consumption in the construction stage has a significant impact potential due to
the use of reinforcing steel, cement, and gravel. Reinforcing steel during concrete
production is the main reason for the greatest impacts of construction on abiotic
depletion, ozone layer depletion, all toxicity indicators, and acidification. Jeong et al.
(2015) stated that when broadening the scope of construction materials, construction is
expected to exert much more environmental impacts. In their research, steel and cast
iron production contribute 16% to non-carcinogenic factors. Diesel fuel consumption is
the main reason for the proportion of terrestrial and marine ecotoxicities in research by
Risch et al. (2015). According to Morera et al. (2017), the concrete production process
for secondary treatment and sludge line contributes the most to CC. Meanwhile, the
reinforcing steel production process is focused on MD and HT. There is only a minimal
contribution made by plastic production to HT and MD.
A very recent study has the same interest as ours. Morera et al. (2020) found secondary
treatment is the unit with a significant share between 30 and 70% for most of the
potential impacts. Concrete is the most important material as it represents 38% of CC,
25% of OC, and 25% of FD. The secondary treatment has a major proportion due to
4-12
more than half of the amount of concrete is consumed here. The sludge line has a
proportion smaller than 10%. Reinforcing steel makes the second-highest contribution,
which represents 20 % of CC, 18% of FD, but a significant proportion of MD amounts
to 64% share. Polystyrene consumption has a marked influence on OD.
After reviewing the results from existing studies, we can state that the construction
phase cannot be neglected when analyzing the total environmental impacts of a WWTP.
The contribution of the construction phase should be calculated case by case and could
not be estimated base on documented results. It can be seen from Table 4 there are
different LCIA methods for environmental assessment, but only a small number of LCA
studies. For this reason and the paucity of results, more studies are needed, and they
should focus on the environmental impacts of the construction phase. From the life
cycle perspective, the performance of the WWTP can be improved by maximizing the
environmental benefits and minimizing the undesired impacts.
4.3. RESULTS
4.3.1. Environmental impacts of Girona WWTP’s construction
Fig.4.1 presents the results obtained from the LCA for the Girona WWTP on the eight
impact categories. It shows the contribution of the different elements included in the
infrastructure system. It can be seen from the results that eight factors responsible for
substantial impacts on all categories. These components include six materials and two
other elements. The materials are diesel, reinforcing steel, glass fiber reinforced plastic,
and concrete. The two other elements are the inert waste from the earthworks and
transportation activities. Concrete and reinforcing steel present similar significant roles
in most of the impacts, and they range from about 17% to 47%. The most considerable
percentages show the footprint of reinforcing steel on abiotic depletion elements similar
to the impact of concrete on water scarcity. This is explained by the raw material and
energy consumption in steel and concrete production. Glass fiber reinforced plastic
accounts for more than 10% to 20% of all indicators. The highest percentage of diesel is
19% on photochemical oxidation. The share of inert waste and reinforcing steel on
ozone layer depletion amounts to approximately 19%.
4-13
Fig.4.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) using EPD 2018 indicators for Girona
WWTP
By using ReCiPe, the results are once again confirmed from Figure 4.2 that the largest
contributor is reinforcing steel and concrete. The most significant impacts of reinforcing
steel are responsible for 90% on human cancer toxicity and 80% on mineral resource
scarcity. Glass fiber reinforced plastic and concrete reveal a significant influence on OD
and land use, respectively. Concrete is the dominant effect on global warming, water
consumption and responsible for the highest share on land use. Diesel and inert waste
do contribute to all impact indicators with a small score on most categories. The biggest
share of diesel is evident for ozone formation concerning both human health and
ecosystems. Meanwhile, the most considerable proportion of transportation contributes
to terrestrial ecotoxicity, which accounts for more than 20% and is only behind concrete
and reinforcing steel.
4-14
Fig. 4.2. LCIA using ReCiPe 2016 indicators
SimaPro helps to analyze the burdens of each treatment unit in all categories by
identifying the components and factors which generate a high proportion. For parameter
analysis, all the treatment units are normalized and presented in Figure 4.3. Results
show that the secondary treatment process dominated most of the impact categories,
followed by the sludge line, pumping, and primary treatment. The secondary treatment
process wields the most effect on land use and ozone formation. The hierarchy has a
change in stratospheric ozone depletion, while the sludge line records the biggest
influence of 40%.
4-15
Fig. 4.3. LCIA using ReCiPe 2016 for a single unit in the construction of the Girona
WWTP
4.3.2. Contribution of construction at Mill Creek WWTP

As can be seen in Figure 4.4. the material list was classified into seven main groups,
namely concrete, reinforcing steel, polyethylene, cast iron, aluminum, copper, and inert
waste. Reinforcing steel also contributes significantly to most of the impacts, except for
ionizing radiation, where the largest share is concrete. Inert waste plays a vital role in
land use and fossil resource scarcity. Copper, which was barely mentioned previously,
accounts for 17% of the burden on terrestrial ecotoxicity. The impact of polyethylene is
quite small for all categories except for fossil resource scarcity, and it contributes 5% to
the total.
4-16
Figure 4.4. ReCiPe method for construction material in Mill Creek WWTP
Figure 4.5. Contribution of the individual treatment unit
4-17
According to the data inventory of each treatment, their contributions to the
environmental impacts are shown in Figure 4.5. Primary treatment scores more than
50% of 14 of the 22 impacts categories. The most significant burden of primary
treatment can be found in land use, which reaches as much as 77%. Secondary treatment
only has a substantial impact on ionizing radiation. While primary treatment and
secondary treatment are the two major contributors, the influence of the sludge line is
quite small for all indicators. The role of pumping is negligible in this case.
Weighting indicator results
Figure 4.6 shows the ReCiPe weighted results at the endpoint level, where impacts are
examined at the end of the cause-effect chain, using the damage assessment on human
health (HH), ecosystems, and resources. The default Hierarchist version of ReCiPe with
average weighting factors is chosen to be multiplied and corresponds to each impact
category. Weighted results are referred to as eco-indicator point (Pt), the annual
environmental load per citizen. As shown in Figure 6, the damage category HH
accounts for most of the total ecological burdens, 94% in Girona WWTP, and 95.4% in
Mill Creek. Ecosystems score 4.5% and 5.8% in Mill Creek and Girona, respectively,
while resources make only a negligible contribution.
In Girona WWTP, secondary treatment units contribute more than half of the total
impact, accounting for 53%. Sludge line is the second-highest contributor with a share
of 23.3%, followed by pumping and primary treatment, which account for 12.5% and
9.4%, respectively. Notably, in Mill Creek WWTP, the proportions of primary
treatment and secondary treatment are similar, amounting to 43.8% and 44.9%,
respectively. The total score for the sludge line and pumping is about 11%, where one
third goes to the pumping contribution.
4-18
Figure 4.6. ReCiPe’s weighted endpoint damage categories for case studies
4.4. DISCUSSION
4.4.1. Influence of materials to impact categories
Having better knowledge of what each type of material contributes to the environment
will benefit in reducing impacts strategies. Some new materials, which have more
physical advantages, are suggested as being able to substitute for traditional ones.
However, regarding the raw material and energy consumption during the manufacturing
processes, the more advantages they have, the more impacts they will make. For
example, fiberglass material is widely used in construction because it is lightweight,
compact, easy to handle, and has higher chemical resistance than concrete. The quantity
of consumed concrete is 110 times higher than glass fiber. Still, the environmental
burdens caused by concrete are only four times that of fiberglass, concerning global
warming and water scarcity. The other impacts of concrete are approximately double
fiberglass, as can be seen in Figure 4.1 and supporting documents for Girona WWTP.
4-19
Figure 4.7. Diesel’s impacts in our study and that by Morera et al. (2020). (Ozone
formation human health and ecotoxicity; marine ecotoxicity; and terrestrial ecotoxicity
are analysed by ReCiPe, while EPD was conducted for photochemical oxidation).
During the construction phase, diesel is consumed in building machines and diesel-
electric generators. The results in the study by Risch et al. (2015) indicated that diesel
fuel consumption contributes the most to terrestrial and marine ecotoxicities, while our
research observes the negligible impact of diesel on these indicators. It can be seen that
mining and refining processes during diesel production increase the acidification rate
and reduce the neutralizing capacity of the soil. However, these impacts contribute to
acidification much more than on ecotoxicity. Our finding agrees with that of Morera et
al. (2020). Although the amount of diesel after normalization to 1m3 of influent is
different, its proportions are similar, as presented in Figure 4.7. Explaining our results,
what we can see is that during diesel production and consumption, CO, CO 2, N2O, and
CH2O were generated and emitted. These gases are ozone precursors, which are highly
toxic to human health, block oxygen uptake, and responsible for global warming.
4-20
Therefore, diesel greatly influences ozone formation, human health, ecosystems, and
photochemical oxidation.
4.4.2. Reinforcing steel, concrete, and their environmental impacts
Steel in general and concrete are two primary building materials. Concrete is
accountable for less embodied energy and environmental impacts than other
construction materials like glass, aluminum, and ceramic tiles. It is the most common
material for foundations, structural walls, roofs, and floors because it has a long service
life and durable. Due to the massive amounts of concrete consumed in the building
industry, it is responsible for the majority of embodied energy. Reinforcing steel is used
in reinforced concrete to strengthen the structure and hold the concrete in tension. As
stated in the previous study, reinforcing steel has high impact potential as a
consequence of the production process, which consists of mining and steel manufacture
(Lopes et al., 2020). Vast quantities of concrete and reinforcing steel, as seen in Table
4.5, are consumed in the reviewed WWTPs.
Similar to other studies, our results show that reinforcing steel and concrete are the top
two contributors to most of the impact categories with the exception of ozone depletion,
where glass fiber is dominant. Global warming is a common reference standard for
GHG emissions. Greater energy consumption will lead to higher GWP impacts. It can
be observed from Figure 4.1 that concrete production has a higher GWP than that of
steel. Toxicity potential, regarding ecotoxicity potential and human toxicity potential, is
the negative effect on a living organism caused by pollutants or contaminants. Figure
4.1 and Figure 4.4 show that reinforcing steel has a higher impact on toxicity than
concrete.
Table 4.5. Reinforcing steel and concrete used for construction per functional unit (FU)
4-21
WWTP/ References Reinforcing steel Concrete FU
(kg)
(m3)
LEscala/ (Morera et 0.074 0.0008 1m3 influent
al., 2020)
Granular activated 0.4150 0.0008 1000m3 wastewater
carbon (Zepon
Tarpani et al., 2018)
Nanofiltration 0.0901 0.0002 1000m3 wastewater
(Zepon Tarpani et
al., 2018)
Girona (our study) 0.00492 0.0000533 1m3 influent
Mill Creek (our 0.00262 0.0000254 1m3 influent
study)
Due to large quantities of concrete and reinforcing steel and the significant contribution
of these two materials, reducing them will lower the burdens. However, as they are two
primary materials for building structures, it is difficult to limit their quantity. Therefore,
other options to minimize their impacts should be considered, for instance, using
sustainable alternative materials and recycling materials. As mentioned before,
alternative material should be analyzed by LCA before being used, and more research is
required on this topic. For the second option discussed above, material recycling is
based on abiotic depletion (AD) and mineral resource scarcity (MRC). Concrete
recycling has some advantages because it is hard to crush while recycling methods for
metals are available. AD is the correlation between extractions of resources to its

4-22
available stock of fossil fuels, minerals, and metals. Therefore, any attempt to recycle
the metal materials could result in curtailing the abiotic depletion potential outcomes.
Mineral resources are metals, minerals, and aggregates that are embedded in natural or
anthropogenic stock. Mineral resource scarcity shows a promising reduction, which
depends on the quantity of steel required. An effort to recycle steel more effectively will
be beneficial for both impact categories.
4.4.3. The impact of individual treatment unit on the construction phase
Secondary treatment is responsible for the most substantial proportion of the total
effects. As indicated in the study by Morera et al. (2020), secondary treatment units
contribute between 30 and 60% depending on the size of WWTP and the impact
categories. In this study, secondary treatment accounts for 53% in the Girona WWTP
and 45% in the Mill Creek WWTP. However, the share of primary treatment is
significantly different when scoring only 9.5% in Girona but 43.8% in Mill Creek.
These changes are due to expanding the size of primary treatment, which exhibited by
the percentage of materials in the individual treatment unit, as shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6. Material usage in the primary and secondary treatment units
Mill Creek
Primary treatment Secondary treatment
Material (%) (%)
Concrete 49.53 48.23
Reinforcing Steel 44.35 45.80
Electrical steel 0.19 67.68
Stainless 18/8 coil 3.04 22.04
Other steel 0.23 67.73
HDPE 27.78 0.00
Cast Iron 0.78 36.44
Aluminum 0.80 66.74
Copper 0.22 68.06
Earthworks 19.47 20.92
Girona
Material deposition in a landfill 3.11 87.06
4-23
Diesel burned in mechanical
machines 0.57 72.54
Transport 5.18 55.18
Reinforcing steel 8.60 55.15
Polyester reinforced with glass fiber 16.66 16.66
Concrete 11.53 56.50
Gravel 4.22 30.87
The content in Table 4.6 presents the contributions of different materials to the
construction process and their respective impact on the environment. The amount of
materials is closely linked to the proportion of the effects; therefore, insufficient data
inventories could lead to underestimating or not understanding the final numbers. Prior
research attempted to create the material data inventories by using the concrete volume
as a multiplier for other materials observed where high variations in outcomes were
observed (Foley et al., 2010a; Morera et al., 2020). Therefore, the material required for
one unit cannot be representative of the entire WWTP.
4.5. CONCLUSIONS
This work highlights the critical role of building materials. The outcomes of this study
still have limitations as some results may vary due to the sizes of WWTP or different
treatment technologies. However, utilizing a practical approach, these outcomes can
provide evidence for the potential impacts of building materials and promising
reduction options. An interesting perspective on the future extension of this work would
be to inspect how the results may be different when using alternative materials and/or
various sizes of treatment throughout the whole life cycle of a WWTP.
This chapter explored the relative contribution to environmental impacts generated from
different treatment units by calculating the burdens of various materials used in two
WWTPs. The life cycle assessment approach was applied using plant-specific data and
4-24
the Ecoinvent database. The chosen functional unit was 1 m3 of influent wastewater.
Other essential points to make are noted here:
• This study emphasizes the importance of including the construction phase when
analyzing the environmental impacts of the WWTP.
• Not only concrete and reinforcing steel but diesel, glass fiber are also major
contributors to the construction phase effects on the environment. The glass
fiber led to ozone depletion, which accounts for 70% of the impact.
• Secondary treatment units contribute about 50% of the environmental impacts
during the construction phase.
• Increasing the size of the primary treatment will reduce the burden of secondary
treatment.
• Regarding three endpoint categories, human health accounts for the most
significant charge, which amounts to 95% in both WWTPs.
4-25
Chapter 5
ANALYSING THE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS AND CUMULATIVE ENERGY
DEMAND BASED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5-1
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Discharging inappropriately treated wastewater directly to the aquatic environment
leads to significant pollution and water shortage (IWA, 2018). A wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) is a vital system that ensures the effluent's standard (Nguyen et al.,
2021). In the treatment process, contaminants are removed from wastewater through
physical and chemical activities, which produce direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and environmental consequences (Nguyen et al., 2019). Besides those impacts,
wastewater treatment is considered an intensive energy industry (Li et al., 2020).
Energy consumption is responsible for either high cost or 80% of indirect GHG release
from WWTP (Nguyen et al., 2021). Hence, the environmental assessment of a WWTP
should cover the influences of GHG emissions and electricity demand.
Among a number of existing methods to analyze the environmental impacts, life cycle
assessment (LCA) is a global tool that can be applied and compare systems in different
locations. LCA is a cradle-to-grave method, can be used to evaluate the entire impacts
of a WWTP regarding it's utilities, storage, and compensation ability (Corominas et al.,
2020b). LCA can be conducted at existing WWTP for a better understanding or suggest
an improvement. LCA can also be applied in future projects to choose WWTP's
configuration (Corominas et al., 2020b). However, variation in the scale of the
boundary, type of treatment, size of the plant, and accuracy level of the available data
can lead to different assessment results (Nguyen et al., 2020b). Using LCA, the
potential environmental impacts are expressed in multiple characterization factors that
show the influences on ecosystems, resources, and human health.
GHG emissions from WWTPs consist of direct and indirect components. The former
type emitted from treatment activities, while the latter mostly related to energy
5-2
consumption (Nguyen et al., 2019). CH4 and N2O emissions are calculated in most of
the existing studies and then converted to kg of CO2 equivalent. CO2 emissions from
WWTP were considered the biogenic origin and excluded in many research due to the
short life cycle of the biogenic gas do not contribute to global warming (Kosse et al.,
2018a). Different methods were proposed for GHG measurement (Foley et al., 2010b;
IPCC, 2019; Mannina et al., 2016). However, there are variations among results due to
complex operational conditions. Hence, the chosen calculation method should base on
the goal of the environmental assessment.
Energy and chemical consumption in each treatment process are varied, which results in
different environmental consequences. Many LCA research focuses on estimating the
impacts of the whole WWTP rather than identifying the contribution of a single unit
(Nguyen et al., 2020b; Xue et al., 2019). The system's entire impacts provide a better
understanding for authorities in the management aspect, while awareness of the
influences of the individual component will help the improvement or renovation
actions. Assessment at the unit level point out the problems and discover the solutions
(Xue et al., 2019). This paper evaluates the impact of two main treatment activities in
more detail, including secondary and sludge treatment processes. All the material and
energy requirements for each process are considered and assessed.
This chapter aims to fulfill knowledge on the consequences of different WWTP
processes to the environment. LCA is employed to (1) explore the contribution of some
primary components, (2) analyze the impact of two main activities in the operation
phase, and (3) discover the relationship between GHG emissions and cumulative energy
demand via a single issue calculation method. The proportion of the construction and
demolition phases have been reported in the previous articles (Morera et al., 2017;
5-3
Nguyen et al., 2020b; Nguyen et al., 2021). Therefore, this chapter is to understand the
environmental burdens of the operation stage sorely.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H. & Wenshan, G., 'Analysing the greenhouse gas
emissions and cumulative energy demand based environmental impacts of
wastewater treatment plant', Journal of Environmental Management.
5.2.1. Goal and scope
This chapter aims to analyze the impacts of the operation phase in the chosen case
study, which contribute the most to the plants' total environmental impacts. The
contribution of the biological and sludge treatment was investigated to support the
analysis findings. To provide the scaling for inventory data in the flowing section and
better comparison with other studies, the chosen functional unit is 1 m3 of treated
wastewater. The lifetime of the WWTP is set for 20 years as suggested by Morera et al.
2017.
LCA is conducted for Girona WWTP located in northern Spain. The plant's
configuration and characteristics can be found in the research of (Morera et al., 2017;
Nguyen et al., 2020b). The system boundary includes all the treatment activities in the
operation stage. All the materials input, including production of the chemicals, their
transportation to the plant, and their consumption, are covered. Every single type of
energy usage as electricity and diesel, is counted for the assessment. Electricity
generated from sludge incineration for the on-site purpose was involved. The system's
output consists of GHG emissions, and sludge for agriculture purposes is also collected
and explored by LCA. It is worth mentioning that construction and destruction phases
5-4
are excluded from the study. The wastewater collection and equipment maintenance
procedures are not considered due to the limitation of available information.
5.2.2. Life cycle inventory
The LCI includes the required resources for the treatment process and all types of waste,
including gas and solid. The data inventory for the case study was gathered after
reviewing several sources, including the plant's report and literature.
Chemicals consumption
The type of chemicals and usage volume is different between WWTPs. Hence, these
data should be taken from the plant's report. According to that, iron chloride, sodium
aluminate, polyelectrolyte, antifoaming and antioxidant are utilized for wastewater and
sludge treatment process (Morera et al., 2017). The equivalent of chemical or alternative
substances was matched with the Ecoinvent database (Doka, 2003).
Base on the plant's document, sodium aluminate is used to maintain the pH value in
wastewater. The volume of this chemical depends on its concentration and the amount
of ammonia. The alternative for sodium aluminate in Ecoinvent is sodium carbonate
(Corominas et al., 2018). Morera et al. (2017) created their database according to
information on the production procedure and estimated the required quantity is
0.042kg/m3. Iron chloride is used for P removal. The amount of iron chloride depends
on the concentration of PO43- in the wastewater and the target standard of effluent. It has
the equivalent in the Ecoinvent database.
Electricity utilization
The level of electricity demand was reported at a rate of 0.35 kWh/m3 (Morera et al.,
2017). Other methods were employed to calculate the energy amount as follows.
5-5
The energy benchmarking developed by AWWARF (AWWARF, 2007) is an empirical
tool for energy consumption estimation (Metcalf & Eddy et al., 2014). This method
based on data collected from 266 WWTPs to propose the model considering six
parameters, including (1) daily average flow, (2) design flow, (3) incoming BOD, (4)
discharge BOD, (5) fixed versus suspended matter, and (6) traditional treatment versus
biological nutrient removal (Metcalf & Eddy et al., 2014).
A systematic method for operation energy evaluation was presented by ENERWATER,
which reflects the WWTP's function (Longo et al., 2019). The technique was built on a
wide range of data set from 600 WWTPs. This method aims to adapt to various global
plant layouts by using multiple Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which refer to the
quantity of plant capacity, dilution factors, and flow rate. The influences of
configuration, plant layout, and location were also considered (Longo et al., 2019).
Another energy assessment model was promoted by combining the regression
evaluation with the conceptual formula (Yang et al., 2020). The database for regression
was collected from 347 WWTPs regarding yearly energy consumption, excess sludge
generation, and the bioreactor impacts under various incoming wastewater
characteristics. This method can be effectively applied worldwide by employing the
local operation parameter (Yang et al., 2020).
As shown in Table 5.1, the level of energy utilization by using each method was
presented for comparison.
Table 5.1. Summary of the energy consumption in the case study
Value Unit Source Reference
0.35 kWh/m3 Plant’s report (Morera et al., 2017)
5-6
1.52 kWh/m3 (AWWARF, 2007) (Metcalf & Eddy et al., 2014)
0.17 kWh/m3 ENERWATER (Longo et al., 2019)
0.29 kWh/m3 Database (Yang et al., 2020)
Sludge production
Based on the plant's report, the sludge production rate is 0.78 kg/m3(Morera et al.,
2017). Meanwhile, according to Metcalf & Eddy, the quantity of produced sludge is
significantly affected by the water content and the treatment method, including primary
and secondary treatment (Metcalf & Eddy et al., 2014). Hence, the volume of sludge is
varied widely. The estimated amount of dried sludge produced from conventional
WWTP is 0.08 kg/m3 (Metcalf & Eddy et al., 2014). However, the range of solid
concentration in sludge is large, lead to difficulty in estimating the quantity.
GHG emissions
Employing the emissions factors from the literature review, Morera et al. (2017)
estimated the direct GHG emitted from biology treatment, biogas combustion, nutrients,
and organic matter degradation. The secondary treatment produces 0.01kg N2O per kg
N denitrified. In biogas combustion process, each cubic meter of biogas contributes
16.02 g CH4-N and 0.73 g N2O-N. Water discharging process generate 0.025 kg CH4/kg
COD and 0.0025 kg N2O-N/kg N (Morera et al., 2017).
One of the primary estimation tools, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), is a well-known method to calculate CH4 and N2O emissions (IPCC, 2019).
IPCC provides an equation to measure CH4 from wastewater and sludge. The
calculation base on the removed organic component in sludge. This method has a
5-7
guideline for either limited data scenario or comprehensive data for worldwide
application, including emissions factor and activity parameters (IPCC, 2019). This
method considers multiple factors that affecting N2O emissions such as temperature,
dissolved oxygen concentration and the operational context. The most recent update of
IPCC is the inclusion of nitrogen lost during treatment process (IPCC, 2019). The total
amount of GHG emissions estimated by IPCC is 0.03 kg CO2 equivalent.
Table 5.2 exhibits the chosen data inventory for the assessment. After reviewing
different estimation methods, the results show that data documented in Morera et al.
(2017) is more accurate as obtaining from the plant's report. Regarding GHG emissions,
the amount defined by IPCC is much smaller than by Morera et al. (2017). Hence, the
latter result is employed for LCA to develop the worst scenario.
Table 5.2. Data inventory for case study WWTP, obtained from research of Morera et
al. (2017)
Elements Unit Value
Electricity consumption kWh/m³ 3.50E-01
Electricity production kWh/m³ 1.30E-02
Iron chloride kg/m³ 1.30E-02
Sodium aluminate kg/m³ 4.20E-02
Acrylonitrile kg/m³ 1.30E-03
Antioxidant litre/m³ 2.11E-06
Diesel litre/m³ 2.73E-03
Transport tkm/m³ 3.42E-02
Direct GHG emissions kg CO₂ eq/m³ 2.62E-01
Residues kg /m³ 3.74E-02
5-8
Sludge kg /m³ 7.88E-01
Entire environmental impacts from WWTP were analyzed by a set of indicators in EPD
2018, while ReCiPe 2016 was adopted to measure the consequences of treatment
processes in the waterline and sludge line. Two single-issue methods, including GHG
Protocol and Cumulative Energy Demand, were employed to understand better the
contribution of treatment activities to the footprint of the plant. The relationship
between energy consumption and GHG emissions was analysed to strengthen the
findings. The assessment proceeding is undertaken via SimaPro 9.1 software.
The ReCiPe 2016 at endpoint level impact was used to define the proportion of the
treatment process to the operation phase. The procedure consists of normalizing,
weighting, and aggregating the effects into endpoint values (PRe', 2020). The benefit of
using this method is the endpoint values can be further combined into one indicator,
named a single score. The final score is presented in eco-indicator point (Pt), which is
convenient for comparison between systems (Nguyen et al., 2021).
GHG Protocol V1.02 is a single-issue tool, which helps to convert all gas emissions to
CO2 equivalent. Thank this method, GHG has fossil components, biogenic content,
GHG emissions from land transformation, and GHG compensation are reported
independently (PRe', 2020). Cumulative Energy Demand V1.11 was applied to
investigate the energy required for the operation phase throughout the WWTP lifespan.
The direct and indirect consumptions were divided into renewable and non-renewable
categories. The former type consists of biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, and water-
derived sources, while the latter covers the fossil and nuclear components (PRe', 2020).
5-9
5.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.3.1. Environmental impacts assessment for the operation phase
Fig.5.1 presents the contribution of various materials to the environmental
consequences of the WWTP via the EPD 2018 method. As seen from the chart,
electricity plays a vital role when delivering remarkable proportions in most impact
indicators. Significantly, electricity accounts for more than 97% of the burden on water
scarcity. Electricity produced on-site is the avoid product in LCA and is utilized for heat
purposes, which does not cause trouble to the environment. Sodium aluminum, the
chemical for secondary treatment, has greater negative influences than other substances.
The effects of sodium aluminum on nature are range from 1.7% to 75% in most of the
categories, except on water shortage, where it grants for 2.8% of environmental benefit.
While sludge records for 28.8% of consequences on eutrophication. The proportions of
iron chloride can be found on abiotic depletion and ozone diminution, which account
for 21.5% and 14.75%, respectively.
In comparison to a previous study, a similar trend was found regarding the role of
chemicals and energy (Morera et al., 2017). In the research of Morera et al. (2017),
ReCiPe was conducted in the Hierarchist (H) scenario to investigate the system impacts.
Their study showed that electricity contributes 20% of the burden on climate change,
which is considerably lower than ours. The reason due to variation in choosing research
boundary, for example the exclusion of equipment production in our study. Moreover,
differences in assessment method (EDP at endpoint versus ReCiPe at midpoint level)
and in time frame perspective (hierarchies versus egalitarian).
5-10
Figure 5.1. The environmental impacts of the operation phase
ReCiPe method was used to estimate the burden of the plant at the endpoint level in the
egalitarian scenario. For damage assessment, all the impact indicators were multiplied
by damage factors and integrated into three endpoint categories: human health,
ecosystems, and resource surplus cost. These values are weighted and measured at the
damage category level. As seen from Fig.5.2, WWTP's impact affects human health
most, which accounts for 94%. 6% of WWTP's influences are presented on ecosystems.
Their consequence on resources is negligible.
5-11
Figure 5.2. The proportion of troubles cause by WWTP through damage assessment
According to Fig.5.1, the contribution of sludge is exhibited clearly on eutrophication,
while its influences on other categories are minor. In contrast, electricity responsible for
most of the assessment indicators with a considerable percentage. However, the roles of
sludge and electricity when analyzing damage are reversed. Fig.5.3 presents the
proportion of sludge and electricity in total damage categories. The negative impact on
human health of sludge is significantly higher than electricity.
5-12
Figure 5.3. The percentage of trouble caused by materials through damage assessment
Table 5. 3 presents the percentage of impacts generated by the operation phase to the
total environmental impacts of the WWTP lifetime. The results show that the operation
phase accounts for significant troubles in all assessment categories, as stated in existing
studies. However, burdens from other activities in WWTP are remarkable. 34% of the
problems on ozone depletion were caused by construction and demolition phases. The
negative impact of construction and demolition on terrestrial ecotoxicity, mineral
scarcity, and fossil shortage is over 10%. These results ensure the finding from previous
studies, confirming that all the phases (construction, operation, and destruction) should
be included in the environmental analysis (Morera et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2020b;
Nguyen et al., 2021). The estimation of the single score method at endpoint level also
points out that operation activities account for 87.92% impacts on resources, while
construction and demolition stage record at 12.08%.

5-13
Table 5.3. The proportion of the operation phase to the entire environmental impacts of
the WWTP. HH: human health, TE: terrestrial ecosystems, FE: freshwater ecosystems,
AE: aquatic ecosystems.
Impact category Unit Whole plant Operation %
Global warming, HH DALY 1.12E-05 1.08E-05 96.22
Global warming, TE species.yr 2.24E-08 2.16E-08 96.22
Global warming, FE species.yr 6.12E-13 5.89E-13 96.22
Stratospheric ozone depletion DALY 3.57E-10 2.36E-10 66.06
Ionizing radiation DALY 1.35E-10 1.26E-10 93.16
Ozone formation, HH DALY 2.02E-09 1.88E-09 92.72
Fine particulate matter formation DALY 1.16E-06 1.12E-06 97.28
Ozone formation, TE species.yr 2.88E-10 2.67E-10 92.59
Terrestrial acidification species.yr 1.04E-09 1.02E-09 97.68
Freshwater eutrophication species.yr 1.14E-10 1.14E-10 99.28
Marine eutrophication species.yr 2.01E-12 2.01E-12 99.99
Terrestrial ecotoxicity species.yr 1.39E-11 1.25E-11 89.81
Freshwater ecotoxicity species.yr 1.19E-10 1.19E-10 99.96
Marine ecotoxicity species.yr 2.40E-07 2.40E-07 99.96
Human carcinogenic toxicity DALY 4.46E-06 4.20E-06 94.16
5-14
Human non-carcinogenic
toxicity DALY 4.41E-04 4.41E-04 99.96
Land use species.yr 1.00E-10 9.26E-11 92.52
Mineral resource scarcity USD2013 1.03E-03 9.14E-04 88.76
Fossil resource scarcity USD2013 2.54E-02 2.23E-02 87.88
Water consumption, HH DALY 1.39E-06 1.39E-06 99.41
Water consumption, TE species.yr 8.48E-09 8.43E-09 99.40
Water consumption, AE species.yr 3.79E-13 3.77E-13 99.40
5.3.2. GHG Protocol assessment
Total GHG emissions from fossil components, land changing, biogenic sources, and
capability of CO2 compensation are exhibited in Table 5.4. GHGs are estimated and
converted to CO2 equivalent. Despite the fact that the sludge line consumes more types
of the chemical than wastewater line. The wastewater treatment process responsible for
higher emissions than sludge treatment. The amount of energy used to treat wastewater
is over that of sludge treatment. It is worth mentioning that electricity produced from
sludge recovery also helps to mitigate the environmental impacts.
Table 5.4. Component of GHG emissions from the treatment process
Impact category Unit Waterline Sludge line
Fossil CO2 eq kg CO2 eq 6.74E-01 1.39E-01
Biogenic CO2 eq kg CO2 eq 2.46E-03 3.13E-04
CO2 eq from land transformation kg CO2 eq 9.36E-05 3.20E-06
5-15
CO2 uptake kg CO2 eq 4.49E-03 7.38E-04
5.3.3. Cumulative energy demand analysis
Cumulative energy demand (CED) presents the direct and indirect energy demand for
the life cycle of the WWTP (Huijbregts et al., 2006). Figure 5.4 shows that more than
90% of the energy used for treatment processes originated from non-renewable sources,
including fossil, nuclear, and biomass.
Figure 5.4. The proportion of energy type utilized in treatment processes.
In detail, wastewater treatment utilizes 66.4% of non-renewable fossil energy, while
13.6% is consumed for sludge treatment. The correlation between CED and
environmental impacts can be found when comparing the proportion of primary energy
of the process with the level of influences. The higher the fossil energy usage is the
reason for significant impacts in the wastewater treatment process, which was
confirmed in previous studies (Huijbregts et al., 2006). Concerning Table 5.4, the higher
5-16
fossil CO2 emissions were released from wastewater treatment as the result of fossil
energy. The results once again confirm the negative role of energy on the environment.
5.3.4. Uncertainty analysis
Table 5.5 presents the uncertainty of the chosen input and output data inventories for the
case study. As mentioned before, there are a couple of tools to define the volume of
required materials. The variation in estimations can heavily affect the LCA outcomes. In
this statistic, the 95% confidence interval is applied per impact category. The accuracy
of data has a higher impact on water scarcity and ozone depletion than on other
indicators. The range of results is acceptable.
Table 5.5. Uncertainty analysis for data inventory per impact category
Impact category Unit Mean Median SD CV 2.5% 97.5% SEM
Abiotic
depletion, kg Sb 1.05E 1.05E- 9.54 9.12 1.03 1.07E- 3.02E-
elements eq -06 06 E-09 E-01 E-06 06 10
Abiotic
depletion, fossil 6.34E 6.34E+0 1.96 3.08 6.31 6.38E+ 6.18E-
fuels MJ +00 0 E-02 E-01 E+00 00 04
kg
SO2 5.78E 5.77E- 9.35 1.62 5.76 5.80E- 2.96E-
Acidification eq -03 03 E-06 E-01 E-03 03 07
kg
PO4-- 4.43E 4.43E- 9.85 2.23 4.42 4.45E- 3.12E-
Eutrophication - eq -03 03 E-06 E-01 E-03 03 07
Global kg 9.76E 9.76E- 2.10 2.15 9.72 9.80E- 6.63E-
5-17
warming CO2 -01 01 E-03 E-01 E-01 01 05
eq
kg
Ozone layer CFC- 3.70E 3.70E- 1.80 4.86 3.67 3.74E- 5.69E-
depletion 11 eq -08 08 E-10 E-01 E-08 08 12
kg
Photochemical NMV 2.66E 2.66E- 1.51 5.67 2.64 2.70E- 4.78E-
oxidation OC -03 03 E-05 E-01 E-03 03 07
2.70E 2.70E+0 2.55 9.45 2.64 2.74E+ 8.06E-
Water scarcity m3 eq +01 1 E-01 E-01 E+01 01 03
5.4. CONCLUSIONS
This chapter aimed to estimate the potential environmental troubles from operating
activities in a WWTP via SimaPro software. After reviewing several calculation
methods, the analysis chose and obtained the data inventories from the literature review
and their equivalent values from the Ecoinvent database. The functional unit of the
study is 1 m3 of treated wastewater. The results in this chapter have the same trend with
existing research but different in some specific values. The reason due to variation in
research boundary and methodology. The key findings are as follows:
• The operation phase contributes a major part to WWTP's burden. However, for a
comprehensive assessment, the operation and destruction stages should be
included.
• Electricity responsible for most of the environmental impacts, while sludge
causes trouble for human health.
• The relationship between energy consumption, environmental burdens, and
GHG emissions is proved through CED assessment.

5-18
• The accuracy of data sources is important and affects the research's outcome.
Hence, uncertainty analysis should be conducted in LCA.
• CED assessment is the single-issue methods that help to define the primary
energy usage and potential to substitute the type of energy.
5-19
Chapter 6
ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM THE
COMMON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
6-1
6.1. INTRODUCTION
Discharging unsatisfactorily treated sewage is one common source of pollution,
which affects human health and ecosystems. The wastewater treatment system (WWTS)
plays a vital role in ensuring aquatic environment quality. However, due to its energy
and chemical requirements for construction, operation, and demolition activities, a
WWTS also has a negative impact on the environment (Nguyen et al., 2020b). The
WWTS consumption of resources depends on the size and treatment method (Kohlheb
et al., 2020). Consequently, the effects of WWTSs on the environment are varied due to
differences in technology, capability, and sewage types.
The activated sludge (AS) process is one of the most widely used secondary
wastewater treatment methods, which can be applied in small to large regions. AS is the
conventional bacteria-based technology where the system consists of a sewer and
centralized wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (Garfí et al., 2017). Due to multiple
process components and additional resources for treatment activities, AS-based
WWTPs require relatively high construction, operation, and maintenance costs.
Meanwhile, natural wastewater treatment is a suitable and economical method,
preferred for small to medium-sized WWTPs (Garfí et al., 2017; Tunçsiper, 2019). A
natural treatment system is defined as reasonable investment, simple operation, and less
external energy consumption due to natural self-treatment procedures and basic
technology (Garfí et al., 2017).
Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the best type of WWTP.
However, the results are not very convinced due to differences in size and treatment
technique, and actual target investigations. The other influences are the data availability,
local effluent quality standards, and evaluation methods. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is
a useful tool that can identify which system is best for the environment, and overcoming
6-2
their limitations for improvement (Nguyen et al., 2021). LCA can explore the problems
of a single product or a system by analyzing the influences from all relevant processes,
which helps to avoid shifting problems from place to place (Nguyen et al., 2020c).
LCA assessed both activated sludge and nature-based WWTPs in scenarios of
conventional or advanced types (Brockmann et al., 2021; Resende et al., 2019).
However, only few studies have compared the environmental impacts between LCAs’
activated sludge and natural treatment methods (Flores et al., 2020; Garfí et al., 2017;
Kohlheb et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2011). Multiple impact indicators were measured in
these studies, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, electricity consumption,
global warming potential (GWP), resource depletion, and eutrophication.
Analysing two small-scale of 15 population equivalent (PE) systems, the findings
presented that nature-based solutions have more benefits than AS-based systems in 93%
of cases (De Feo et al., 2017). It emerged that, depending on the impact category, a
conventional AS WWTP is responsible for 2-5 times more problems than a hybrid
constructed wetland (CW) or a high rate algal pond (HRAP) (Garfí et al., 2017).
Meanwhile an AS contributes 1.2 to 3 times more than a HRAP in terms of
eutrophication potential (EP) and global warming potential (GWP) (Kohlheb et al.,
2020). Considering about land use, the results show that CW produces less GHG
emissions and is more land-use efficient than AS (Fan et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2011).
The CW and HRPA account for a similar level of impact (Garfí et al., 2017).
The limitation of most previous research is the comparison on midpoint
environmental burdens categories. Results based on solely one impact index could not
be representative of total ecological issues, and the uncertainty at the midpoint is
adequately low (PRe', 2020). A wide range of assessment indicators leads to difficulties
6-3
in finalising the outcome. Due to the differences in measurement units the results could
not be summarized accurately, especially when the total effects are only approximate.
In this study a number of same-size WWTS, including natural and AS-based
technologies, will be evaluated. The environmental impacts are quantified at the
endpoint indices in the same context. All the results refer to damage levels which are
better for making a final comparison. Moreover, the problems originating from
construction and operation phases are investigated in detail to better comprehend and
develop effective GHG emissions management strategies. LCA is conducted to
calculate the influence of different WWTSs to confirm the most environment-friendly
structure and what construction and operation activities contribute to the final outcomes.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Nghiem, D.L., Quian, G., Liu, J., Chen,
Z.& Mainali, B., 'Assessing the environmental impacts and greenhouse gas
emissions from the common municipal wastewater treatment systems', Science of
The Total Environment.
6.2.1. Case study description
The selected case study is a hybrid CW consisting of a three-chamber septic tank,
two vertical flow CW (VFCWs), and a horizontal flow CW (HFCW). The two VFCWs
are working alternately (Garfí et al., 2017). The VFCW is used for high organic matter
removal while Phragmites Australis is put into the HFCW for disinfection purposes
(Ávila et al., 2013). The other characteristics are described in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Case study systems description
6-4
System characteristics Unit CW HRAP AS
BOD5 removal efficiency % 90 90 98
TSS removal efficiency % 95 88 98
Surface area m2 5,350 9,000 -
The HRAP system in this case study consists of a three-chamber septic tank, two
parallel HRAP, a settler, and a disinfection unit (Garfí et al., 2017). Other relevant
information concerning the HRAP is documented in Table 6.1. The chosen WWTP to
compare with natural systems is a conventional AS plant which uses an activated sludge
reactor with extended aeration to treat wastewater. The case studies have an influent rate
of 300 m3/day and a population of 1500 PE.
6.2.2. Life cycle assessment
The assessment follows four phases that are stipulated in ISO 14040: goal and scope
definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation (ISO, 2006a).
Goal and scope
The chapter’s goal is to employ LCA to compare the environmental impacts of three
WWTSs and finalize the contribution of a single phase in these systems. The chosen
WWTPs comprise a CW, a HRAP, and an AS, which are described above. The lifespan
of the assessment systems is 20 years. These designs are used to treat the same influent
flow rate. The functional unit is 1 m3 of treated water.
The boundaries include the construction and operation processes of these WWTPs. All
the resources to produce materials for construction and chemical for the operation were
considered as the input for assessment. GHG emissions and possible waste were
included as the systems’ output. Materials and wastes transportation are excluded from
6-5
the study due to the local availability conditions. Neither demolition activity nor
recovery process is considered in the research regarding the complexity or character of
different scenarios. This research focuses on the waterline, with the exception of the
sludge line.
Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis
The data inventories include all the primary materials, chemicals, and energy for
construction and operation phases. Obtaining input data based on each plant's project
designs is the most accurate method, while the secondary data can be obtained from
published literature (Morera et al., 2017). Of the most trusted database, the life cycle
inventories of municipal WWTPs were created by (Doka, 2003) , which generated
information for 967 plants.
Primary input data for this research were taken from the engineering design
(Garfí et al., 2017), while unavailable information was sourced from Doka (2003), as
shown in Table 6.2. All the sources of information for inventories have their equivalent
values which can be obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.5 (Weidema et al., 2013).
Table 6.2. Data inventory for each case study
Materials per m3 AS CW HRAP

Input
Construction
Excavation m3 2.08E-03 2.08E-03 2.08E-03
Electricity kWh 2.27E-05 2.27E-05 2.27E-05
Concrete m3 3.11E-02 1.13E-04 3.49E-04
Reinforcing steel kg 9.72E-03 2.43E-02 3.57E-02
Tap water kg 7.30E-02 7.30E-02 7.30E-02
Aluminium kg 5.20E-04 5.20E-04 5.20E-04
Chromium steel kg 3.73E-03 3.73E-03 3.73E-03
6-6
Glass fibre kg 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.37E-04
Copper kg 5.52E-04 5.52E-04 5.52E-04
Synthetic rubber kg 5.29E-04 5.29E-04 5.29E-04
Bitument kg 9.12E-02 4.73E-03 3.00E-04
Polyethylen kg 8.30E-04 2.80E-03 8.12E-05
Limestone kg 1.28E-02 1.28E-02 1.28E-02
Rock wool mat kg 5.23E-04 5.23E-04 5.23E-04
Chemicals organic kg 2.43E-03 2.43E-03 2.43E-03
Chemicals inorganic kg 2.98E-04 2.98E-04 2.98E-04
Gravel kg 7.19E-02 7.82E-01 0.00E+00
Brick kg 0.00E+00 1.66E-02 0.00E+00
Operation
Iron chloride kg 1.30E-02 1.30E-02 1.30E-02
Sodium aluminate kg 4.20E-02 1.53E-06 1.53E-06
Electricity kWh 1.26E+00 2.20E-01 2.50E-01
Output
Sludge kg 1.35E-01 3.45E-01 3.45E-01
CO2 kg 9.92E-01
CH4 kg 3.00E-03 1.10E-02
N2O kg 1.36E-04 1.70E-02 1.70E-04
The output includes the waste and direct emissions from each system. The
amount of waste was assumed based on Table 6.2, while the emissions were measured
as follows. Emissions from AS plant were estimated based on the IPCC guidelines
(IPCC, 2019). According to IPCC 2019, equations were employed to calculate methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from WWTP. GHG emissions depend on the
organic compound in wastewater (kg BOD/year or kg N/year) and the country-specific
emissions factors (IPCC, 2019). The emissions from AS plants are 0.003 kg CH4/m3
and 0.00136 kg N2O/m3 of treated wastewater.
6-7
GHG emissions from CW and HRAP were obtained from systems with similar
configurations. Emissions rates for CW are 0.992 kg CO2/m3, 0.011kg CH4/m3, and
0.017 g N2O/m3 (Garfí et al., 2017). Meanwhile, the level of N2O emitted from HRAP
was 0.00017 kg N2O/m3 (Kohlheb et al., 2020).
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
All of the environmental impacts generated by the systems were analyzed by various
subset indicators in ReCiPe 2016 and GHG Protocol V1.02. ReCiPe is the global
assessment method that can combine the ‘problem-oriented approach’ and ‘damage-
oriented approach’ (PRe', 2020). ReCiPe 2016 has the widest time horizon and
sufficient GHG emissions information. Global elements in ReCiPe 2016 replaced the
local factors in ReCiPe 2008. The endpoint impact categories were conducted in the
egalitarian (E) perspective, which is considered the longest time frame (Nguyen et al.,
2021). Using the endpoint factors could solve the limitation of the midpoint method
where the impacts are presented in multiple characterization categories. All the effects
are normalized, weighted, and aggregated into endpoint values, which is convenient for
summary and comparation.
GHG Protocol is a method that can measure entire GHG emissions for a product
inventory and convert non-CO2 gases to CO2 equivalent (Nguyen et al., 2021).
According to this method, fossil and biogenic flows are described separately (PRe',
2020). The research employed SimaPro 9.1 software for assessment. All the data
inventories were presented in their equivalent in Ecoivent 3.5.
Life cycle interpretation
Inventory analysis and impact assessment results were considered and combined to
interpret in the discussion and conclusion sections. The interpretation reflects the
6-8
potential environmental impacts from relevant activities and explains the limitation of
the study. This phase is affected by the availability and quality of the input data.
Findings of the life cycle interpretation stage describe the results of the assessment
indicators (ISO, 2006a). In general, this phase is used for making decisions about the
impacts on the environment.
6.3.1. Contribution of construction and operation phases to environmental
problems
Figure 6.1 presents the results of LCA for the AS, CW, and HRAP, respectively, based
on ReCiPe 2016 midpoint impact categories. The influences of various elements on the
construction phase are shown in these depictions. The list of material components for
the three systems is quite similar. However, their impacts on the environment are
significantly different. The primary contributors to environmental problems are
concrete, steel, and electricity. It can be seen from Figure 6.1(A), with reference to the
AS plant, that concrete and electricity play notable roles in most of the indicators.
Electricity accounts for the highest impact on ionizing radiation and freshwater
eutrophication. The greatest percentage of water consumption is caused by chromium
steel. In addition, concrete dominates the remainder of the impact elements, which
range from 20% to 88%. The other components that contribute to environmental
challenges are sodium aluminate, sludge and copper.
6-9
6.1(A)
6-10
6.1(B)
6-11
6.1(C)
Figure 6.1. (A) LCIA for AS; (B) LCIA for CW; (C) LCIA for HRAP
In the HRAP system (Figure 6.1 (C)), after electricity, sludge and reinforcing
steel, chromium steel, copper and sludge play similar roles when assessing what the
consequences are. Concrete, in this case, is the least critical substance compared with
AS, but it has a greater effect than that in CW (Figure 6.1(B)). It is worth mentioning
that the quantity of concrete for HRAP is three times higher than CW. Steel is dominant
in CW and HRAP, while its performance in AS is negligible. The reason is due to the
variations in the volume of steel consumed in these systems.
6-12
In comparison to other cases, AS consumes the least amount of steel but the
highest volume of concrete. Results demonstrate the relationship between the quantity
of material and its environmental impacts, and concrete production brings a significant
burden to steel manufacture. These findings have also been indicated in a recent study
where the production of concrete results in higher GWP than steel due to greater energy
requirements (Nguyen et al., 2020b).
Figures 6.1 (A), (B) and (C) depict the characterization calculations at endpoint grade in
the egalitarian scenario which is known as the safest perspective (Nguyen et al., 2021).
The environmental impact scores are presented at midpoint or endpoint characterization
factors that contain uncertainties. The results show a strong relationship with the
environmental flow at the midpoint level, while the endpoint characterizations deliver
sufficient information regarding environmental relevance (Huijbregts et al., 2016).
However, the consequences are defined under multiple categories. To better understand
the contribution of each phase to the entire footprint, a single score calculation method
was conducted and presented in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2 shows that the construction and operation phase influences on the total
impacts are different among AS, CW, and HRAP. The construction stage was believed
to make a minor contribution to the environment compared with the operation stage.
However, this research shows that construction accounts for approximately 78% of the
effect in AS WWTP. In the HRAP system, the consequences of construction and
operation are quite small. Significant impacts are recorded on human health for both
operation and construction phases. In contrast, their influences on resources are
negligible.
6-13
Figure 6.2. Proportion of problems caused by construction and operation
In comparison to the literature review, the contribution of the construction phase to the
total impact in the natural based system is 15-50% (Flores et al., 2019; Fuchs et al.,
2011). Results documented in this study are consistent with what other research
reported for HRAP. Although lower impact is found for CW, it has the similar trend in
general. However, according to their findings, construction dominates a few assessment
indicators such as metal depletion, GWP, and photochemical oxidation (Arashiro et al.,
2018; Garfí et al., 2017). The endpoint calculation in this study shows that construction
could be the major contributor to various factors due to infrastructure materials
(concrete, steel) on the environment.
A remarkable difference of this study to others is the share of the operation and
construction to the entire burdens of the AS WWTP. Many papers conclude that the
proportion of the building is under 5% and negligible (Corominas et al., 2020b), while
others report its influences is considerable, especially in terms of metal depletion
(Morera et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2020b). In this study, construction has a 3.5-fold
higher impact than the operation stage. The reason for this is the massive volume of
building materials compared to lifetime energy and chemicals requirement (Table 6.2).
6-14
Concrete, the primary substance with the greatest quantity, also contributes the most to
the final outcomes (Figure 6.1A). It should be noted that the AS WWTP has a capability
of 1500 PE, which is typical of the smallest size WWTP (Doka, 2003). Hence, in
equivalent per functional unit (m3), the energy and chemicals consumption are relatively
lower than concrete usage. Subsequently, the operation stage wields less impact than
construction activities. Although the specific site information does differ in some
respects between this paper and others, the results can be used as a reference when
measuring a WWTP footprint.
6.3.2. Environmental impacts and GHG assessment for conventional and nature-
based WWTPs
Table 6.3 reveals the potential environmental effects related to each WWTS. The AS
plant has much more of an environmental impact than CW and HRAP systems in all
evaluation characterizations. Similar findings have been noted in other studies when
comparing activated sludge and nature-based systems (Garfí et al., 2017; Kohlheb et al.,
2020). The reason for this due to AS requiring a huge amount of resources compared to
the two nature-based configurations. CW and HRAP, which are known as low-energy
networks, consume five times less electricity than AS. Moreover, the quantity of
concrete used for the AS framework is exceptionally larger than the other two plants. It
should be recalled that concrete could produce more environmental damage than other
construction materials (Nguyen et al., 2020b).
The assessment results are measured and exhibited in three units, namely disability
adjusted life years (DALYs), species.yr, and USD2013. The endpoint characterization
factors which appear with DALY unit have consequences for human health damage
such as years of life lost or years spent being disabled in some way. For the
6-15
environment, it means the vanishing of species in a specific location during a period of
time. The potential for not having enough resources is expressed in terms of future
resource manufacturers’ excess cost (PRe', 2020). CW has less effect on climate change
than HRAP, which in turn is more pronounced than CW.
Table 6.3. Damage assessment at endpoint level of the case studies
Impact category Unit AS CW HRAP

0.00013
Global warming, Human health DALY 7 7.42E-05 6.58E-06
species.y
Global warming, Terrestrial ecosystems r 2.74E-07 1.48E-07 1.32E-08
species.y
Global warming, Freshwater ecosystems r 7.49E-12 4.05E-12 3.59E-13
Stratospheric ozone depletion DALY 4.8E-09 2.64E-10 3.02E-10
Ionizing radiation DALY 9.31E-09 6.11E-10 6.81E-10
Ozone formation, Human health DALY 2.63E-08 7.49E-10 9.4E-10
Fine particulate matter formation DALY 7.4E-06 5.43E-07 6.18E-07
species.y
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems r 3.77E-09 1.09E-10 1.36E-10
species.y
Terrestrial acidification r 5.69E-09 3.9E-10 4.36E-10
species.y
Freshwater eutrophication r 1.25E-09 9.55E-11 1.12E-10
species.y
Marine eutrophication r 3.29E-13 1.59E-13 1.68E-13
species.y
Terrestrial ecotoxicity r 4.61E-10 5.62E-11 5.91E-11
species.y
Freshwater ecotoxicity r 2.25E-10 6.52E-11 6.76E-11
species.y
Marine ecotoxicity r 2.32E-07 1.05E-07 1.07E-07
Human carcinogenic toxicity DALY 6.52E-05 8.73E-06 1.11E-05
6-16
0.00042 0.00019 0.00019
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity DALY 4 4 8
species.y
Land use r 1.32E-08 5.26E-10 6.52E-10
USD201 0.02670 0.00232 0.00263
Mineral resource scarcity 3 7 5 7
USD201 0.56091 0.02262
Fossil resource scarcity 3 7 0.02175 2
Water consumption, Human health DALY 1.1E-06 9.38E-07 9.39E-07
Water consumption, Terrestrial species.y
ecosystem r 6.74E-09 5.71E-09 5.71E-09
species.y
Water consumption, Aquatic ecosystems r 3.22E-13 2.57E-13 2.58E-13
As shown in Figure 6.3, all characterization factors are combined and weighted
to explain how impact pathways destroy the environment and three variables of
protection: human health, ecosystems, and resources. The total effect of CW and HRAP
are approximate and similar to results in the literature review (Garfí et al., 2017). The
important thing is that CW is responsible for a slightly higher burden than HRAP and
consumes fewer materials (Table 2). The explanation for this is that CW emits more
direct GHGs than HRAP. The results from Figure 6.4 support this assumption.
6-17
Figure 6.3. Indicators corresponding to three areas of protection
Total GHG emissions from fossil sources, land transformation, biogenic component,
and CO2 uptake potential are presented in Figure 6.4. Carbon dioxide and non-CO2
gases are measured and converted to CO2 equivalent. The AS WWTP accounts for the
largest emissions. Although AS has the highest quantity of CO2 uptake, the CO2
beneficial amount is negligible compared to fossil release weight. CW emits more fossil
gas and has poorer CO2 compensation ability than HRAP. Of the three systems, HRAP
generates the least GHG emissions.
6-18
Figure 6.4. GHG emissions evaluation using the GHG Protocol method.
An uncertainty analysis has been conducted to explore the benefit to environment
between CW and HRAP systems. Table 4 shows that CW is responsible for higher
impact to global warming and water consumption. This calculation supports for the
findings from Figure 6.3.
Table 6.4. Uncertainty analysis for CW and HRAP
CW ≥ Media
Impact category HRAP Mean n SD CV 2.5% 97.5% SEM
- - - - -
1.19E- 1.18E- 1.35E 1.14E 1.48E- 9.41E- 4.28E
Particulate matter 0 04 04 -05 +01 04 05 -07
- - - - -
Fossil resource 8.50E- 8.41E- 1.81E 2.13E 1.23E- 5.33E- 5.72E
scarcity 0 03 03 -03 +01 02 03 -05
- - - - -
Freshwater 3.48E- 3.32E- 9.28E 2.67E 5.59E- 2.23E- 2.94E
ecotoxicity 0 03 03 -04 +01 03 03 -05
- - - - -
Freshwater 2.54E- 2.27E- 1.18E 4.65E 5.68E- 1.17E- 3.74E
eutrophication 0 05 05 -05 +01 05 05 -07
5.41E 5.41E 1.35E 2.49E- 5.38E 5.43E 4.26E
Global warming 100 +00 +00 -02 01 +00 +00 -04
Human cancer 0 - - 5.93E - - - 1.88E
6-19
toxicity 7.24E- 6.56E- -01 8.19E 1.42E 3.42E- -02
01 01 +01 +00 01
- - - - -
Human non- 1.54E 1.38E 6.55E 4.26E 3.29E 8.39E 2.07E
cancer toxicity 0 +01 +01 +00 +01 +01 +00 -01
- - - - -
4.92E- 3.74E- 4.47E 9.10E 1.47E- 1.92E- 1.41E
Ionizing radiation 0 03 03 -03 +01 02 03 -04
- - - - -
1.41E- 1.35E- 3.59E 2.55E 2.24E- 8.66E- 1.14E
Land use 0 02 02 -03 +01 02 03 -04
- - - - -
Marine 1.87E 1.68E 7.87E 4.21E 3.91E 1.03E 2.49E
ecotoxicity 0 +01 +01 +00 +01 +01 +01 -01
- - - - -
Marine 5.49E- 5.48E- 3.72E 6.77E 6.28E- 4.81E- 1.18E
eutrophication 0 06 06 -07 +00 06 06 -08
- - - - -
Mineral resource 1.35E- 1.30E- 3.05E 2.27E 2.06E- 8.42E- 9.65E
scarcity 0 03 03 -04 +01 03 04 -06
- - - - -
Ozone formation, 2.09E- 2.05E- 3.55E 1.70E 2.90E- 1.50E- 1.12E
HH 0 04 04 -05 +01 04 04 -06
- - - - -
Ozone formation, 2.13E- 2.09E- 3.61E 1.70E 2.95E- 1.53E- 1.14E
TE 0 04 04 -05 +01 04 04 -06
- - - - -
2.87E- 2.84E- 3.90E 1.36E 3.73E- 2.18E- 1.23E
Ozone depletion 0 08 08 -09 +01 08 08 -10
- - - - -
Terrestrial 2.16E- 2.13E- 2.86E 1.33E 2.75E- 1.64E- 9.05E
acidification 0 04 04 -05 +01 04 04 -07
- - - - -
Terrestrial 2.52E- 2.45E- 7.68E 3.05E 4.25E- 1.24E- 2.43E
ecotoxicity 0 01 01 -02 +01 01 01 -03
- - - -
Water 1.29E- 3.71E- 3.00E 2.33E 5.40E- 6.77E- 9.49E
consumption 44.6 03 03 -02 +03 02 02 -04
Regarding total environmental consequences and GHG emissions at the endpoint level,
HRAP is the most environmentally friendly system, while AS WWTP performs the
worst. The single score estimation method is increasingly popular for making a
comparative assessment (Kalbar et al., 2017). Although after aggregation, when the
single scores supply less detailed information about the environmental mechanism, this
problem could be solved by providing characterized and/or normalized calculations
6-20
(ISO, 2006a). The endpoint results in this study were concluded after analyzing both
characterized and single scores factors. However, the findings are restricted by the
specific information concerning the case studies.
6.4. CONCLUSIONS
This chapter calculated and compared the potential contribution to environmental
problems generated from three WWTSs. The assessment covers the construction and
operation phases by obtaining the particular input data from the plant and Ecoinvent
database. The chosen functional unit is 1 m3 of treated wastewater. SimaPro 9.1 was
conducted for the analysis. The results could be applied for the same size WWTS,
which has identical configurations. The key findings are as follows:
• The contribution of the construction phase varies and depends on the quantity of
materials consumed. The proportion could be equal or even higher than the
operation phase in some particular cases;
• All the environmental impacts of the WWTP are governed by the configuration,
and treatment method;
• In comparison to nature-based systems, conventional WWTP generates 2 to 3
times more consequences and 2 to 15 times higher GHG emissions;
• HRAP emits 8.8 times less GHG emissions whilst leading to 1.3 times less
problems than CW;
• The single score LCA method is more convenient for comparison when
sufficient normalization calculations are provided.
6-21
Chapter 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
FOR ENERGY RECOVERY AND MATERIAL
RECYCLE
7-1
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are considered to be a major greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions source, and they contribute to global warming by emitting carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) (Nguyen et al., 2019). These
three major GHGs are produced during the WWTP's lifespan, including the
construction, operation, and demolition phases. The total amount of GHG emissions
consists of on-site and offsite components. The on-site GHGs are collected from
treatment processes of wastewater and sludge and combustion actions for energy
generation. While the offsite types are related to the production and transportation of
electricity, fuel, chemicals, and construction materials. Emissions from residue
degradation, and water discharge are also known as offsite GHGs (Nguyen et al., 2019).
GHG mitigation strategies should focus on reducing these emissions from the whole life
cycle of the WWTP. The operation phase is what greatly contributes to environmental
damage, whereas GHG emissions are more likely be due to energy and chemical
requirements. This also includes material consumption regarding non-sustainable
building construction phases and materials that have serious implications for the
environment (Nguyen et al., 2020b).
Although WWTP operations have been improved in recent years regarding the removal
of water contaminants as well as the processes involved in implementing better resource
recovery, a thorough method or strategy which can cover cradle-to-grave technologies is
essential. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the most suitable tool used to measure the
WWTP's lifetime and its environmental impacts by considering all the relevant
indicators as well as compensation (Corominas et al., 2020b). LCA can be used to guide
technology improvement and process selection. Hence, LCA can be applied for future
7-2
design and evaluation of the WWTP. LCA utilization helps avoid transferring troubles
from one location to another (Nguyen et al., 2020d). Wastewater contains various
elements and provides material resources and energy recoveries, such as nutrients, bio-
energy, and water (Chrispim et al., 2020). Economic potential can be seen when waste
is used to create valuable products and reduce landfills. This offers environmental
benefits of emissions mitigation and effluent quality improvement.
According to Nguyen et al. (2020b), these construction phases require materials that
environmental impacts due to the quantities of some primary substances such as
concrete and steel. In fact, the production and consumption of construction materials
require such intensive energy, which contributes to total environmental burdens (Jeong
et al., 2019). Regarding resource depletion, construction activities account for 40-60%.
The reuse and recycling methods aim to reduce waste, save energy, mitigate carbon
emissions, and maintain natural resources (Xia et al., 2020). Both steel and concrete can
be recycled and then consumed as required in newly built structures.
In the operation phase, electricity demand is responsible for high costs and accounts for
approximately 80% of the WWTP's GHG emissions (Shen et al., 2015). Methods to
mitigate power utilization impacts are minimizing energy consumption and maximizing
renewable energy production. Replacing conventional equipment with energy-saving
facilities can result in a 2.5% reduction in electricity consumed. Recovered energy from
wastewater and sludge can be reused for internal support of the WWTP in the treatment
process. The recovered energy can help produce 3.6% of net electricity consumption,
and in turn, is the best option with a 19% reduction in total environmental damage
(Rashid et al., 2020).
7-3
Sewage sludge, coupled with the promising feedstock for energy production, can be
digested to generate biogas. Biogas derived from digested sludge contains 50-70% of
CH4 and 30-50% of CO2. Biogas production contributes significantly to a WWTP's
GHG emissions under poor management circumstances (Shen et al., 2015). Efficient
biogas collection can be utilized for different purposes as follows: (i) heating the sludge
digester; (ii) generating heat and electricity in cogeneration facilities; (iii) injection into
natural gas grids; (iv) fuel cell production; and (v) transportation biofuel (Picardo et al.,
2019). Thanks to thermal and energy conversions, biogas can self-supply for WWTP
and minimize GHG emissions (Nguyen et al., 2020a). According to Nguyen et al.
(2020a), WWTP systems could provide more than 50% of the nation's total biogas
production. Therefore, biogas, and renewable energy are a promising substitute for
fossil fuels which generate the most polluting GHG emissions (Anwar et al., 2020).
Although LCA has been widely applied to evaluate and compare the environmental
impacts from various upgrades of WWTPs for resource recovery (Harclerode et al.,
2020; Rashid et al., 2020), several treatment technologies have been compared to
explore the most environmentally friendly processes. In addition, LCA can be used to
examine the environmental benefit of utilizing raw and recycled materials. However, to
the best of our knowledge, not much research on LCA wastewater research has focused
on recycling rates and types of recycled productions to total environmental influences.
Moreover, the construction and demolition phases were normally excluded from the
analyses done on this topic, leading to inaccurate or mixed results (Nguyen et al.,
2020b).
In this chapter, LCA will be conducted to measure the environmental consequences
caused by different resource recovery methods. All the on-site activities are calculated
7-4
in the assessment, including materials recycling for construction and destruction phases
as well as various applications of biogas production during operational phases. This
chapter aims to improve our knowledge of each stage and how WWTP affects the
environment. LCA is applied to (1) quantify the influence of increasing the recycling
rate of structural materials, (2) explore the most valuable energy recovery technologies,
and (3) develop sound GHG emissions mitigation guidelines.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Nguyen, T.L.H., Chang, S.W., Nguyen,
D.D., Varjani, S., Lei, Z. & Deng, L. 2021, 'Environmental impacts and
greenhouse gas emissions assessment for energy recovery and material recycle of
the wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 784, p.
147135.
7.2.1. Recycle waste from construction demolitions activities
Recycled building materials application
Construction and demolition waste (CDW) consist of reusable/recyclable, inert, and
hazardous waste. The first group includes metals, wood, glass, and plastics. In most
countries, inert wastes (including concrete, bricks, ceramics, stones, tiles, and soil) are
non-reusable, and the most popular option to treat this is to be disposed of in landfills
(Ram et al., 2020). The reuse method has several restrictions due to the limitations of
the application, while recycling converts the waste into secondary materials for less
functional utilization or re-production (Ghaffar et al., 2020). Recycling has been
assessed using LCA and appears to perform better environmentally than landfilling and
7-5
incineration (Ram et al., 2020). For example, landfilling creates a 36% higher ecological
burden compared to recycling (Di Maria et al., 2018).
The inert wastes account for 75-95% of the CDW in size and mass. The most common
recycling method is producing recycled aggregates (RA), a substitute for natural
aggregates (NA) in manufacturing bricks, composites, road bases, or concrete (Di Maria
et al., 2018). Up to 100% of natural resources can be replaced by recycled feedstocks in
non-load-bearing structures (Jain et al., 2020). LCA studies showed that RA's
production is preferable to NA regarding all the environmental impact categories
(Hossain et al., 2016; Rosado et al., 2017). The application of recycled CDW in road
construction is much better than depending on landfilling operations (Butera et al.,
2015). In specific conditions, RA utilization in concrete production leads to a 30%
reduction of waste compared to NA consumption (Yazdanbakhsh et al., 2018).
The most common plastics recycling method is packaging applications recovery
(O'Farrell, 2019), followed by combustion with energy recovery. According to Aryan et
al. (2019), plastics incineration and plastic recycling wield less impact than landfilling.
Recycling methods also present the smallest effects on most analysis categories (Aryan
et al., 2019). In recycled plastic consumption, the benefits were observed when CO 2
emissions were reduced by reducing 10.2% and total environmental impacts by 15%
compared to virgin plastic in bitumen production (Santos et al., 2021). Steel that is
considered to be scrap can be reused by melting it to produce new iron and steel whilst
avoiding using raw iron ores (Di Maria et al., 2018). Production of steel from crude iron
ores requires ten times more energy than from recycled feedstock (Harvey, 2020).
Hence, recycling and applying recycled materials have garnered more interest and
should focus on sustainability for the future.
7-6
Recycling rate
The CDW recycling percentage varies among countries and cities. The highest ratio can
be observed in Japan and South Korea (97%), followed by the Netherlands, Germany,
and the United Kingdom (80-90%). Elsewhere, the proportion of recycled waste only
accounts for less than 10% (Menegaki et al., 2018). The recycling rate of CDW depends
on awareness of the recycled materials' value, dismantling technology, sorting cost,
market demand, and management strategies (Nakajima, 2014). To limit waste
production, policies and action plans help increase some major recycled CDWs,
including wood, metal, plastic, and concrete. According to the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, from 2016 to 2019, the recovery rate (including recycling, energy recovery
application, and exportation) of masonry materials and metals rose from 76.2%, and
73.4% to 81.4%, and 75.5%, respectively (ABS, 2020). Figure 7.1 summarizes the
proportion of recycled steel and concrete from several countries' construction activities
(Nakajima, 2014).
7-7
Figure 7.1. The proportion of recycled concrete and steel in some countries
Plastics, which have problematic ingredients, are also considered to constitute a critical
CDW. Their recycling ratio depends on the polymer type (O'Farrell, 2019). The
Australian plastics recycling rate slightly fell from 11.3% in 2015 to 9.4% in 2018.
Meanwhile, the proportion of plastics recovered from CDW only accounted for 2%
(O'Farrell, 2019). The most impressive results were observed in Norway when 10.5%
and 75% of the plastic CDW were recovered and combusted, respectively (Nakajima,
2014). Consequently, this research paper will explore further advantages of recycled
materials to expand recycling and minimize waste.
7.2.2. Biogas production and utilization at WWTP
At WWTPs, sewage sludge is treated to produce biogas. In recent times the data reveals
a slightly increasing trend in sewage biogas production. The total amount in EU28 rose
from 1529.2 kilotons of oil equivalent (ktoe) in 2018 to 1593.5 ktoe in 2019. In the UK,
the production of 2019 was 2.2% higher than that of 2018 (EurObserv'ER, 2020b). At
the US WWTPs, the daily production rate ranges from 0.9 to 1.1 m3 biogas per m3
digester tank, which is about three times lower than in Europe (Shen et al., 2015).
However, a limited number of plants employ produced biogas as cogeneration, and
almost all biogas is combusted (Shen et al., 2015). In the plants that utilize biogas,
improvement in biogas production could result in energy-neutral WWTPs or energy
producers (Nguyen et al., 2020a). Biogas' energy recovery provides 0.1 kWh to 0.7
kWh per capita under the best possible conditions per day (Colzi Lopes et al., 2018).
The total energy potential from WWTPs with a flow rate of 1 MGD is 3.87x10 7 MMBtu
per year (Shen et al., 2015). In the case of self-provided power, produced heat and
electricity can be consumed on-site. 75% of the captured biogas can be used in the
7-8
boiler for heat production, while the rest is used to generate electricity (Venkatesh et al.,
2013). In the scenario that the generated energy is higher than demand, this surplus
energy can be sold or used for other purposes (Nguyen et al., 2020a).
Compared with other types of biogas, sewage biogas is the richest in methane
(Venkatesh et al., 2013). Containing the natural source of CO2, in addition to energy
transformation, biogas can be converted into biomethane. Biomethane has a 1.67 times
higher heating value than biogas (Nguyen et al., 2020a) and is considered an alternative
to biogas for combustion purposes (Paolini et al., 2018). In several countries,
approximately 15% of total biomethane is derived from WWTPs' sewage sludge
(Venkatesh et al., 2013). The biogas production rate of a WWTP with a daily influent of
54464 m3 is 80 m3 h-1, and the biomethane potential is 220 mL CH4 per gram of volatile
solid (Paolini et al., 2018). The biomethane upgrading speed is from 195 to 488 m3 per
hour (Venkatesh et al., 2013). The productivity depends on two things: firstly, the
volatile solids concentration in sludge; and secondly, the efficiency of conversion of
CO2 to CH4 (Díaz et al., 2020).
Biomethane is utilized as a transportation fuel primarily driven in Italy and Sweden
(EurObserv'ER, 2020a). Biomethane has been used as a fuel since 2004. In Italy in
2019, 37 ktoe of biomethane was used as fuel in buses and trucks (EurObserv'ER,
2020a; Venkatesh et al., 2013). In Oslo, Norway, since 2015, biomethane was used to
fuel all the waste trucks and 15% of the city's buses (Commision, 2019). The binding
quota for biomethane being consumed in the transport sector is set at 75% in Italian law
(EurObserv'ER, 2020a), whereas the target for Sweden is 100% to be achieved by 2030
(Shen et al., 2015).
7-9
7.2.3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
Goal and scope
Regarding the importance of GHG mitigation and energy recovery, the study's goal is to
conduct LCA at two WWTPs, particularly concentrating on the construction and
demolition phases for the Girona WWTP and the operation phase of the Bekkelaget
WWTP in Norway. The Girona WWTP (Plant 1) is located in Catalonia, north-east
Spain. More details about this plant are reported in studies by Morera et al. (2017) and
Nguyen et al. (2020b). The system boundaries include Plant 1 construction and
demolition activities. The production of all construction materials and energy
consumption for the structuring works are counted. Equipment is excluded from the
study. The destruction phase considers the end of life of the utilized materials having
different recycling rates. Several popular methods for CDW treatment are summarized
in Table 7.1. The operation phase with electricity recovered from sludge is excluded
from this study and has been reported elsewhere (Morera et al., 2017).
Table 7.1. CDW disposal methods
Phase/ Materials Waste source Treatment
Inert waste Construction Landfilled
Demolition Landfilled/Recycled
Metal Construction + Recycled
Demolition
Plastic Structure Recycled
Packing Landfilled
7-10
Wood Construction Landfilled
Frame Reused
Paper Packing Recycled
The research boundary covered the operation phase of Bekkelaget WWTP (Plant 2) and
focused on sludge treatment methods. Plant 2 is the second-largest sewage treatment
plant in Norway, which is described in detail in Table 7.2 (Commision, 2019). This
plant is currently being expanded to increase the treatment capacity from 300,000 PE to
500,000 PE. In 2010, Bekkelaget WWTP started to produce biogas and reported its
ability to generate an energy surplus. Energy from biogas is consumed as biomethane
for waste trucks and 80 buses in the city. In addition to biogas production, sludge is
reused in agriculture (Commision, 2019).
Table 7.2. Bekkelaget WWTP characteristic
Unit 2007 2012 2015
Design People 270,000 300,000 300,000
capacity equivalent
(PE)
Sludge ton N/A N/A 21,071
production
Treatment Million m3 40.7 46.8 50.05
capacity
Influent/ In Out In Out In Out
7-11
Effluent
BOD5 ton/year 5,170 138 6,999 163 7,328 425
COD ton/year 17,479 N/A 18,189 1,433 17,974 1,985
Ntot ton/year 1,169 387 1,452 431 1,513 398
Ptot ton/year 152 12.80 171 13.70 170 15.75
Life cycle inventory analysis
The data inventories include all the required materials for construction, materials
production resources, and deposition for Plant 1. The volume of biogas generation and
utilization were collected for Plant 2. The percentage and quantity of recycled material
for Plant 1 are assumed and presented in case A-D. While the primary data and
information of Plant 2 were gathered from Bekkelaget WWTP's report. The amount of
biogas handling was proposed in the plant's 10-year research (Venkatesh et al., 2013).
The primary materials categories for Plant 1 are summarized in Table 7.3 and reported
in (Morera et al., 2017). The full detailed list is provided in the supporting documents.
Four scenarios are developed regarding different waste treatment options of Plant 1. For
hypothetical case A, it will be assumed that no recycling method is applied if all the
waste is landfilled. Alternatively, case B, as designed by Morera et al. (2017), suggests
the following: all types of concrete are disposed of at the dumping site grounds; metals
are recycled at a rate of 91%; and 25% and 34% of plastics are recycled and incinerated,
respectively. Case C has a higher recycling rate, which accounted for 100% of metals
and 50% of concrete. Finally, case D is an upgrade of case C, where 100% of the
concrete is recycled.
Table 7.3. The summary of construction data inventory for plant 1
7-12
Material / Process Unit Total
Diesel MJ 1.19E+07
Transport tkm 6.47E+06
Reinforcing steel kg 1.98E+06
Other steels kg 1.23E+05
Metals kg 1.16E+04
Rubber kg 1.08E+04
Plastic kg 9.49E+05
Concrete kg 5.10E+07
Aggregate kg 7.16E+06
Six options for biogas improvement for Plant 2 were developed by Venkatesh et al.
(2013), named S1-S6 and employed in this study. In the first scenario, all the biogas
production is combusted, and no energy is recovered. The second scenario is where
biogas is employed to generate heat and electricity. 100% produced biogas is used for
heat transformation and then for biomethane up-gradation in S3 and S4, respectively.
Heat, electricity, and biofuel are all made at the same time in S5. In the final scenario,
biomethane and heat are recovered from biogas, as shown in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4. Data inventory for operation phase recover pathways in Plant 2
unit S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Input
Electricity GWh 12.3 3.7 12.3 15 9.4 13.7
Pellet ton 884 884 884 884 884 884
Fuel oil GWh 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13
Natural gas GWh 4.59 0 0 4.59 0 0
Biogas production GWh 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8
7-13
Output
Heat GWh 0 15.8 24.5 0 7.9 12.2
Biogas electricity GWh 0 8.6 0 0 4.3 0
Biomethane GWh 0 0 0 28.8 14.4 14.4
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
Different impact categories from EPD 2018, ReCiPe 2016, and Greenhouse Gas
Protocol (GHG Protocol) V1.02 were conducted to measure the environmental burdens
(PRe', 2020). EPD 2018 includes acidification, eutrophication, global warming (GWP),
photochemical oxidation, abiotic depletion elements, abiotic depletion of fossil fuels,
and water scarcity. Meanwhile, ozone layer depletion (ODP) is the optional indicator
(PRe', 2020). While the EPD method applies to European countries only, the ReCiPe
can be used for global assessment (Nguyen et al., 2020b). Compared with the previous
version, the most significant updates of ReCiPe 2016 have the most expansive time
horizon, a more extensive set of GHG emissions including N2O, and the global elements
substituted the local factors. Future resource production was included without
discounting (PRe', 2020). A set of ReCiPe 2016 endpoint impact categories was
employed for assessment in this study.
GHG Protocol tools can measure a single issue using the adopted standards for GHG
emissions. According to this method, GHG emissions from fossil sources, biogenic
CO2, CO2 storage, and land transformation emissions can be calculated and reported
(PRe', 2020). The total GHG emissions for each product inventory and process within
the research boundary, including the non-CO2 gas, are quantified and converted to the
CO2 equivalent. Furthermore, all the inputs and outputs for the data inventories have
7-14
their equivalent values in the Ecoinvent database version 3.5 (Weidema et al., 2013).
Raw materials and energy consumption for the construction and demolition phases of
Plant 1 and operation phases of Plant 2 are gathered and taken from Ecoinvent. The
environmental impacts are measured and presented through these characterization
factors. The assessment process is conducted using SimaPro 9.1, the most updated
version, which helps calculate and compare the disadvantages of different scenarios.
Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
In general, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to check system boundaries, allocation,
indicators, or methods (Guo et al., 2012). In this study, regarding the biogas conversion
pathway at Plant 2, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the influence of
upgrading efficiency to the GHG emissions and total impacts. The assessment was done
at a level of 10% change in the quantity of the final productions. Results are reflected in
the following damage categories through human health, ecosystem, and resources. It
should be noted that the uncertainty analysis was applied in Plant 1 to test the variability
of the results due to uncertain inventory data. Uncertainty was assessed on the volume
of consumed material, utilized energy, and treated waste. The calculation is based on the
Monte Carlo method in SimaPro software.

7.3.1. Building materials recycling and environmental impacts
Figure 7.2 presents various components of the environmental impacts on construction
(C) and destruction (D) activities. The full assessment is provided in the supporting
documents. As in other previous studies, the same trend shows that several materials
contribute significant proportions to the environment, such as concrete, reinforced steel,
diesel, glass fiber reinforced plastic, and plastics (Morera et al., 2017; Nguyen et al.,
2020b). The chart also states that reinforced steel accounts for higher burdens than
concrete. However, glass fiber plastic is consumed in much smaller quantities than steel
and concrete but nonetheless is dominant under some other impact categories.
7-15
The inclusion of the demolition phase describes the role of material usage in WWTP. In
addition to production and utilization, the concrete disposal process dominates a
remarkable percentage on all indicators. It is important to note here that the treatment
method here is landfilling for all the consumed concrete. According to these figures, the
proportion of concrete disposal is higher than the concrete production stage regarding
ozone formation (both human health - HH and terrestrial ecosystems – TE) and water
consumption (HH, TE, and aquatic ecosystems – AE). In fossil resource scarcity,
landfilled concrete contributes approximately 1.5 times higher than the actual process of
concrete manufacturing. As one of the primary materials, the volume of consumed and
then landfilled concrete weighs heavily. Reduction in concrete disposal quantity might
lead to diminished environmental damage. Therefore, four cases from A to D were
proposed to clarify the importance of concrete recycling. In contrast, metal recycling
produces benefits in most of the evaluated categories. The highest value is recorded on
mineral resource scarcity, which could compensate 92% of the influence caused by
reinforced steel production.
7-16
Figure 7.2. LCIA for C+D in plant 1 – case B
The influence of end-of-life treatment methods was analysed when looking into case B
and three more scenarios A – no recycling, C – 50%, and D – 100% concrete recycling.
All four cases were assessed and compared by ReCiPe and GHG Protocol tools. When
comparing each scenario's influence on the environment, a set of endpoint impact
categories were included in the egalitarian context. The egalitarian (E) perspective is the
7-17
safest viewpoint, which considers the most extended time frame. All the midpoint
impact categories were multiplied using damage factors and synthesized into human
health, ecosystems, and resource scarcity. The results are presented in Figure 7.3 and
referred to as eco-indicator million points (mPt). Case A contributes the most significant
impact, which accounts for 1.7 mPt, while the other cases record approximately 1.4
mPt.
A similar trend is found when GHG emissions of the four cases were studied. The
results show that comparing with zero recycling, when 50% of the consumed concrete is
recycled, the GHG emissions from C+D declined by 3.81 kton of CO 2 equivalent. The
amount of GHG emissions for zero recycling is 1.4 times higher than 100% recycling.
Case D, which has the highest recycling rate for all metals and concrete, illustrates the
smallest environmental outcomes, including GHG emissions and damage.
Figure 7.3. GHG emissions and damage assessment
7-18
7.3.2. Environmental analysis for biogas utilization
S1 to S6 are different scenarios used to mitigate GHG emissions originating from the
sewage sludge treatment process, except S1, while in S2 to S6, biogas is utilized to
recover energy. GHG Protocol tool served to explore each scenario's benefit, and the
functional unit is 1m3 of wastewater treated. It can be seen from Figure 7.4 that under
the same conditions, biogas flare and biomethane production are the most polluted
forms or pathways. Biomethane up-gradation provides the highest GHG quantity,
including fossil and biogenic CO2, accounting for 92.42 g CO2. Flaring biogas, the most
common method in WWTPs, has technological limitations and releases a certain
amount of 74.67 g CO2 equivalent. Heat and electricity generation is the best option
where no GHG is emitted and can offset 115 g of CO2 eq. S3, S5, S6 also present
negative results, which means the system's effects on GHG emissions can be avoided.
Figure 7.4. GHG emissions from biogas conversion methods
Regarding damage oriented, the endpoint characterization values were calculated for
proposed scenarios. It can be seen from figure 7.5, S1, S5, and S6 contribute similarly
7-19
to the environment at 68.33, 69.48, and 67.17 mPt, respectively. S4 accounts for the
most incredible damage, while S2 is the least harmful scenario. The burdens caused by
S4 is seven times higher than S2, which total amount is 11.5 mPt. Due to energy
recovery, their responsibilities on resources are negligible. In detail, these methods do
not lead to any trouble on mineral resource scarcity and fossil fuel scarcity but bring
minor positive reaction on resources. In most cases, the effects on ecosystems are
responsible for 36.8% to 40% of the total damage. S2 is an exception, while its impact
on ecosystems is higher than on human health, which shares 53% of the harm.
Figure 7.5. Environmental impact analysis for six scenarios
Among six scenarios, biomethane up-gradation leads to the most significant GHG
emissions and other environmental troubles. Electricity and heat generation is the best
option, which can compensate 102.9 g of fossil fuel-derived CO2.
7-20
7.4. INTERPRETATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
7.4.1. Recycling – advantages and limitations
As mentioned above, landfilled concrete accounts for notable ratios of the world's most
serious environmental problems, especially concerning fossil fuel's finite nature. The
importance of metals recycling was emphasized when concerning mineral resource
scarcity. When increasing the percentage of metal and concrete recycling from 91% to
100% and from 0 to 100%, respectively, the impact on mineral scarcity slightly falls at
3.9%, while the footprint on fossil shortage drops to 11.6%. It means reutilized concrete
helps the environment and resources. Improving steel reprocessing rates to 100%
reduces the mineral shortage to well under 3.4%. Increasing reinforced steel recycling
also lowers the metal depletion impacts significantly (Morera et al., 2017). The
construction phase's contribution to helping the environment has the highest value on
the metal depletion category (Morera et al., 2017). Hence, focusing on the metal
recovery level could reduce resource problems or limitations. The results present the
role of CDW treatment methods and confirm the advantage of expanding the primary
materials recycling rate.
The share of plastic recycling was negligible due to the small quantity of recycled
material. The total amount of consumed plastics is half of reinforced steel, but plastic's
environmental problems are considerable. Moreover, glass fiber reinforced plastic, the
primary contributor to several indicators, was not recycled. This type of plastic was
treated as inert waste, responsible for the highest percentages, while other plastic kinds
were reused and recovered at lower rates. A proper strategy to collect and recycle
plastic will reduce the waste amount and limit these environmental burdens.
Case D (100% concrete and metals are recycled) is the most ideal scenario where most
of the impact categories are much lower than the other cases except water consumption
7-21
(HH, TE, and AE). The burden values on water consumption of case D are higher than
case C and case B at 1.2 times and 1.5 times, respectively. The results show that
reprocessing requires more water than landfilling. Consequently, recycling reveals the
benefit to the total environment but does have to consider water shortage issues. Results
show the linear relationship between the recycling rate and how they lead to more
problems regarding water scarcity.
Figure 7.6. Uncertainty analysis for Case D (ADF: abiotic depletion fossil fuels, GWP:
global warming potential, ODP: ozone layer depletion)
The data inventories of case D were suggested for the best or optimal conditions. When
measuring case D's accuracy, an uncertainty analysis was conducted by EPD 2018 and
is illustrated in Figure 7.6. Results show that uncertainty affects most of the
environmental outcomes. The range of uncertainty can change the overall implications
of case D. The reason is the lack of data inventories and excluding facilities such as
waste collection and separation machines. However, it is worth mentioning that the
assumption was established for all cases. Hence, providing comprehensive information
could change the results, but the trend between cases remains stable. For future
7-22
research, cost and machine analysis should be undertaken so that we understand more
about the processes involved.
7.4.2. Energy recovery and GHG emissions mitigation
Regarding the treatment of biogas in WWTPs, the most common method to limit GHG
emissions is flaring, where methane is converted to biogenic CO 2. After combustion, the
production includes CO2, N2O, NO, SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
released. Biogenic CO2 is known to be unharmful in the natural environment, but the
other gases do cause problems, which are presented in Figure 7.4. No energy was
recovered in this case, and no "avoid product" was created to compensate for the
consumed resources. Therefore, the overall environmental problems of S1 account for
the second-highest amount. Of the six scenarios, the S4 biomethane conversion method
generated the most incredible biofuel quantity and consumed the largest amounts of
natural gas and electricity from the grid. Under these circumstances, no energy was
manufactured on-site, which subsequently did not lead to any significant environmental
impacts and GHG emissions.
S2 and S3 did, in fact, avoid problems on most of the burden categories. However, S2
required the least amount of electricity. Except for land use, where S3 records the
smallest result, S2 contributes less than in the case of the other scenarios. S2 does not
generate any discharge and can offset GHG emissions problems for the WWTP. Both
S5 and S6 provide on-site power and produce the same quantity of biomethane.
Compared with S5, S6 utilized more electricity but accounted for fewer burdens and
helped to minimize GHGs. It can be seen that the lower the fossil energy usage, the less
GHG emissions will be released. Generating electricity for in-plant consumption shows
more advantages than other recovery methods.
7-23
A sensitivity analysis has been conducted to examine the influence of production
quantity on the environmental impacts of S2. As shown in Table 7.5, the change in
volume of conversion production has a remarkable effect on most of the footprint
categories. A minor influence was recorded on land use while variations in the other
elements ranged from 10% to 550%, respectively. The results confirm that increasing
the quantity of bio-energy does, in turn, lead to diminished environmental pollution.
Biogas treatment creates environmental benefits for WWTPs by mitigating GHG
emissions and limiting the problems. On the other hand, self-provided energy derived
from biogas reveals more advantages than other treatment methods for avoiding GHG
emissions. Due to the lack of real data, some exclusions were applied in this assessment,
and some input values were assumed as stated previously. The research boundary
concerns only the on-site activities and emissions for Plant 2. Transportation and
infrastructure for biomethane distribution are excluded from this study. Comprehensive
data inventories could provide more accurate results. Cost analysis should be considered
when decisions have to be made.
Table 7.5. Influence of production variation
Reduce Increase
Impact category
10% 10%
Global warming ↑19.19% ↓15.98%
Stratospheric ozone depletion ↑36.42% ↓26.56%
Ionizing radiation ↑83.79% ↓506.47%
Ozone formation, HH ↑23.07% ↓18.62%
Fine particulate matter ↑13.42% ↓11.72%
Ozone formation, TE ↑22.82% ↓18.46%
Terrestrial acidification ↑12.87% ↓11.30%
Freshwater eutrophication ↑11.21% ↓9.98%
7-24
Marine eutrophication ↑13.67% ↓15.72%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity ↑16.21% ↓13.83%
↑237.98
Freshwater ecotoxicity ↓173.72%
%
Marine ecotoxicity ↑21.08% ↓17.26%
↑550.70
Human carcinogenic toxicity ↓84.58%
%
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity ↑23.69% ↓18.99%
Land use ↑6.72% ↓7.13%
↑107.91
Mineral resource scarcity ↓51.77%
%
Fossil resource scarcity ↑42.95% ↓29.90%
Water consumption ↑23.24% ↓30.28%
7.5. CONCLUSIONS
This chapter presented an environmental analysis of several options for handling
WWTP's "waste." The waste considered here includes CDW and biogas derived from
the operation process. The assessment review identified the benefits of recycling
materials by measuring the environmental impacts at different recovery percentages.
Biogas treatment techniques were compared to explore the avoidance potential of the
recovered energy. The life cycle evaluation approach was conducted employing plant-
specific data and the Ecoinvent database. However, the inventory data and results can
be used as a reference for other WWTPs with the same capability. The uncertainty and
sensitivity were taken into account in the analysis to verify the importance of better data
inventories. The findings are summarized as follows:
• Landfilled concrete is responsible for more environmental problems than
concrete production by up to approximately 1.5 times.
• Metal recycling has benefits as evaluated by the indicators and can offset 92% of
mineral resource scarcity problems.

7-25
• Flaring biogas still emits GHGs and contributes a great deal to environmental
pollution.
• Compared with other energy recovery methods, converting biogas into
biomethane accounts for the highest GHG emissions and damage.
• Heat and electricity conversion leads to great potential for avoiding GHGs,
which is equivalent to 115g CO2.
7-26
Chapter 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8-1
8.1. CONCLUSIONS
Increase in population resulted in escalating the amount of wastewater and pressure on
wastewater treatment. Despite maintaining the quality of water receiving, wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP) are also responsible for various environmental consequences
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generation. Thus, the inclusion of GHG emissions
analysis when evaluating the entire impacts of WWTP is crucial. Different methods
were developed to measure GHG emissions and quantify the environmental impacts for
proposing valuable mitigating strategies. However, the complexity in the characteristic
of influent and effluent as well as the differences in capacity, technology, resources
demand, and assessment tools, lead to a considerable variation of the results. LCA is
one of the most used pathways which investigate the system under the comprehensive
perspective. In this thesis, environmental burden and GHG emitted were explored via
LCA to provide a holistic understanding of the WWTP's total impacts through the
contribution of a single element.
The main aim of this chapter is to summarise the main findings regarding the
importance of research boundary, analysis methodology, and data in terms of
availability and quality. Moreover, future research proposals and suggestions for
efficiency quantification and mitigation of environmental troubles are also presented.
The thesis highlights that all activities that happened during WWTP's lifetime should be
considered when calculating the entire environmental impact. The hypothesis suggests a
comprehensive life cycle assessment before making the decision on planning or
renovating the plant. The thesis provides detailed knowledge on the role of different
elements in WWTP. The research could provide strong evidence for various options to
mitigate the troubles while minimizing GHG emissions.
8-2
Developing an extensive database for LCA is an important mission. There is a pressing
need to continue the research on proposing the strategies to control the impacts and
reduce GHG emissions while increasing self-provided energy for WWTP. Greater
research should be conducted to support the findings.
The specific findings in this study are summarised as follows:
1. Critical review on greenhouse gas generation, GHG quantification methods,
and environmental impacts assessment tool
• GHG was produced in all WWTP processing units, including direct and indirect
components. Direct GHG emits from the treatment process, while the indirect type
is related to energy utilization. However, very few studies investigated the factors
that influence CO2, N2O, and CH4 at once.
• IPCC is the most popular method to quantify the volume of GHG flux, which the
calculation procedure bases on annual organic matter. However, IPCC has several
uncertainties due to excluding the biogenic CO2, the relationship with other
wastewater characteristics, and operation conditions.
• GHG emissions direct measurement technique has poor accuracy due to
experimental conditions, collection methods, collection location, equipment
efficiency, and personnel experience.
2. Contribution of the construction phase to environmental impacts of the
wastewater treatment plants
• Concrete and reinforcing steels are primary construction materials regarding
consumption volume and environmental impacts. Glass fiber, polymer, and diesel
are also the main contributors; even a tiny amount is utilized.
8-3
• Construction for the secondary treatment units responsible for half of the impact
of the whole stage and is considered the major proportion, followed by sludge
line and pumping component.
• Production of concrete generates more severe troubles than that of reinforcing
steel due to greater energy consumption.
• The consequences of construction can be reduced by using sustainable substitute
materials and recovered materials. However, alternative substances should be
examined by LCA before being used.
• The accuracy and sufficiency of data inventories will affect the LCA outcomes.
Hence, the information of one unit/process cannot be representative of the whole
WWTP. Due to that reason, the construction phase must be included when
estimating the total impacts of the WWTP.
3. Analyze environmental impacts of wastewater treatment plant considering
greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative energy demand
• Treatment of sludge caused less GHG emissions produced in the sludge line due
to electricity accounts for remarkable troubles in most of the assessment
categories.
• Despite employing small amounts, the chemical in charge of considerable
influence in most impact indicators significantly affects ozone depletion
potential when recorded results reach 75%.
• The role of electricity through environmental impacts indicator, while troubles
of sludge mostly are presented on human health category.
• The single score level burden of the operation phase is 87.92% in resource and
99% in human health and ecosystems in comparison with the whole plant.
8-4
• The parallel relationship between energy and GHG emissions was proved when
the treatment process utilizes higher fossil energy to generate more elevated
fossil CO2.
• Cumulative demand energy analysis helps identify the solution and reduce
environmental impacts by replacing primary energy with renewable energy.
4. Assessing the environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions from the
common municipal wastewater treatment systems
• The proportion of contribution to WWTP's burdens of construction and
operation depends on material and energy requirements for each phase.
Construction of a small size plant has a higher percentage than a bigger one.
• Nature-based treatment systems generate less than 7 to 10 times the problem
than conventional WWTP due to energy demand for treatment.
• Results of the environmental impacts depend on the capacity, configuration,
technology of the WWTP. Material is the primary contributor to construction,
while energy is the vital subsidizer for the operation stage.
• HRAP is the most environmentally friendly system in comparison to activated
sludge and constructed wetland configuration, regarding both nature troubles
and GHG emissions.
5. Environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions assessment for
energy recovery and material recycle of the wastewater treatment plant
• The inclusion of the demolition phase once confirms the role of materials and
their treatment method on nature. Landfilling concrete brings more troubles than
producing it. Metal recycling can compensate 92% of the impact caused by the
manufacture process.
8-5
• A 10% increase in metal recycling results in a 3.4% reduction of impact on
mineral scarcity. Furthermore, 100% of concrete and metal are recycled mitigate
11.6% of the burdens on fossil shortage.
• Material recycling presents environmental benefits in general but causes stress
on the water scarcity category due to the high water demand for reprocessing.
• Electricity and heat recovered from biogas for internal usage help to credit 102.9
g of fossil fuel. The method to upgrade WWTP's biogas to biomethane
responsible for higher environmental impacts and GHG emissions than biogas
flaring, heat and/or electricity conversing.
• An increase of 10% energy recycling rate leads to a 30% reduction in water and
fossil shortage and 52% mineral resource scarcity.
8.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the increasing number of research on environmental consequences and GHG
emissions from WWTP, insufficient and/or improper data inventories leave many gaps
for further understanding and sustainable development. Therefore, based on the current
research, the following recommendations for future works are proposed:
a. As the benefit and potential of material recycling and energy recovering, the
pilot project should be implemented and compare the results. Furthermore,
regarding the total benefit, economic factors, transportation, and transformation
systems should be included for assessment.
b. To enhance the reliability and accuracy of emissions data, efficiency calculation
methods should be developed, including measurement equipment, modeling, and
software. To improve the quality of infrastructure data, engineering reports
should be obtained.
8-6
c. Further research with more case studies in terms of size, technology, sources of
wastewater, and type of energy usage should be conducted to fulfill the
knowledge.
d. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted for every LCA study when
interpreting the results to strengthen the hypothesis.
8-7
REFERENCES
Aboobakar, A., Cartmell, E., Stephenson, T., Jones, M., Vale, P. & Dotro, G. 2013, 'Nitrous
oxide emissions and dissolved oxygen profiling in a full-scale nitrifying activated
sludge treatment plant', Water Res, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 524-34.
ABS 2020, Waste generation, management and economic response by industry and household
in alignment with System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA).
Anwar, M.N., Fayyaz, A., Sohail, N.F., Khokhar, M.F., Baqar, M., Yasar, A., Rasool, K., Nazir,
A., Raja, M.U.F., Rehan, M., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M. & Nizami, A.S. 2020,
'CO2 utilization: Turning greenhouse gas into fuels and valuable products', Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 260.
Arashiro, L.T., Montero, N., Ferrer, I., Acién, F.G., Gómez, C. & Garfí, M. 2018, 'Life cycle
assessment of high rate algal ponds for wastewater treatment and resource recovery',
Science of The Total Environment, vol. 622-623, pp. 1118-30.
Arden, S., Ma, X. & Brown, M. 2019, 'Holistic analysis of urban water systems in the Greater
Cincinnati region: (2) resource use profiles by emergy accounting approach', Water
Research X, vol. 2, p. 100012.
Arnell, M., Rahmberg, M., Oliveira, F. & Jeppsson, U. 2017, 'Multi-objective performance
assessment of wastewater treatment plants combining plant-wide process models and
life cycle assessment', Journal of Water and Climate Change, vol. 8, p. jwc2017179.
Aryan, Y., Yadav, P. & Samadder, S.R. 2019, 'Life Cycle Assessment of the existing and
proposed plastic waste management options in India: A case study', Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 211, pp. 1268-83.
Ávila, C., Garfí, M. & García, J. 2013, 'Three-stage hybrid constructed wetland system for
wastewater treatment and reuse in warm climate regions', Ecological Engineering, vol.
61, pp. 43-9.
Awad, H., Gar Alalm, M. & El-Etriby, H.K. 2019, 'Environmental and cost life cycle
assessment of different alternatives for improvement of wastewater treatment plants in
developing countries', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 660, pp. 57-68.
AWWARF 2007, Energy index development for benchmarking water and wastewater uilities,
AWWA research foundation, Denver, CO.
BaniShahabadi, M., Yerushalmi, L. & Haghighat, F. 2009, 'Impact of process design on
greenhouse gas (GHG) generation by wastewater treatment plants', Water Research,
vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 2679-87.
Bao, Z., Sun, S. & Sun, D. 2015, 'Characteristics of direct CO2 emissions in four full-scale
wastewater treatment plants', Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 54, no. 4-5, pp.
1070-9.
Bao, Z., Sun, S. & Sun, D. 2016, 'Assessment of greenhouse gas emission from A/O and SBR
wastewater treatment plants in Beijing, China', International Biodeterioration &
Biodegradation, vol. 108, pp. 108-14.
Barbu, M., Vilanova, R., Meneses, M. & Santin, I. 2017, 'Global Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Plants Control Strategies Including CO2 Emissions', IFAC-PapersOnLine,
vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 12956-61.
Baresel, C., Andersson, S., Yang, J. & Andersen, M.H. 2016, 'Comparison of nitrous oxide
(N2O) emissions calculations at a Swedish wastewater treatment plant based on water
concentrations versus off-gas concentrations', Advances in Climate Change Research,
vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 185-91.
Bellandi, G., Mancini, I.M., Masi, S., Brienza, R., Panariello, S., Gori, R. & Caniani, D. 2017,
'Monitoring the aeration efficiency and carbon footprint of a medium-sized WWTP:
experimental results on oxidation tank and aerobic digester AU - Caivano, Marianna',
Environmental Technology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 629-38.
Brockmann, D., Gérand, Y., Park, C., Milferstedt, K., Hélias, A. & Hamelin, J. 2021,
'Wastewater treatment using oxygenic photogranule-based process has lower
environmental impact than conventional activated sludge process', Bioresource
Technology, vol. 319, p. 124204.
1
Brown, L., Armstrong Brown, S., Jarvis, S.C., Syed, B., Goulding, K.W.T., Phillips, V.R.,
Sneath, R.W. & Pain, B.F. 2001, 'An inventory of nitrous oxide emissions from
agriculture in the UK using the IPCC methodology: emission estimate, uncertainty and
sensitivity analysis', Atmospheric Environment, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1439-49.
Butera, S., Christensen, T.H. & Astrup, T.F. 2015, 'Life cycle assessment of construction and
demolition waste management', Waste Management, vol. 44, pp. 196-205.
Campos, J., Valenzuela-Heredia, D., Pedrouso, A., Val del Río, Á., Belmonte, M. & Mosquera-
Corral, A. 2016, Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants:
Minimization, Treatment, and Prevention, vol. 2016.
Caniani, D., Caivano, M., Pascale, R., Bianco, G., Mancini, I.M., Masi, S., Mazzone, G.,
Firouzian, M. & Rosso, D. 2019, 'CO2 and N2O from water resource recovery
facilities: Evaluation of emissions from biological treatment, settling, disinfection, and
receiving water body', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 648, pp. 1130-40.
Cao, Y. & Pawłowski, A. 2013, 'Life cycle assessment of two emerging sewage sludge-to-
energy systems: Evaluating energy and greenhouse gas emissions implications',
Bioresource Technology, vol. 127, pp. 81-91.
Casas Ledón, Y., Rivas, A., López, D. & Vidal, G. 2017, 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
assessment and extended exergy accounting of a horizontal-flow constructed wetland
for municipal wastewater treatment: A case study in Chile', Ecological Indicators, vol.
74, pp. 130-9.
Chai, C., Zhang, D., Yu, Y., Feng, Y. & Wong, M. 2015, 'Carbon Footprint Analyses of
Mainstream Wastewater Treatment Technologies under Different Sludge Treatment
Scenarios in China', Water, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 918.
Chen, Z., Ngo, H.H. & Guo, W. 2012, 'A critical review on sustainability assessment of
recycled water schemes', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 426, pp. 13-31.
Chrispim, M.C., Scholz, M. & Nolasco, M.A. 2020, 'A framework for resource recovery from
wastewater treatment plants in megacities of developing countries', Environmental
Research, vol. 188, p. 109745.
Colzi Lopes, A., Valente, A., Iribarren, D. & González-Fernández, C. 2018, 'Energy balance
and life cycle assessment of a microalgae-based wastewater treatment plant: A focus on
alternative biogas uses', Bioresource Technology, vol. 270, pp. 138-46.
Commision, E. 2019, Application Form for the European Green Capital Award 2019.
Commission, E. 2016, Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, <https://uwwtd.eu/Spain/>.
Copp, J. 2001, The COST Simulation Benchmark-Description and Simulator Manual.
Corominas, L., Byrne, D., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Roux, P., Shaw, A. & Short, M.D. 2020a,
'The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: A best
practice guide and critical review', Water Research, p. 116058.
Corominas, L., Byrne, D.M., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Roux, P., Shaw, A. & Short, M.D.
2020b, 'The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: A best
practice guide and critical review', Water Research, vol. 184, p. 116058.
Corominas, L., Ekama, G., Comeau, Y., Vanrolleghem, P.A. & Lesage, P. 2018, Ecoinvent
web-based tool for wastewater treatment inventories.
Corominas, L., Flores-Alsina, X., Snip, L. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2012, 'Comparison of
different modeling approaches to better evaluate greenhouse gas emissions from whole
wastewater treatment plants', Biotechnology and Bioengineering, vol. 109, no. 11, pp.
2854-63.
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
Research, vol. 47, no. 15, pp. 5480-92.
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', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 128, pp. 759-67.
Czepiel, P.M., Crill, P. & Harriss, R. 1993, Methane emissions from municipal wastewater
treatment processes, vol. 27.
2
Daelman, M.R., De Baets, B., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. & Volcke, E.I. 2013, 'Influence of
sampling strategies on the estimated nitrous oxide emission from wastewater treatment
plants', Water research, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 3120-30.
De Feo, G. & Ferrara, C. 2017, 'A procedure for evaluating the most environmentally sound
alternative between two on-site small-scale wastewater treatment systems', Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 164, pp. 124-36.
Delre, A., ten Hoeve, M. & Scheutz, C. 2019, 'Site-specific carbon footprints of Scandinavian
wastewater treatment plants, using the life cycle assessment approach', Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 211, pp. 1001-14.
Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J. & Van Acker, K. 2018, 'Downcycling versus recycling of
construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable
policy making', Waste Management, vol. 75, pp. 3-21.
Díaz, I., Fdz-Polanco, F., Mutsvene, B. & Fdz-Polanco, M. 2020, 'Effect of operating pressure
on direct biomethane production from carbon dioxide and exogenous hydrogen in the
anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge', Applied Energy, vol. 280, p. 115915.
Doka, G. 2003, Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. , Swisse centre for Life cycle
inventories.
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 and Environment Journal, vol. 9, no.
3, pp. 317-25.
EurObserv'ER 2020a, Biofuels barometer, European Commission.
EurObserv'ER 2020b, Biogas barometer European Commission.
Fan, Y., Wu, X., Shao, L., Han, M., Chen, B., Meng, J., Wang, P. & Chen, G. 2021, 'Can
constructed wetlands be more land efficient than centralized wastewater treatment
systems? A case study based on direct and indirect land use', Science of The Total
Environment, vol. 770, p. 144841.
Fang, F., Qiao, L., Cao, J., Li, Y., Xie, W., Sheng, G. & Yu, H. 2016, 'Quantitative evaluation
of A2O and reversed A2O processes for biological municipal wastewater treatment
using a projection pursuit method', Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 166,
pp. 164-70.
Flores-Alsina, X., Arnell, M., Amerlinck, Y., Corominas, L., Gernaey, K.V., Guo, L.,
Lindblom, E., Nopens, I., Porro, J., Shaw, A., Snip, L., Vanrolleghem, P.A. & Jeppsson,
U. 2014, 'Balancing effluent quality, economic cost and greenhouse gas emissions
during the evaluation of (plant-wide) control/operational strategies in WWTPs', Science
of the Total Environment, vol. 466-467, pp. 616-24.
Flores-Alsina, X., Corominas, L., Snip, L. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2011, 'Including greenhouse
gas emissions during benchmarking of wastewater treatment plant control strategies',
Water Research, vol. 45, no. 16, pp. 4700-10.
Flores-Alsina, X., Gallego, A., Feijoo, G. & Rodriguez-Roda, I. 2010, 'Multiple-objective
evaluation of wastewater treatment plant control alternatives', Journal of Environmental
Management, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1193-201.
Flores, L., García, J., Pena, R. & Garfí, M. 2019, 'Constructed wetlands for winery wastewater
treatment: A comparative Life Cycle Assessment', Science of The Total Environment,
vol. 659, pp. 1567-76.
Flores, L., García, J., Pena, R. & Garfí, M. 2020, 'Carbon footprint of constructed wetlands for
winery wastewater treatment', Ecological Engineering, vol. 156, p. 105959.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K. & Lant, P. 2010a, 'Comprehensive life cycle inventories of
alternative wastewater treatment systems', Water Research, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1654-66.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Yuan, Z. & Lant, P. 2010b, 'Nitrous oxide generation in full-scale
biological nutrient removal wastewater treatment plants', Water Res, vol. 44, no. 3, pp.
831-44.
Frison, N., Chiumenti, A., Katsou, E., Malamis, S., Bolzonella, D. & Fatone, F. 2015,
'Mitigating off-gas emissions in the biological nitrogen removal via nitrite process
treating anaerobic effluents', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 93, pp. 126-33.
3
Fuchs, V.J., Mihelcic, J.R. & Gierke, J.S. 2011, 'Life cycle assessment of vertical and horizontal
flow constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment considering nitrogen and carbon
greenhouse gas emissions', Water Research, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 2073-81.
Gallego-Schmid, A. & Tarpani, R.R.Z. 2019, 'Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in
developing countries: A review', Water Research, vol. 153, pp. 63-79.
Garfí, M., Flores, L. & Ferrer, I. 2017, 'Life Cycle Assessment of wastewater treatment systems
for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal
ponds', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 161, pp. 211-9.
Garrido-Baserba, M., Molinos-Senante, M., Abelleira-Pereira, J.M., Fdez-Güelfo, L.A., Poch,
M. & Hernández-Sancho, F. 2015, 'Selecting sewage sludge treatment alternatives in
modern wastewater treatment plants using environmental decision support systems',
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 107, pp. 410-9.
Ghaffar, S.H., Burman, M. & Braimah, N. 2020, 'Pathways to circular construction: An
integrated management of construction and demolition waste for resource recovery',
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 244, p. 118710.
Godin, D., Bouchard, C. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2012, 'Net environmental benefit: introducing a
new LCA approach on wastewater treatment systems', Water Sci Technol, vol. 65, no. 9,
pp. 1624-31.
Guérin, F., Abril, G., Serça, D., Delon, C., Richard, S., Delmas, R., Tremblay, A. & Varfalvy,
L. 2007, 'Gas transfer velocities of CO2 and CH4 in a tropical reservoir and its river
downstream', Journal of Marine Systems, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 161-72.
Guinée, J.B. 2002, 'Handbook on life cycle assessment : operational guide to the ISO standards'.
Guo, M. & Murphy, R.J. 2012, 'LCA data quality: Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis', Science
of The Total Environment, vol. 435-436, pp. 230-43.
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', Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 269, p. 110720.
Harvey, L.D.D. 2020, 'Iron and steel recycling: Review, conceptual model, irreducible mining
requirements, and energy implications', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, p.
110553.
Hass, D. 2018, 'Greenhouse gases from wastewater treatment systems. The energy versus
nitrous oxide emissions nexus', Water e-journal, vol. 3.
Henze, M., Gujer, W., Mino, T. & Loosdrecht, M.C.M.v. 2000, 'Activated sludge models
ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d, and ASM3', IWA Scientific and Technical Report No. 9.
Hernández-Padilla, F., Margni, M., Noyola, A., Guereca-Hernandez, L. & Bulle, C. 2017,
'Assessing wastewater treatment in Latin America and the Caribbean: Enhancing life
cycle assessment interpretation by regionalization and impact assessment sensibility',
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T. & Feijoo, G. 2007, 'A comparison of municipal wastewater
treatment plants for big centres of population in Galicia (Spain)', The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 57.
Hossain, M.U., Poon, C.S., Lo, I.M.C. & Cheng, J.C.P. 2016, 'Comparative environmental
evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by
LCA', Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 109, pp. 67-77.
Houillon, G. & Jolliet, O. 2005, 'Life cycle assessment of processes for the treatment of
wastewater urban sludge: energy and global warming analysis', Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 287-99.
Hu, Z., Zhang, J., Li, S., Xie, H., Wang, J., Zhang, T., Li, Y. & Zhang, H. 2010, 'Effect of
aeration rate on the emission of N2O in anoxic–aerobic sequencing batch reactors (A/O
SBRs)', Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 487-91.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Rombouts, L.J.A., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hendriks, A.J., van de
Meent, D., Ragas, A.M.J., Reijnders, L. & Struijs, J. 2006, 'Is Cumulative Fossil Energy
4
Demand a Useful Indicator for the Environmental Performance of Products?',
Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 641-8.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., G., S., Verones, F., Vieira, M.D.M.,
Hollander, A., Zijp, M. & Zelm, R. 2016, ReCiPe 2016. A hamornized life cycle impact
assessment method at midpoint and enpoint level. Report I: Characterization, National
Institute for public health and the environment.
Hwang, K., Bang, C. & Zoh, K. 2016, 'Characteristics of methane and nitrous oxide emissions
from the wastewater treatment plant', Bioresource Technology, vol. 214, pp. 881-4.
Institute, M.B. 2016, Biological and Water Quality Assessment of Mill Creek 2016, vol. 2017-6-
8, Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Hamilton County, Ohio.
IPCC 2006, '2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Egglesto H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K.,
Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan'.
IPCC 2007, 'Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)].', IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, p. 104 pp.
IPCC 2014a, 'Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow (eds.)]. In:
Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. ', IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, pp. 117-30.
IPCC 2014b, 'Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II, III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds)]', IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, p. 151 pp.
IPCC 2019, 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories, vol. 5, Institute for Global environmental strategies.
ISO 2006a, ISO 14014:2006 - Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
Requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization Geneva,
Switzerland.
ISO 2006b, ISO 14044:2006, Geneva: ISO.
IWA 2018, The reuse opportunity.
Jain, S., Singhal, S. & Pandey, S. 2020, 'Environmental life cycle assessment of construction
and demolition waste recycling: A case of urban India', Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 155, p. 104642.
Janssens-Maenhout, G., Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Dentener, F.,
Bergamaschi, P., Pagliari, V., Olivier, J.G.J., Peters, J.A.H.W., van Aardenne, J.A.,
Monni, S., Doering, U. & Petrescu, A.M.R. 2017a, 'EDGARv4.3.2 Global Atlas of the
three major Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the period 1970-2012', Earth Syst. Sci. Data
Discuss, Series EDGARv4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for the period 1970-2012.
Janssens-Maenhout, G., Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Olivier, J.G.J.,
Peters, J.A.H.W. & Schure, K.M. 2017b, 'Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world
countries', EUR 28766 EN,Publications Office of the European Union Luxembourg,
Series Fossil CO2 and GHG emissions of all world countries no ISBN 978-92-79-
73207-2.
Jefferson, B., Jones, M., Vale, P., Cartmell, E. & Stephenson, T. 2011, 'A review of the impact
and potential of intermittent aeration on continuous flow nitrifying activated sludge AU
- Dotro, Gabriela', Environmental Technology, vol. 32, no. 15, pp. 1685-97.
Jeong, H., Minne, E. & Crittenden, J.C. 2015, 'Life cycle assessment of the City of Atlanta,
Georgia’s centralized water system', The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 880-91.
5
Jeong, K., Ji, C., Kim, H., Hong, T., Cho, K. & Lee, J. 2019, 'An integrated assessment of the
environmental, human health, and economic impacts based on life cycle assessment: A
case study of the concrete and steel sumps', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 239, p.
118032.
Kalbar, P.P., Birkved, M., Nygaard, S.E. & Hauschild, M. 2017, 'Weighting and Aggregation in
Life Cycle Assessment: Do Present Aggregated Single Scores Provide Correct Decision
Support?', Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1591-600.
Kampschreur, M.J., Temmink, H., Kleerebezem, R., Jetten, M.S.M. & van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.
2009, 'Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment', Water Research, vol. 43,
no. 17, pp. 4093-103.
Kohlheb, N., van Afferden, M., Lara, E., Arbib, Z., Conthe, M., Poitzsch, C., Marquardt, T. &
Becker, M.-Y. 2020, 'Assessing the life-cycle sustainability of algae and bacteria-based
wastewater treatment systems: High-rate algae pond and sequencing batch reactor',
Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 264, p. 110459.
Kosonen, H., Heinonen, M., Mikola, A., Haimi, H., Mulas, M., Corona, F. & Vahala, R. 2016,
'Nitrous Oxide Production at a Fully Covered Wastewater Treatment Plant: Results of a
Long-Term Online Monitoring Campaign', Environmental Science & Technology, vol.
50, no. 11, pp. 5547-54.
Kosse, P., Kleeberg, T., Lübken, M., Matschullat, J. & Wichern, M. 2018a, Quantifying direct
carbon dioxide emissions from wastewater treatment units by nondispersive infrared
sensor (NDIR) – A pilot study, vol. 633.
Kosse, P., Kleeberg, T., Lübken, M., Matschullat, J. & Wichern, M. 2018b, 'Quantifying direct
carbon dioxide emissions from wastewater treatment units by nondispersive infrared
sensor (NDIR) – A pilot study', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 633, pp. 140-4.
Koutsou, O.P., Gatidou, G. & Stasinakis, A.S. 2018, 'Domestic wastewater management in
Greece: Greenhouse gas emissions estimation at country scale', Journal of Cleaner
Kyung, D., Kim, M., Chang, J. & Lee, W. 2015, 'Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from a
hybrid wastewater treatment plant', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 95, no.
Supplement C, pp. 117-23.
Law, Y., Jacobsen, G.E., Smith, A.M., Yuan, Z. & Lant, P. 2013, 'Fossil organic carbon in
wastewater and its fate in treatment plants', Water Research, vol. 47, no. 14, pp. 5270-
81.
Law, Y., Lant, P. & Yuan, Z. 2011, 'The effect of pH on N2O production under aerobic
conditions in a partial nitritation system', Water Research, vol. 45, no. 18, pp. 5934-44.
Law, Y., Ye, L., Pan, Y. & Yuan, Z. 2012, 'Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment
processes', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol.
367, no. 1593, pp. 1265-77.
Li, Y., Xu, Y., Fu, Z., Li, W., Zheng, L. & Li, M. 2020, 'Assessment of energy use and
environmental impacts of wastewater treatment plants in the entire life cycle: A system
meta-analysis', Environmental Research, p. 110458.
Li, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, W., Xiong, W., Ye, Q., Hou, X., Wang, C. & Wang, P. 2019, 'Life
cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes: Involving 126
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in life cycle inventory', Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 238, pp. 442-50.
Liu, Y., Cheng, X., Lun, X. & Sun, D. 2014, 'CH4 emission and conversion from A2O and SBR
processes in full-scale wastewater treatment plants', Journal of Environmental Sciences,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 224-30.
Longo, S., Mauricio-Iglesias, M., Soares, A., Campo, P., Fatone, F., Eusebi, A.L., Akkersdijk,
E., Stefani, L. & Hospido, A. 2019, 'ENERWATER – A standard method for assessing
and improving the energy efficiency of wastewater treatment plants', Applied Energy,
vol. 242, pp. 897-910.
6
Lopes, T.A.S., Queiroz, L.M., Torres, E.A. & Kiperstok, A. 2020, 'Low complexity wastewater
treatment process in developing countries: A LCA approach to evaluate environmental
gains', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 720, p. 137593.
Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Alfonsín, C., Amores, M.J., Aldea, X., Marin, D., Moreira, M.T. & Feijoo, G.
2016a, 'Beyond the conventional life cycle inventory in wastewater treatment plants',
Science of The Total Environment, vol. 553, pp. 71-82.
Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Amores, M.J., Termes-Rifé, M., Marín-Navarro, D.,
Moreira, M.T. & Feijoo, G. 2016b, 'Benchmarking wastewater treatment plants under
an eco-efficiency perspective', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 566-567, pp.
468-79.
Lu, B., Du, X. & Huang, S. 2017, 'The economic and environmental implications of wastewater
management policy in China: From the LCA perspective', Journal of Cleaner
Mannina, G., Ekama, G., Caniani, D., Cosenza, A., Esposito, G., Gori, R., Garrido-Baserba, M.,
Rosso, D. & Olsson, G. 2016, 'Greenhouse gases from wastewater treatment — A
review of modelling tools', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 551-552, no.
Mannina, G., Rebouças, T.F., Cosenza, A. & Chandran, K. 2019, 'A plant-wide wastewater
treatment plant model for carbon and energy footprint: model application and scenario
analysis', Journal of Cleaner Production.
Massara, T.M., Malamis, S., Guisasola, A., Baeza, J.A., Noutsopoulos, C. & Katsou, E. 2017,
'A review on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions during biological nutrient removal from
municipal wastewater and sludge reject water', Science of The Total Environment, vol.
596-597, pp. 106-23.
Masuda, S., Sano, I., Hojo, T., Li, Y. & Nishimura, O. 2018, 'The comparison of greenhouse gas
emissions in sewage treatment plants with different treatment processes', Chemosphere,
vol. 193, pp. 581-90.
Mateo-Sagasta, J., Medlicot, K., Qadir, M., Raschid-Sally, L., Drechsel, P. & Liebe, J. 2013,
Proceedings of the UN-Water project on the safe use of wastewater in agriculture,
UNW-DPC, Bonn, Germany.
Matthews, C.J.D., St. Louis, V.L. & Hesslein, R.H. 2003, 'Comparison of three techniques used
to measure diffusive gas exchange from sheltered aquatic surfaces', Environmental
Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 772-80.
Menegaki, M. & Damigos, D. 2018, 'A review on current situation and challenges of
construction and demolition waste management', Current Opinion in Green and
Sustainable Chemistry, vol. 13, pp. 8-15.
Metcalf & Eddy, Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, H.D., Tsuchihashi, R., Burton, F., Abu-Orf, M.,
Bowden, G. & Pfrang, W. 2014, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource
Recovery 5th Edition, McGraw- Hill Education, New York.
Morera, S., Corominas, L., Rigola, M., Poch, M. & Comas, J. 2017, 'Using a detailed inventory
of a large wastewater treatment plant to estimate the relative importance of construction
to the overall environmental impacts', Water Research, vol. 122, pp. 614-23.
Morera, S., Santana, M.V.E., Comas, J., Rigola, M. & Corominas, L. 2020, 'Evaluation of
different practices to estimate construction inventories for life cycle assessment of small
to medium wastewater treatment plants', Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 118768.
Mulkerrins, D., Jordan, C., McMahon, S. & Colleran, E. 2000, 'Evaluation of the parameters
affecting nitrogen and phosphorus removal in anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A/A/O) biological
nutrient removal systems', Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, vol. 75,
no. 4, pp. 261-8.
Nakajima, S. 2014, Barriers for Deconstruction and reuse/ recycling of construction materials.
Nghiem, L.D., Koch, K., Bolzonella, D. & Drewes, J.E. 2017, 'Full scale co-digestion of
wastewater sludge and food waste: Bottlenecks and possibilities', Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 72, pp. 354-62.
7
Nguyen, L.N., Kumar, J., Vu, M.T., Mohammed, J.A.H., Pathak, N., Commault, A.S.,
Sutherland, D., Zdarta, J., Tyagi, V.K. & Nghiem, L.D. 2020a, 'Biomethane production
from anaerobic co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants: A critical review on
development and innovations in biogas upgrading techniques', Science of The Total
Environment, p. 142753.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S., Nguyen, D.D., Nguyen, T.V. & Nghiem, D.L.
2020b, 'Contribution of the construction phase to environmental impacts of the
wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 743, p. 140658.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem, L.D., Liu, Y., Ni,
B.J. & Hai, F.I. 2019, 'Insight into greenhouse gases emissions from the two popular
treatment technologies in municipal wastewater treatment processes', Science of The
Total Environment, vol. 671, pp. 1302-13.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nguyen, T.V. & Nghiem,
D.L. 2020c, 'Contribution of the construction phase to environmental impacts of the
wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 743, p. 140658.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Nguyen, T.L.H., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Varjani, S.,
Lei, Z. & Deng, L. 2021, 'Environmental impacts and greenhouse gas emissions
assessment for energy recovery and material recycle of the wastewater treatment plant',
Science of The Total Environment, vol. 784, p. 147135.
Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem, L.D. & Nguyen,
T.V. 2020d, 'A critical review on life cycle assessment and plant-wide models towards
emission control strategies for greenhouse gas from wastewater treatment plants',
Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 264, p. 110440.
Niero, M., Pizzol, M., Bruun, H.G. & Thomsen, M. 2014, 'Comparative life cycle assessment of
wastewater treatment in Denmark including sensitivity and uncertainty analysis',
Noyola, A., Paredes, M.G., Güereca, L.P., Molina, L.T. & Zavala, M. 2018, 'Methane correction
factors for estimating emissions from aerobic wastewater treatment facilities based on
field data in Mexico and on literature review', Science of The Total Environment, vol.
639, pp. 84-91.
O'Farrell, K. 2019, 2017-18 Australian plastics recycling survey - National report.
Oshita, K., Okumura, T., Takaoka, M., Fujimori, T., Appels, L. & Dewil, R. 2014, 'Methane and
nitrous oxide emissions following anaerobic digestion of sludge in Japanese sewage
treatment facilities', Bioresource Technology, vol. 171, pp. 175-81.
Pagilla, K., Shaw, A., Kunetz, T. & Schiltz, M. 2009, 'A Systematic Approach to Establishing
Carbon Footprints for Wastewater Treatment Plants', Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, vol. 2009, no. 10, pp. 5399-409.
Pan, T., Zhu, X. & Ye, Y. 2011, 'Estimate of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from a vertical
subsurface flow constructed wetland and conventional wastewater treatment plants: A
case study in China', Ecological Engineering, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 248-54.
Pan, W., Li, K. & Teng, Y. 2018, 'Rethinking system boundaries of the life cycle carbon
emissions of buildings', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 90, pp. 379-
90.
Pan, Y., van den Akker, B., Ye, L., Ni, B.J., Watts, S., Reid, K. & Yuan, Z. 2016, 'Unravelling
the spatial variation of nitrous oxide emissions from a step-feed plug-flow full scale
wastewater treatment plant', Scientific Reports, vol. 6, p. 20792.
Paolini, V., Petracchini, F., Carnevale, M., Gallucci, F., Perilli, M., Esposito, G., Segreto, M.,
Occulti, L.G., Scaglione, D., Ianniello, A. & Frattoni, M. 2018, 'Characterisation and
cleaning of biogas from sewage sludge for biomethane production', Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 217, pp. 288-96.
Parravicini, V., Svardal, K. & Krampe, J. 2016, 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater
Treatment Plants', Energy Procedia, vol. 97, pp. 246-53.
Pascale, R., Caivano, M., Buchicchio, A., Mancini, I.M., Bianco, G. & Caniani, D. 2017,
'Validation of an analytical method for simultaneous high-precision measurements of
8
greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment plants using a gas
chromatography-barrier discharge detector system', Journal of Chromatography A, vol.
1480, pp. 62-9.
Peng, L., Ni, B.J., Ye, L. & Yuan, Z. 2015, 'The combined effect of dissolved oxygen and nitrite
on N2O production by ammonia oxidizing bacteria in an enriched nitrifying sludge',
Water Research, vol. 73, pp. 29-36.
Pérez-Barbería, F.J. 2017, 'Scaling methane emissions in ruminants and global estimates in wild
populations', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 579, pp. 1572-80.
Piao, W., Kim, Y., Kim, H., Kim, M. & Kim, C. 2016, 'Life cycle assessment and economic
efficiency analysis of integrated management of wastewater treatment plants', Journal
of Cleaner Production, vol. 113, pp. 325-37.
Picardo, A., Soltero, V.M., Peralta, M.E. & Chacartegui, R. 2019, 'District heating based on
biogas from wastewater treatment plant', Energy, vol. 180, pp. 649-64.
Polruang, S., Sirivithayapakorn, S. & Prateep N. T., R. 2018, 'A comparative life cycle
assessment of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Thailand under variable power
schemes and effluent management programs', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172,
pp. 635-48.
PRe' 2019, SimaPro Database Manual Methods Library.
PRe' 2020, 'SimaPro database manual. Methods library', Series SimaPro database manual.
Methods library vol. 4.15, PRe' Sustainability
Préndez, M. & Lara-González, S. 2008, 'Application of strategies for sanitation management in
wastewater treatment plants in order to control/reduce greenhouse gas emissions',
Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 658-64.
Puig, S. 2008, 'Operation and control of SBR processes for enhanced biological nutrient
removal from wastewater', PhD Thesis, Universidade de Girona, Spain.
Ram, V.G., Kishore, K.C. & Kalidindi, S.N. 2020, 'Environmental benefits of construction and
demolition debris recycling: Evidence from an Indian case study using life cycle
assessment', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 255, p. 120258.
Rashid, S.S., Liu, Y.-Q. & Zhang, C. 2020, 'Upgrading a large and centralised municipal
wastewater treatment plant with sequencing batch reactor technology for integrated
nutrient removal and phosphorus recovery: Environmental and economic life cycle
performance', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 749, p. 141465.
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', International Journal of Environmental
Research, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 815-27.
Real, A., Garcia-Martinez, A.M., Pidre, J.R., Coello, M.D. & Aragon, C.A. 2017,
'Environmental assessment of two small scale wastewater treatment systems: SBR vs
CAS', Water Practice and Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 549-56.
Ren, Y., Wang, J., Xu, L., Liu, C., Zong, R., Yu, J. & Liang, S. 2015, 'Direct emissions of N2O,
CO 2, and CH 4 from A/A/O bioreactor systems: impact of influent C/N ratio', Environ
Sci Pollut Res Int, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 8163-73.
Ren, Y.G., Wang, J.H., Li, H.F., Zhang, J., Qi, P.Y. & Hu, Z. 2013, 'Nitrous oxide and methane
emissions from different treatment processes in full-scale municipal wastewater
treatment plants', Environmental Technology, vol. 34, no. 21, pp. 2917-27.
Resende, J.D., Nolasco, M.A. & Pacca, S.A. 2019, 'Life cycle assessment and costing of
wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands', Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, vol. 148, pp. 170-7.
Risch, E., Gutierrez, O., Roux, P., Boutin, C. & Corominas, L. 2015, 'Life cycle assessment of
urban wastewater systems: Quantifying the relative contribution of sewer systems',
Water Research, vol. 77, pp. 35-48.
Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Aymerich, I., Marques, R., Poch, M. & Pijuan, M. 2015, 'Minimizing
N2O emissions and carbon footprint on a full-scale activated sludge sequencing batch
reactor', Water Research, vol. 71, pp. 1-10.
9
Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Aymerich, I., Poch, M. & Pijuan, M. 2014, 'Evaluation of process
conditions triggering emissions of green-house gases from a biological wastewater
treatment system', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 493, pp. 384-91.
Rodriguez-Caballero, A. & Pijuan, M. 2013, 'N2O and NO emissions from a partial nitrification
sequencing batch reactor: Exploring dynamics, sources and minimization mechanisms',
Water Research, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 3131-40.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Frison, N., Vázquez-Padín, J.R., Hospido, A., Garrido, J.M., Fatone, F.,
Bolzonella, D., Moreira, M.T. & Feijoo, G. 2014, 'Life cycle assessment of nutrient
removal technologies for the treatment of anaerobic digestion supernatant and its
integration in a wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment, vol.
490, pp. 871-9.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Hospido, A., Bagley, D.M., Moreira, M.T. & Feijoo, G. 2012, 'A
methodology to estimate greenhouse gases emissions in Life Cycle Inventories of
wastewater treatment plants', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 37, pp. 37-
46.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Molinos-Senante, M., Hospido, A., Hernández-Sancho, F., Moreira, M.T.
& Feijoo, G. 2011, 'Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of
wastewater treatment plants', Water Research, vol. 45, no. 18, pp. 5997-6010.
Rosado, L.P., Vitale, P., Penteado, C.S.G. & Arena, U. 2017, 'Life cycle assessment of natural
and mixed recycled aggregate production in Brazil', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
151, pp. 634-42.
Rosso, D. & Stenstrom, M.K. 2008, 'The carbon-sequestration potential of municipal
wastewater treatment', Chemosphere, vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 1468-75.
Sabeen, A.H., Noor, Z.Z., Ngadi, N., Almuraisy, S. & Raheem, A.B. 2018, 'Quantification of
environmental impacts of domestic wastewater treatment using life cycle assessment: A
review', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 190, pp. 221-33.
Santín, I., Barbu, M., Pedret, C. & Vilanova, R. 2017, 'Control strategies for nitrous oxide
emissions reduction on wastewater treatment plants operation', Water Research, vol.
125, no. Supplement C, pp. 466-77.
Santín, I., Pedret, C. & Vilanova, R. 2015, 'Applying variable dissolved oxygen set point in a
two level hierarchical control structure to a wastewater treatment process', Journal of
Process Control, vol. 28, pp. 40-55.
Santos, J., Pham, A., Stasinopoulos, P. & Giustozzi, F. 2021, 'Recycling waste plastics in roads:
A life-cycle assessment study using primary data', Science of The Total Environment,
vol. 751, p. 141842.
Schneider, A.G., Townsend-Small, A. & Rosso, D. 2015, 'Impact of direct greenhouse gas
emissions on the carbon footprint of water reclamation processes employing
nitrification–denitrification', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 505, no.
Shen, Y., Linville, J.L., Urgun-Demirtas, M., Mintz, M.M. & Snyder, S.W. 2015, 'An overview
of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
in the United States: Challenges and opportunities towards energy-neutral WWTPs',
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 50, pp. 346-62.
Singh, M. & Srivastava, R.K. 2011, 'Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological
wastewater treatment: a review', Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 6,
no. 1, pp. 3-13.
Soda, S., Arai, T., Inoue, D., Ishigaki, T., Ike, M. & Yamada, M. 2013, 'Statistical analysis of
global warming potential, eutrophication potential, and sludge production of wastewater
treatment plants in Japan', Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 33-40.
Spinelli, M., Eusebi, A.L., Vasilaki, V., Katsou, E., Frison, N., Cingolani, D. & Fatone, F. 2018,
'Critical analyses of nitrous oxide emissions in a full scale activated sludge system
treating low carbon-to-nitrogen ratio wastewater', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
190, pp. 517-24.
10
Sun, S., Bao, Z. & Sun, D. 2014, Study on emission characteristics and reduction strategy of
nitrous oxide during wastewater treatment by different processes, vol. 22.
Sun, S., Cheng, X., Li, S., Qi, F., Liu, Y. & Sun, D. 2013a, 'N2O emission from full-scale urban
wastewater treatment plants: a comparison between A2O and SBR', Water Science and
Technology, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 1887-93.
Sun, S., Cheng, X. & Sun, D. 2013b, 'Emission of N2O from a full-scale sequencing batch
reactor wastewater treatment plant: Characteristics and influencing factors',
International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, vol. 85, pp. 545-9.
Sweetapple, C., Fu, G. & Butler, D. 2013, 'Identifying key sources of uncertainty in the
modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment', Water Research,
vol. 47, no. 13, pp. 4652-65.
Sweetapple, C., Fu, G. & Butler, D. 2015, 'Does carbon reduction increase sustainability? A
study in wastewater treatment', Water Research, vol. 87, pp. 522-30.
Tangsubkul, N., Parameshwaran, K., Lundie, S., Fane, A.G. & Waite, T.D. 2006,
'Environmental life cycle assessment of the microfiltration process', Journal of
Membrane Science, vol. 284, no. 1, pp. 214-26.
Toor, U.A., Han, D. & Kim, D. 2015, 'Effect of organics on nitrous oxide emission during
wastewater nitrification with enriched nitrifiers', International Biodeterioration &
Biodegradation, vol. 102, no. Supplement C, pp. 94-9.
Tumendelger, A., Toyoda, S. & Yoshida, N. 2014, 'Isotopic analysis of N2O produced in a
conventional wastewater treatment system operated under different aeration conditions',
Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 1883-92.
Tunçsiper, B. 2019, 'Combined natural wastewater treatment systems for removal of organic
matter and phosphorus from polluted streams', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 228,
pp. 1368-76.
UNEP 2003, Evaluation of environmental impact in life cycle assessment, United Nations
Environmental Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.
, Production and Consumption Branch. La Fenice Graphica, Rome, Italy.
US.EPA 2016, Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition. EPA 430-
R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.
VanDuinen, M. & Deisl, N. 2009, Handbook to Explain LCA Using the GaBi EDU Software
Package, PE AMERICAS.
Venkatesh, G. & Elmi, R.A. 2013, 'Economic–environmental analysis of handling biogas from
sewage sludge digesters in WWTPs (wastewater treatment plants) for energy recovery:
Case study of Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway)', Energy, vol. 58, pp. 220-35.
Vidal, N., Poch, M., Martí, E. & Rodríguez‐Roda, I. 2002, 'Evaluation of the environmental
implications to include structural changes in a wastewater treatment plant', Journal of
Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, vol. 77, no. 11, pp. 1206-11.
Vilanova, R., Santín, I. & Pedret, C. 2017, 'Control and operation of wastewater treatment
plants: Challenges and state of the art', RIAI - Revista Iberoamericana de Automatica e
Informatica Industrial, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 329-45.
Wang, J., Zhang, J., Xie, H., Qi, P., Ren, Y. & Hu, Z. 2011, 'Methane emissions from a full-
scale A/A/O wastewater treatment plant', Bioresource Technology, vol. 102, no. 9, pp.
5479-85.
Wang, S., Peng, Y., Liu, Y. & He, J. 2015, 'The synergistic effects of dissolved oxygen and pH
on N2O production in biological domestic wastewater treatment under nitrifying
conditions AU - Li, Pengzhang', Environmental Technology, vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 1623-
31.
Wang, X., Liu, J., Ren, N. & Duan, Z. 2012a, 'Environmental profile of typical
anaerobic/anoxic/oxic wastewater treatment systems meeting increasingly stringent
treatment standards from a life cycle perspective', Bioresource Technology, vol. 126,
pp. 31-40.
Wang, X., Liu, J., Ren, N., Yu, H., Lee, D. & Guo, X. 2012b, 'Assessment of Multiple
Sustainability Demands for Wastewater Treatment Alternatives: A Refined Evaluation
11
Scheme and Case Study', Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 10, pp.
5542-9.
Wang, Y., Lin, X., Zhou, D., Ye, L., Han, H. & Song, C. 2016, 'Nitric oxide and nitrous oxide
emissions from a full-scale activated sludge anaerobic/anoxic/oxic process', Chemical
Engineering Journal, vol. 289, no. Supplement C, pp. 330-40.
Wang, Y. & Wang, Y. 2003, 'Quick measurement of CH4, CO2 and N2O emissions from a
short-plant ecosystem', Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 842-4.
Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C.O. &
Wernet, G. 2013, Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent
database version 3. , vol. Ecoinvent report 1(v3).
Wu, J., Meng, X., Liu, X., Liu, X., Zheng, Z., Xu, D., Sheng, G. & Yu, H. 2010, 'Life Cycle
Assessment of a Wastewater Treatment Plant Focused on Material and Energy Flows',
Environmental Management, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 610-7.
Wunderlin, P., Mohn, J., Joss, A., Emmenegger, L. & Siegrist, H. 2012, 'Mechanisms of N2O
production in biological wastewater treatment under nitrifying and denitrifying
conditions', Water Research, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1027-37.
Xia, B., Ding, T. & Xiao, J. 2020, 'Life cycle assessment of concrete structures with reuse and
recycling strategies: A novel framework and case study', Waste Management, vol. 105,
pp. 268-78.
Xiao, S., Wang, C., Wilkinson, R.J., Liu, D., Zhang, C., Xu, W., Yang, Z., Wang, Y. & Lei, D.
2016, 'Theoretical model for diffusive greenhouse gas fluxes estimation across water-air
interfaces measured with the static floating chamber method', Atmospheric
Environment, vol. 137, pp. 45-52.
Xue, X., Cashman, S., Gaglione, A., Mosley, J., Weiss, L., Ma, X.C., Cashdollar, J. & Garland,
J. 2019, 'Holistic analysis of urban water systems in the Greater Cincinnati region: (1)
life cycle assessment and cost implications', Water Research X, vol. 2, p. 100015.
Yan, X., Li, L. & Liu, J. 2014, 'Characteristics of greenhouse gas emission in three full-scale
wastewater treatment processes', Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 26, no. 2, pp.
256-63.
Yang, Q., Liu, X., Peng, C., Wang, S., Sun, H. & Peng, Y. 2009, 'N2O Production during
Nitrogen Removal via Nitrite from Domestic Wastewater: Main Sources and Control
Method', Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 43, no. 24, pp. 9400-6.
Yang, X., Wei, J., Ye, G., Zhao, Y., Li, Z., Qiu, G., Li, F. & Wei, C. 2020, 'The correlations
among wastewater internal energy, energy consumption and energy
recovery/production potentials in wastewater treatment plant: An assessment of the
energy balance', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 714, p. 136655.
Yazdanbakhsh, A., Bank, L.C., Baez, T. & Wernick, I. 2018, 'Comparative LCA of concrete
with natural and recycled coarse aggregate in the New York City area', The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1163-73.
Yoshida, H., Clavreul, J., Scheutz, C. & Christensen, T.H. 2014, 'Influence of data collection
schemes on the Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant',
Water Res, vol. 56, pp. 292-303.
Zang, Y., Li, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, W. & Xiong, W. 2015, 'Towards more accurate life cycle
assessment of biological wastewater treatment plants: a review', Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 107, no. Supplement C, pp. 676-92.
Zeng, S., Chen, X., Dong, X. & Liu, Y. 2017, 'Efficiency assessment of urban wastewater
treatment plants in China: Considering greenhouse gas emissions', Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, vol. 120, pp. 157-65.
Zepon Tarpani, R.R. & Azapagic, A. 2018, 'Life cycle environmental impacts of advanced
wastewater treatment techniques for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (PPCPs)', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 215, pp. 258-72.
Zhan, X., Hu, Z. & Wu, G. 2017, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Mitigation in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, vol. 16.
12
Zhang, Q., Nakatani, J., Wang, T., Chai, C. & Moriguchi, Y. 2017, 'Hidden greenhouse gas
emissions for water utilities in China's cities', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 162,
pp. 665-77.
Zhou, Z., Wu, Z., Wang, Z., Tang, S., Gu, G., Wang, L., Wang, Y. & Xin, Z. 2011, 'Simulation
and performance evaluation of the anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic process for biological
nutrient removal', Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1233-40.
Zhu, L., Liu, B., Wang, F. & Bi, J. 2013, 'Raising discharge standards leads to environmental
problem shifting in China', Water Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 12, p. 2605.
13
APPENDIX
A1 – LCIA FOR GIRONA
Impact category Unit Total Girona Diesel Diesel,

Acidification (fate
not incl.) kg SO2 eq 0.000169 0 2.62E-05 2.26E-07
Eutrophication kg PO4--- eq 5.85E-05 0 4.76E-06 4.73E-08
Global warming
(GWP100a) kg CO2 eq 0.041974 0 0.002716 1.73E-05
Photochemical
oxidation kg NMVOC 0.000197 0 3.75E-05 3.01E-07
Abiotic depletion,
elements kg Sb eq 1.06E-07 0 9.78E-10 2.86E-12
Abiotic depletion,
fossil fuels MJ 0.395367 0 0.039078 0.00025
Water scarcity m3 eq 0.016452 7.33E-05 0.000182 1.63E-06
Ozone layer
depletion (ODP)
(optional) kg CFC-11 eq 3.43E-09 0 4.9E-10 2.99E-12
Wire Steel, Steel,
Reinforcing drawing, low- chromium Steel, low-
Transport steel steel alloyed steel 18/8 alloyed
9.22E-06 4.39E-05 7.92E-08 2.89E-07 6.38E-07 3.01E-07
1.8E-06 2.28E-05 3.99E-08 2.15E-07 2.1E-07 2.5E-07
0.001463 0.011535 2.28E-05 6.73E-05 0.000117 7.37E-05
1.22E-05 4.79E-05 6.36E-08 2.78E-07 4.41E-07 3.04E-07
2.58E-09 5E-08 2.46E-10 8.77E-10 3.15E-09 1.08E-09
0.023048 0.096787 0.00019 0.000592 0.001153 0.000575
0.000137 0.004122 4.74E-05 1.74E-05 1.78E-05 1.74E-05
2.83E-10 5.83E-10 1.42E-12 3.38E-12 5.82E-12 3.03E-12
Wire
Aluminium, drawing, Synthetic Polyethyle
Cast iron primary, ingot copper rubber Nylon 6 ne
2.05E-07 2.21E-07 2.11E-11 3.51E-07 2.5E-10 2.15E-07
7.4E-08 6.46E-08 1.55E-11 1.05E-07 5.08E-11 2.06E-08
5.33E-05 3.76E-05 1.05E-09 7.34E-05 7.56E-08 6.4E-05
2.15E-07 1.32E-07 7.37E-12 3.48E-07 2.36E-10 2.85E-07
6.47E-11 1.03E-11 9.85E-14 2.32E-09 5.31E-13 7.27E-12
0.000465 0.000355 1.27E-08 0.001981 8.56E-07 0.002076
8.91E-06 6.66E-06 6.08E-10 4.38E-05 2.33E-08 1.6E-05
2.59E-12 1.09E-12 2.26E-16 1.47E-11 1.56E-16 4.54E-13
Glass fibre
Silicone Polyprop reinforced Polystyrene
Polyurethane, Polystyrene, product ylene plastic foam slab
8.35E-09 5.18E-08 1.63E-10 3E-09 2.18E-05 1.97E-09
3.53E-09 1.16E-08 4.97E-11 3.55E-10 7.13E-06 3.71E-10
1.73E-06 3.13E-05 3.61E-08 9.44E-07 0.004553 5.67E-07
7.57E-09 5.01E-08 1.2E-10 3.68E-09 2.88E-05 3.04E-09
1
9.67E-12 1.75E-11 8.29E-14 1.12E-13 1.86E-08 1.32E-13
2.85E-05 0.000283 5.16E-07 2.98E-05 0.066727 1.14E-05
1.28E-06 1.04E-05 5.05E-08 2.93E-07 0.002065 3.63E-07
2.43E-13 5.56E-11 2.18E-14 6.44E-15 4.5E-10 1.74E-14
Particle
Polyester resin Anodising, Enamelling Tin Sawn timber board
2.9E-09 5.29E-10 2.73E-10 2.12E-10 4.44E-08 2.17E-07
1.27E-09 2.1E-10 1.28E-10 3.78E-11 9.26E-09 7.71E-08
8.29E-07 1.05E-07 5.67E-08 2.23E-08 4.71E-06 4.33E-05
8.4E-09 3.03E-10 1.55E-10 9.19E-11 5.41E-08 3.22E-07
2.61E-12 2.83E-13 6.67E-14 4.4E-12 8.77E-12 1.46E-10
1.34E-05 1.13E-06 6.16E-07 2.35E-07 4.07E-05 0.000805
5.14E-07 2.73E-07 1.45E-10 5.96E-09 9.69E-05 1.8E-05
9.49E-14 6.69E-15 3.23E-15 1.95E-15 2.89E-13 3.66E-12
Cement Concrete Lime Lightweight
Concrete, normal mortar block mortar concrete block Brick
4.77E-05 4.53E-07 6.11E-07 1.01E-06 6.97E-07 3.59E-07
1.71E-05 1.39E-07 2.31E-07 2.79E-07 1.99E-07 5.29E-08
0.018162 0.000158 0.000175 0.000406 0.000292 0.00016
4.68E-05 3.83E-07 6.12E-07 8.93E-07 8.59E-07 4.43E-07
1.78E-08 1E-10 7.3E-10 2.05E-10 1.48E-10 8.3E-11
0.103442 0.000677 0.001199 0.002038 0.002389 0.001265
0.007259 5.09E-05 5.95E-05 4.38E-05 6.83E-05 0.001686
8.94E-10 6.2E-12 1.18E-11 1.58E-11 6.67E-12 2.84E-12
Ceramic Cover Mastic
Adhesive mortar Concrete tile plaster Diesel asphalt
2.42E-07 3.22E-08 3.13E-07 4.26E-12 3.37E-08 7.19E-09
7.53E-08 1.06E-08 1.14E-07 1.2E-12 4.65E-09 1.52E-09
3.92E-05 1.38E-05 6.24E-05 7.85E-10 3.46E-06 1.02E-06
1.45E-07 3.17E-08 1.95E-07 3.49E-12 2.1E-08 4.64E-09
2.09E-10 1.62E-11 3.36E-09 8.41E-16 2.19E-12 4.68E-13
0.000526 5.27E-05 0.000774 9.2E-09 0.000352 2.39E-05
2.31E-05 3.48E-06 1.75E-05 1.7E-10 8.43E-07 3.08E-07
3.53E-12 4.95E-13 5.58E-12 7.49E-17 4.53E-12 2.37E-13
Alkyd Butyl Rock Epoxy resin, Bitume Rock Inert

resin acrylate crushing liquid n wool waste
1.68E-08 4E-11 6.74E-09 2.97E-08 1.7E-08 1.85E-08 1.21E-05
2.59E-
1E-08 9.53E-12 3.34E-09 1.24E-08 09 4.74E-09 2.23E-06
1.96E-
7.15E-06 8.49E-09 1.49E-06 8E-06 06 2.8E-06 0.001379
1.73E-
1.8E-08 2.72E-11 3.92E-09 2.98E-08 08 1.42E-08 1.58E-05
1.44E-11 2.42E-14 6.37E-13 3.35E-11 2.66E- 5.38E-12 1.58E-09
2
12
5.59E-05 1.65E-07 1.62E-05 0.000138 0.0002 3.47E-05 0.044952
1.46E-06 1.28E-08 2.73E-07 3.57E-06 6.3E-07 7.32E-07 0.00018
2.55E-
2.69E-13 5.27E-16 8.32E-14 8.46E-13 12 1.96E-13 5.51E-10
A2- LCIA FOR MILL CREEK
Mill Concret
Impact category Unit Total Creek e Steel Steel
4.74E- 5.5E- 1.88E-
Global warming, Human health DALY 1.07E-07 0 08 08 10
Global warming, Terrestrial species 9.48E- 1.1E- 3.77E-
ecosystems .yr 2.15E-10 0 11 10 13
Global warming, Freshwater species 2.59E- 1.03E-
ecosystems .yr 5.86E-15 0 15 3E-15 17
1.09E- 2.57E- 3.56E-
Stratospheric ozone depletion DALY 4.13E-12 0 12 12 14
6.35E- 4.09E- 1.75E-
Ionizing radiation DALY 1.12E-11 0 12 12 14
Ozone formation, Human 7.48E- 1.12E- 8.48E-
health DALY 2.08E-11 0 12 11 14
Fine particulate matter 1.65E- 6.81E- 9.64E-
formation DALY 9.34E-09 0 09 09 11
Ozone formation, Terrestrial species 1.08E- 1.65E- 1.23E-
ecosystems .yr 3.04E-12 0 12 12 14
species 3.32E-
Terrestrial acidification .yr 5.51E-12 0 1.5E-12 12 7.4E-14
species 4.15E- 2.81E- 9.29E-
Freshwater eutrophication .yr 3.59E-12 0 13 12 14
species 7.73E- 2.2E- 3.76E-
Marine eutrophication .yr 3.44E-16 0 17 16 18
species 1.11E- 3.95E- 3.61E-
Terrestrial ecotoxicity .yr 6.27E-13 0 13 13 15
species 3.15E- 4.3E- 1.88E-
Freshwater ecotoxicity .yr 5.27E-13 0 14 13 14
species 5.33E- 7.14E- 3.47E-
Marine ecotoxicity .yr 8.91E-10 0 11 10 11
1.62E- 8.39E- 2.69E-
Human carcinogenic toxicity DALY 9.17E-07 0 08 07 08
Human non-carcinogenic 1.26E- 6.21E-
toxicity DALY 1.58E-06 0 9.6E-08 06 08
species 5.62E- 7.8E- 6.57E-
Land use .yr 1.66E-12 0 13 13 15
USD20 2.18E- 5.41E- 5.54E-
Mineral resource scarcity 13 5.94E-05 0 06 05 07
USD20 0.00012 0.0002 1.37E-
Fossil resource scarcity 13 0.00042 0 9 08 06
3
Water consumption, Human 6.41E- 6.13E- 2.53E-
health DALY 1.3E-10 0 11 11 13
Water consumption, Terrestrial species 4.35E- 3.75E- 2.11E-
ecosystem .yr 8.42E-13 0 13 13 15
Water consumption, Aquatic species 2.3E- 8.62E-
ecosystems .yr 4.26E-17 0 1.8E-17 17 20
Polyethyl Cast Alumini Coppe Inert
Steel, 18/8 Steel ene iron um r waste
1.47E- 1.35E- 2.92E- 3.64E- 1.86E-
2.07E-10 10 6.36E-10 09 10 10 09
2.94E- 2.69E- 5.84E- 7.29E- 3.73E-
4.14E-13 13 1.27E-12 12 13 13 12
8.02E- 7.34E- 1.59E- 1.99E- 1.02E-
1.13E-17 18 3.47E-17 17 17 17 16
6.06E- 5.03E- 1.25E- 1.32E- 2.16E-
1.06E-14 15 2.22E-15 14 14 13 13
6.64E- 1.46E- 1.57E- 4.88E-
1.86E-14 15 3.64E-15 9.3E-14 14 13 13
2.81E- 2.51E- 1.9E- 1.36E-
4.55E-14 14 1.23E-13 13 5.8E-14 13 12
1.82E- 1.33E- 3.25E- 2.8E- 2.52E-
4.22E-11 11 3.46E-11 10 11 10 10
4.17E- 3.73E- 8.27E- 2.76E- 1.96E-
6.59E-15 15 1.93E-14 14 15 14 13
8.46E- 7.29E- 2.37E- 2.76E- 1.85E-
1.62E-14 15 3.53E-14 14 14 13 13
8.16E- 2.52E- 5.63E- 2.2E- 7.88E-
4.7E-15 15 7.51E-16 14 15 13 15
5.63E- 3.98E- 3.42E- 1.65E-
7E-19 19 1.5E-19 18 1.1E-18 17 18
8.73E- 6.65E- 2.49E- 1.01E- 3.73E-
4.27E-15 16 3.41E-16 15 16 13 15
1.18E- 3.22E- 4.09E- 4.1E- 8.64E-
7.31E-16 15 1.27E-16 15 16 14 16
2.09E- 3.67E- 4.53E- 8.04E- 1.54E-
5.49E-13 12 1.92E-13 12 13 11 12
1.01E- 2.74E- 9.43E- 3.09E- 9.19E-
1.25E-09 09 3.32E-10 08 10 09 10
3.78E- 5.09E- 6.14E- 1.47E- 2.76E-
8.77E-10 09 3.36E-10 09 10 07 09
1.88E- 2.92E- 2.93E- 2.63E-
5.07E-15 15 1.08E-15 1.3E-14 15 14 13
1.77E- 7.16E- 5.48E- 1.09E- 7.25E-
4.38E-07 07 3.07E-09 07 08 06 08
4.33E- 4.79E- 8.91E- 3.52E- 5.21E-
9.19E-07 07 1.92E-05 06 07 06 05
1.46E- 9.47E- 1.88E- 1.06E- 7.38E-
1.32E-13 13 8.27E-13 13 13 12 13
8.94E- 5.81E- 1.09E- 6.68E- 8.92E-
8.14E-16 16 5.03E-15 15 15 15 15
5.64E- 8.62E- 4.3E- 2.27E-
6.08E-20 20 2.26E-19 4.2E-19 20 19 19
4
A3- LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem,
L.D., Liu, Y., Ni, B.J. & Hai, F.I. 2019, 'Insight into greenhouse gases emissions
from the two popular treatment technologies in municipal wastewater treatment
processes', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 671, pp. 1302-13.
2. Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Chang, S., Nguyen, D.D., Nguyen, T.V.
& Nghiem, D.L. 2020a, 'Contribution of the construction phase to environmental
impacts of the wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment,
vol. 743, p. 140658.
3. Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Chang, S.W., Nguyen, D.D., Nghiem,
L.D. & Nguyen, T.V. 2020b, 'A critical review on life cycle assessment and
plant-wide models towards emission control strategies for greenhouse gas from
wastewater treatment plants', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 264,
p. 110440.
4. Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Nguyen, T.L.H., Chang, S.W., Nguyen,
D.D., Varjani, S., Lei, Z. & Deng, L. 2021, 'Environmental impacts and
greenhouse gas emissions assessment for energy recovery and material recycle
of the wastewater treatment plant', Science of The Total Environment, vol. 784,
p. 147135.
5. Ngo, H.H., Nguyen, T.K.L., Guo, W., Zhang, J., Liang, S. & Ni, B.J.,
'Evaluation of prospects and challenges on climate change by sequestration of
greenhouse gases for biofuels and biomaterials Life Cycle Assessment case
study', Climate change mitigation: Sequestration of Greenhouse gases for
5
biofuels and biomaterials - A volume under series on Biomass, Biochemcials,
Biofuels (Book 12). (Accepted)

Environmental Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants

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

Environmental Impacts and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for

under the supervision of

University of Technology Sydney

Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology at the

University Technology Sydney.

This thesis is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. In

This research is supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program.

have been accomplished. My most profound appreciation and heartfelt thanks go to my

encouragement took me to overcome the difficulties in academics and stress in my life.

essential to completing my thesis.

I would like to acknowledge the Vietnam International Education Development (VIED)

for providing me the International Research Scholarship.

encourage me, gave me unconditional sacrifice. My husband stayed side by my side,

providing me unfailing support. They are my love, my strength, and my motivation in

accompanying me since I first came to Australia. This thesis is dedicated to my family

and my two little sweeties.

4.3.2. Contribution of construction at Mill Creek WWTP ...................................................... 4-8

source (Bao et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2014)

al., 2013a; Yan et al., 2014)

2016; Sun et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2013a)

dissolved GHGs on GHGEs

Table 4.1 Summary of inventory for Girona WWTP 4-6

Table 4.2 Inventory for Mill Creek WWTP 4-6

Table 4.3 Characteristic of the case studies WWTPs 4-8

functional unit (FU)

Morera et al. (2017)

impacts of the WWTP

Table 6.1 Case study systems description 6-5

Table 6.2 Data inventory for each case study 6-6

Table 6.4 Uncertainty analysis for CW and HRAP 6-19

Table 7.1 CDW disposal methods 7-10

Table 7.2 Bekkelaget WWTP characteristic 7-11

Table 7.5 Influence of production variation 7-24

Figure 2.3 Global sewage CO2 production 2-7

Figure 2.5 Influences of processes condition to GHGEs 2-35

Figure 2.6 The advantages of using LCA in WWTPs 2-37

Figure 2.7 Level of LCA coverage in 25 reviewed papers 2-47

indicators for Girona WWTP

Figure 4.2 LCIA using ReCiPe 2016 indicators 4-10

the Girona WWTP

Figure 4.5 Contribution of the individual treatment unit 4-13

Figure 5.1 The environmental impacts of the operation phase 5-11

Figure 6.2 Proportion of problems caused by construction and operation 6-14

Figure 6.3 Indicators corresponding to three areas of protection 6-18

Figure 7.2 LCIA for C+D in plant 1 – case B 7-17

Figure 7.3 GHG emissions and damage assessment 7-18

Figure 7.4 GHG emissions from biogas conversion methods 7-19

Figure 7.5 Environmental impact analysis for six scenarios 7-20

Figure 7.6 Uncertainty analysis for Case D 7-22

WWTPs Wastewater Treatment Plants

MWWTPs Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants

GHG Greenhouse Gas

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor

AAO Anaerobic Anoxic Oxic

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

HRT Hydraulic Retention Time

GWP Global Warming Potentials

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment