See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329308714

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case Study of

Tehran, Iran

Article  in  International Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s40999-018-0375-z

CITATIONS READS

6 2,272

4 authors, including:

Massoud Tabesh Bardia Roghani

114 PUBLICATIONS   1,450 CITATIONS   

University of Tehran
18 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Sajed Motevallian
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg
10 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Non-Revenue Water Assessment and Management View project

My PhD Thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bardia Roghani on 30 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0375-z

RESEARCH PAPER

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case

Study of Tehran, Iran
Massoud Tabesh1 · Maryam Feizee Masooleh2 · Bardia Roghani2 · Seyed Sajed Motevallian2

Received: 18 April 2018 / Revised: 3 November 2018 / Accepted: 13 November 2018

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Abstract
Evaluating the environmental impacts of WWTPs and finding ways for wastewater reuse with minimum damage to our envi-
ronment and human societies is a matter of vital importance. The objective of this study is to identify the critical sources of
environmental impacts in Tehran’s WWTP using life-cycle assessment (LCA) method. Eco-Indicator 99 is selected to perform
life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) using SimaPro 7.0 software. Results show that application of biogas instead of natural
gas can make a significant contribution in alleviating the environmental effects of Tehran’s WWTP (e.g., decreasing the nega-
tive impacts of fossil fuels about three times). Discharging the effluent into the surface water resources causes considerable
damages to the quality of these resources and should be prevented. Instead, using the effluent for agricultural purposes in
south of Tehran is a more eco-friendly practice especially from an eutrophication perspective (4% of the previous scenario).
In general, the results obtained from implemented case study show that despite some shortcomings such as availability of
sufficient and reliable data, LCA is an appropriate environmental system tool capable of streamlining the decision-making
process in the wastewater treatment industry in Iran as well as fostering opportunities to achieve sustainability goals.

Keywords  Eco-Indicator 99 · Impact assessment · Life-cycle assessment (LCA) · SimaPro · Wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs)

1 Introduction exist in treated sludge can be used as fertilizer, and hence,

dependence to nutrients extraction from natural resources
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) play a key role in will reduce. Nevertheless, WWTPs also impose significant
promoting the objectives of sustainable development by rec- impacts on the environment such as emissions, soil and
lamation of valuable resources such as water and nutrients. water pollution, odor problems, etc. Besides, a multitude
Effluent from WWTPs can be used for farmlands and urban of risks and threats impede the use of effluent and treated
landscapes irrigation. Furthermore, nitrogen and phosphorus sludge, especially those related to public health and environ-
ment [1]. In this regard, assessing the environmental impacts
of WWTPs and finding solutions for reusing treated waste-
* Massoud Tabesh water and sludge with minimum damage to the environment
mtabesh@ut.ac.ir
and human beings is a matter of vital importance.
Maryam Feizee Masooleh A variety of environmental analysis tools such as mate-
m.feizee@gmail.com
rial flow analysis (MFA), environmental impact assessment
Bardia Roghani (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and life-
bardia.roghani@ut.ac.ir
cycle assessment (LCA) has been employed by research-
Seyed Sajed Motevallian ers in order to identify the potential environmental impacts
smotevallian@alumni.ut.ac.ir
caused by WWTPs. A brief overview of the above methods
1
Center of Excellence for Engineering and Management can be found in [2]. Munoz [3] compared different environ-
of Civil Infrastructures, School of Civil Engineering, mental analysis tools and showed that LCA outmatches other
College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O methods in multiple aspects. LCA, an ISO-guided step-wise
Box 11155‑4563, Tehran, Iran
process, is considered as the most integrated and holistic tool
2
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, that would encounter all upstream and downstream impacts
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

related to WWTPs [1]. LCA is a tool to measure the impacts increasing, and as a result, decreasing the environmental
associated with all the stages of a product, service or process impacts of the whole system. Recently, Raghuvanshi et al.
throughout its life-cycle or so-called “cradle-to-grave” [4]. [19] conducted the LCA study for WWTP located in a uni-
LCA studies has been conducted for a variety of industries versity campus in India. They used a LCA software Umberto
and products such as combined cycle power plants [5], solid NXT Universal, utilizing Eco-invent database v3.0. Results
waste disposal [6], fishing industry [7], construction industry revealed that the recycled water from the plant has posi-
[8, 9] and artichoke production [10]. A fair number of LCA tive impacts on the assessed categories. Moreover, effects
studies have been carried out for assessing the environmen- of treatment system are much superior to the effects of recy-
tal impacts of WWTPs. Using average data obtained from cled water in other categories such as terrestrial ecotoxic-
France and Switzerland WWTPs, Houillon and Jolliet [11] ity potential, global warming potential, particulate matter
conducted a LCA study to compare six wastewater sludge formation, etc. It should be noted that the social effects of
treatment scenarios applied to a 300,000 equivalent-inhab- untreated wastewater and environmental effects of compost
itant wastewater treatment plant with focus on energy and produced by the system was not considered in their research.
emissions contributing to global warming over the whole De Feo and Ferrara [20] used the Ecoinvent 2.2 data-
treatment’s life cycle. Results show that incineration and base available in the software tool SimaPro v.7.3 to inves-
agricultural spreading have the lowest non-renewable pri- tigate the total and per capita environmental impacts of
mary energy consumption. Gallego et al. [12] compared the municipal wastewater treatment in the function of the
environmental performance of 13 WWTPs of small commu- population equivalent (PE) with a life–cycle assessment
nities in Galicia, Northwestern Spain by means of LCA and (LCA) approach. This study also considered the wastewa-
illustrated that, secondary treatment technologies such as ter collection system besides the WWTP in their system
biodenipho and aerobic–anoxic treatment resulted in lesser boundary. They found out that the greater the treatment
environmental impact than extended aeration. Zhang et al. plant size is, the less per capita environmental impacts are.
[13] applied LCA to a WWTP in Xi’an, China and illumi- However, it should be noted that the Ecoinvent 2.2 data-
nated that the life cycle benefits of treated wastewater reuse base does not contain information about treatment systems
surpassed the life cycle energy consumption considerably. with a capacity lower than 30 Population Equivalent (PE).
Pasqualino et al. [14] adopted LCA to compare different They concluded that it would be very beneficial to conduct
urban wastewater reclamation and reuse alternatives in a an LCA study to compare alternative on-site small-scale
Spanish Mediterranean wastewater treatment plant. They systems with treatment capacity of few PE. In one of the
observed that replacing potable water leads to freshwater recent studies, Morelli et al. [21] used LCA to explore
savings of 1.1  m3, whereas replacing desalinated water methods for upgrading the New York WWTP, while simul-
leads to important energy savings. Li et al. [15] used LCA taneously transforming it to recover useful energy for heat
to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the and electricity, nutrients for compost, and water for irriga-
treatment of wastewater in a WWTP in Kunshan, China. The tion. Results showed that improvement in effluent quality
objective of their study was to assess the environmental ben- comes at the expense of 20–30 percent increases in global
efits and drawbacks of this WWTP in comparison with other warming, particulate matter formation, smog formation,
WWTPs using different advanced treatment units. In another fossil depletion, and acidification potential. Moreover,
study, two plants with different size and location were com- global warming potential impacts were sensitive to the
pared according to their environmental costs. Results made fraction of incoming carbon and nitrogen lost as green-
it clear that energy consumption and sludge application house gases during end-of-life processing.
for agricultural purposes are the largest contributors to the As pinpointed by [1], “research of LCA in wastewater
environmental impacts associated with wastewater treatment extends mostly in developed countries with almost no contri-
[16]. Remy et al. [17] made a comparison between envi- bution from developing countries”, One of the few studies of
ronmental impacts associated with different technologies LCA in developing countries is the scientific paper of Alan-
for tertiary wastewater treatment using LCA. They stated bari et al. [22]. They investigated the impacts of Al-Hilla
that LCA is a suitable tool to quantify direct and indirect WWTP on the environment. SimaPro software package was
environmental impacts of tertiary treatment. Also, Sapkota used for this purpose. Results depicted that the most environ-
[18] by analyzing the environmental performance of the rep- mental impacts are related to the global warming, respiratory
resentative small-scale decentralized wastewater treatment inorganics and non-renewable energy. In addition, applica-
modules stated that configuration of the treatment units have tion of cement, steel and electricity consumption has the
an impact on the environmental performance; which means most disastrous effects on the environment.
the more units the more environmental load during the con- Tawfic Ahmed [23] presented an overview of the LCA
struction phase. On the other hand, increased in the units or application in wastewater with special reference to its use
treatment steps or modules will lead to system performance in developing countries, and the difficulties that hinder

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

its usage. Major obstacles in applying LCA in developing • Comparison the LCA results for the cases in which the
countries are as follows [23]: whole needed energy of the plant comes from biogas and
natural gas
• Low awareness of the benefits of this tool among policy
makers Eco-Indicator 99 was selected to perform life-cycle
• No internal capacity in both industry and government impact assessment (LCIA) using SimaPro 7.0 software. The
• Lack of accessible background data results are normalized to provide a more reliable and practi-
• Quality assurance cal comparison between positive and adverse impacts asso-
• Need for adequate impact categories ciated with impact categories including carcinogenic, res-
• Lack of collaboration among LCA experts in the piratory organics, respiratory inorganics, ecotoxicity, climate
region. change, fossil resources and acidification/eutrophication.

Iran is among those developing countries which suffer

from lack of well-functioning WWTPs. About 40% of the
total population of Iran benefit from efficient WWTPs. 2 Materials and Methods
The population served by these plants is about 30 million
and less than 40% of the total domestic sludge is treated The ISO LCA standards concern the technical as well as
completely [24]. During the last decades, the majority of organizational aspects of an LCA project [26]. The ISO LCA
cities in Iran used seepage pits as the most conventional methodology has four main components:
method for wastewater disposal which lead to aquifer and
soil pollution. Increase in groundwater resources pollu- 1. Goal definition and scoping It is the first stage of an
tion in cities such as Tehran was the main intention for LCA study and likely the most important one. During
constructing modern wastewater collection and treatment the goal definition process, some important questions
systems in Iranian cities which has been accelerated during should be addressed such as [1]:
the recent years [25]. As domestic wastewater treatment
industry in Iran is not precedent, LCA studies applied to
WWTPs in this country can be considered totally new. The • Why is the study conducted?
side-effects caused by WWTPs throughout their life cycle • Why there is a need of LCA for this decision, action, or
in Iran are of particular interest for urban water manag- activity?
ers. Thus, LCA can be employed as an efficient decision- • Who is the primary target audience for the study?
making tool which providing insightful information about
the pros and cons of different domestic wastewater reuse Scoping usually refers to describing the system, its
alternatives. boundaries, the quality of data used, the main hypothesis
The objective of this study is to identify the critical source and existing limitations. The system boundaries should be
of impacts in Tehran’s WWTP using life-cycle assessment selected with regard to the goal of the study [1].
(LCA) method. Furthermore, LCA is adopted to make a
comparison between the environmental impacts caused by 2. Inventory analysis The inventory analysis is a techni-
using biogas or natural gas to supply required energy for cal process of collecting data, in order to determine the
wastewater treatment processes in the WWTP. Moreover, the inputs and outputs of the system, as defined in the scope.
possible environmental impacts caused by discharging the In this stage, consumed energy and raw materials, emis-
treated wastewater into river are assessed and compared with sions to air, water, soil, and solid waste produced by
the impacts of utilizing treated wastewater for irrigating the the system are calculated for the whole life cycle of the
farmlands. The main objectives of this paper are as follows: product or service [1]. The main result of an inventory
analysis is an inventory table listing the quantified inputs
• Applying LCA method to investigate environmental from and outputs to the environment associated with the
impacts of urban wastewater treatment plants in Iran, as functional units, in terms of kilograms of carbon diox-
a developing country ide, cubic meters of natural gas, kilograms of iron ore,
• Applying LCA method to evaluate the environmen- etc., [26].
tal impacts of wastewater treatment plant which has 3. Impact assessment Impact assessment is a process to
advanced nitrogen removal system determine and characterize the potential impacts that the
• Comparison the LCA results for the cases in which the system has imposed on the environment. In this stage,
effluent discharged into the river and use for agricultural the data used for the inventory analysis are classified
purposes into different categories (impact categories), based on

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

the environmental impacts they are expected to contrib- [39]. One of the main benefits of the single score output of
ute [1]. the Eco-Indicator 99 method is that it makes it relatively
4. Interpretation This is the last stage of a LCA study in easy to compare different items [9]. The midpoint impacts
which the obtained results are presented and accordingly covered by Eco-Indicator 99 are climate change, ozone layer
the critical sources of impact and the alternatives to depletion (ODP), acidification/eutrophication (combined),
reduce them are demonstrated. Interpretation is mainly carcinogenic, respiratory organic, respiratory inorganic,
conducted to decrease the amount of information gath- ionizing radiation, ecotoxicity, land-use, mineral resources
ered throughout the LCA study to a limited number of and fossil resources. Human health, ecosystem quality and
major issues that could be used in decision-making pro- resource depletion are endpoint impacts covered by Eco-
cess [1]. Indicator 99 [27]. European normalization data are calcu-
lated with the method for each area of protection. Weighting
A fair number of methodologies have been adopted by in Eco-Indicator 99 are usually performed by one of three
scholars to perform the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA). options including the panel method, equal weighting and
CML 2002, Eco-Indicator 99, EDIP97, EDIP2003, EPS monetization methods [27]. Eco-Indicator 99 has the advan-
2000, IMPACT2002+, LUCAS, LIME, ReCipe, Ecopoints tage of being included in SimaPro, LCA software. SimaPro
2006, TRACI and MEEup are some examples of most can effectively build and analyze LCA models, and provide
widely used LCIA methodologies [27]. LCIA methodologies experts and decision-makers with a multitude of analysis
can be categorized into two main groups including midpoint options. By utilizing the SimaPro software, one can access
and endpoint methods. The LCIA midpoint approach is also the life-cycle inventory data at all different stages of the
known as problem-oriented approach [28, 29] or classical model and analysis. More details about the capabilities and
impact assessment method [30, 31]. The term “midpoint” features of SimaPro can be found in [40].
refers to the category indicator for each impact category Tehran’s wastewater collection and treatment system
which is expressed in the mid pathway of impact, between comprises 9000 km of pipeline network, 76 km of sewage
LCI results and endpoint [32]. It translates the category tunnels as well as a large WWTP located in the south of
impact into real phenomenon as such as climate change, the city. The WWTP is designed in eight modules to cover
acidification and aquatic toxicity [33]. The endpoint LCIA a population of 4,200,000 persons. Collected wastewater
approach is also known as damage-oriented approach [29]. enters to the WWTP from the north and treated by aeration
According to [34], they are the elements inside the impact system and activated sludge processes. Treated wastewater
pathway that consists of independent value for society. The is purified to the level of agricultural use and transported
term “endpoint” refers to the category indicator for each to the irrigation and drainage system of Varamin region in
impact category located at the end-of-impact pathway [35]. the south of Tehran province to irrigate almost 50,000 ha of
Endpoint indicator translates the category impact based on farmlands. Furthermore, the treated sludge produced by the
the area of protection such as human health, natural environ- WWTP can provide fertilizer for 6000 farm units [41]. The
mental quality, natural resources and human made environ- main components of Tehran’s WWTP are as follows [41]:
ment [36]. As indicated by [37], both midpoint and endpoint pumping station, bar screen, grit chamber, primary clarifier,
methodologies provide useful information to the decision- aeration lagoons, tricking filter, secondary clarifier, chlorina-
maker in a LCA study. Endpoint approach is less compre- tion and sludge treatment (anaerobic digestion). It should
hensive and possess higher level of uncertainty compared to be added that the studied wastewater treatment plant in this
the midpoint approach, while midpoint LCIA methods are paper has advanced nitrogen removal system.
more difficult to be interpreted because the midpoint impact
category is not directly correlated with the area of protec-
tion (i.e., damage to human health, ecosystem quality and 3 Results and Discussion
resource depletion) which is practiced by the endpoint meth-
ods [38]. In addition, many claim that endpoint indicators 3.1 Goal Definition and Scoping
are easier to understand and thus interpret, as they express
issues of societal concern, such as human health damage The objective of this LCA study is the life-cycle assessment
or ecosystem quality damage [34]. For the purpose of this of four modules of Tehran’s WWTP with a treatment capac-
study, Eco-Indicator 99 method is adopted as the LCIA ity of 450,000 ­m3 per day, and suggesting some solutions to
methodology. It is an endpoint methodology developed reduce the adverse impacts of the WWTP. More precisely,
with the aim to simplify the interpretation and weighting of the goals are as follows:
results [27]. Eco-Indicator 99 is one of the most widely used
impact assessment methods in LCA which allows the envi- • Determining the critical source of environmental impacts
ronmental load of a product to be expressed in a single score in Tehran’s WWTP

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

• To make a comparison between the environmental Table 1  The amount of daily savings for important materials in the
impacts caused by using biogas or natural gas to supply WWTP [41]
required energy in Tehran’s WWTP No. Material The amount of Unit
• Assessing the possible environmental burdens caused by savings
discharging the treated wastewater into river and com-
1 Nitrogen 3670 kg/day
pares it with impacts of using treated wastewater for irri-
2 Phosphorus 1800 kg/day
gating the farmlands.
3 Potassium 305 kg/day
4 Electrical energy 5 MW
Evaluating of different phases of the life-cycle of the
WWTP has shown that the operation phase has more sig-
nificant impacts compared to construction and end-of-life
phases. Thus, this study primarily focuses on impacts associ- The main limit in this study was the lack of informa-
ated with the operation phase of the WWTP. System bound- tion about the characteristics of soil and groundwater table.
aries are extended to include sludge disposal and treated Therefore, the impacts of farmlands irrigation with treated
wastewater use for agricultural purposes. Figure 1 illustrates wastewater on soil salinity and the dispersion of heavy
the system boundary selected for this study. metals exist in the soil to groundwater resources were not
The main source of data used in this study is obtained considered.
from Tehran Wastewater Company (TWC). A small amount
of data was extracted from previous studies and in few cases 3.2 Inventory Analysis
some reasonable assumptions were made.
Material savings that can be achieved by the WWTP In this stage, data associated with different processes within
operation are as follows: the system boundary are collected and presented. Tables 2
and 3 present the characteristics of input and output waste-
• Energy Methane gas produced in the process of sludge water and sludge, respectively.
digestion is collected and provides 80% of required Table 3 presents the main characteristics of sludge.
energy. In the WWTP, electrical and thermal energy sources are
• Fertilizer When the sludge is digested and dewatered, it used for running different processes such as pumping, acti-
is used for providing farmlands with fertilizer. vated sludge and nitrification. The total amount of energy
• Water Treated wastewater from the WWTP is transported used for wastewater treatment in the WWTP is 6.25 MW.
to Varamin irrigation canal and irrigates a total area of 80% of required energy is obtained from burning biogas pro-
50,000 ha. duced by anaerobic digestion and the rest of required energy
is supplied by gas power-plants. Main chemicals used in the
Table 1 shows the amount of savings for important mate- WWTP are polymer and chlorine. The latter is required for
rials in Tehran WWTP. killing micro-organisms while the former is used for sludge

Fig. 1  The system boundary

selected for presented LCA Output Emission of
study wastewater to nitrogen and
farmlands phosphorus to
Chlorine groundwater
Transport
production
Polymer
Operation
production Transport Influx of heavy
phase metals into the
soil
Using sludge
Electricity as fertilizer
production
Savings in
fertilizer
Energy Emissions to air such usage
No need to production as GHGs, VOCs, etc
Electricity by burning
production biogas

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 2  The characteristics of input and output wastewater Table 5  The amount of emissions to air caused by sludge digestion
and burning biogas
No. Parameter Unit Amount
No. Process Gas Amount (kg/day)
1 Q m3/day 450,000
2 TSSin mg/l 326.7 1 Sludge digestion [46] CO2 Biogenic 145,237
3 TSSout mg/l 20 Particulates 9
4 TKNin mg/l 50.7 CO 95
5 TKNout mg/l 29.5 NO2 95.6
6 CODin mg/l 533.3 2 Burning biogas [47] CO2 9405
7 CODout mg/l 65 CH4 614
8 BOD5,in mg/l 280 NOx 1025
9 BOD5,out mg/l 20 SO2 36
CO 518

Table 3  The main characteristics of sludge

No. Parameter Unit Amount
into farmlands releases methane, ammonium and nitrogen
oxides. These emissions are presented in Table 6. Finally,
1 Q ton/day 450 the amount of released gases from activated sludge process
2 TS (total solids) % 56.9 and tricking filter is provided in Table 7.
3 TKN %TS 1.43 After the digestion and dewatering of sludge, it is trans-
4 Total phosphorus %TS 0.7 ported to be used in farmlands. However, treated sludge may
contain heavy metals causing soil pollution. Table 8 presents
the amount of heavy metals in the treated sludge.
digestion. The daily amount of used polymer and chlorine As mentioned earlier, treated wastewater was discharged
are 800 and 4500 kg, respectively. into Varamin irrigation canal and used for irrigating farm-
Daily data on chemicals and sludge transportation are lands in the south of Tehran province. Therefore, it has not
provided in Table 4. It is assumed that 40-ton trucks are used any adverse impacts on surface water resources. For the
for transportation of chemicals. The transportation of sludge purpose of this study, the environmental impacts caused by
to the location of depot is also considered. discharging the treated wastewater into rivers are compared
To estimate greenhouse gases produced from wastewa- to the impacts of using treated wastewater for irrigation
ter treatment plants, total amount of produced greenhouse purposes. Table 9 presents the main characteristics of the
gases and their global warming potential should be calcu- treated wastewater.
lated. Global warming potential of greenhouse gases are
suggested by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
3.3 Impact Assessment
(IPCC) ([42]). Primary treatment does not directly pro-
duce greenhouse gas. In the secondary treatment phase, the
Three main endpoint impact categories in Eco-Indicator 99
production of greenhouse gases depends on the treatment
are human health, ecosystem quality and resource deple-
method. In the present study, the production rate of these
tion. Figure 2 illustrates impact categories and pathways
gases is considered based on the findings of previous stud-
covered by the Eco-Indicator 99 methodology. It is worth
ies and theoretical calculations (e.g., [43–45]). Emission to
mentioning that the three main impact categories consid-
the air caused by anaerobic digestion and burning biogas,
ered in this study are exactly the ones which mentioned in
include ­CO2, carbon monoxide, H ­ 2O, and nitrogen oxides,
Eco-Indicator 99.
is presented in Table 5. Moreover, discharging the sludge

Table 4  Data on chemicals and No. Material Weight (ton) Distance (km) Weight.
sludge transportation distance
(ton km)

1 Chlorine 4.5 100 4500

2 Polymer 0.8 100 80
3 Sludge transported to depot 450 3.5 1575
4 Sludge transported to farmlands 450 18 8100
Total 14,225

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 6  The amount of emissions to air caused by the use of sludge ured in terms of PDF*year*m2 or PAF*year*m2. PDF
in farmlands (potentially disappeared fraction) is “a probability of the
No. Gas Amount (kg/day) References plants species to disappear from the area as a result of
acidification and eutrophication” and PAF (Potentially
1 CH4 358 [46]
Affected Fraction) is “the percentage of the species that
2 NOx 93 [48]
are exposed to the toxic emission [51]”.
3 NH3 214 [48] • Damage to resources is measured as the surplus energy
needed for future extractions of minerals and fossil fuels.

Table 7  The amount of emissions to air caused by activated sludge To make a comparison between impacts caused by dif-
process and tricking filter [49] ferent parts of the WWTP, all processes are categorized into
No. Gas Amount (kg/day) four main groups or so called “Scenarios”.

1 N 2O 160 • First scenario (chemicals): the production of chemicals

2 CO2 biogenic 38,000
(i.e., polymer and chlorine) and transportation of these
materials to the WWTP’s site.
• Second scenario (energy): energy required for driving
Table 8  The amount of heavy metals in the treated sludge wastewater and sludge treatment processes is supplied
No. Parameter Amount (g/day)
by burning biogas and natural gas power-plants.
• Third scenario (treatment): emission of gases produced
1 Cd 11.25 by wastewater treatment and sludge digestion processes
2 Cr 157,556 such as ­N2O, ­CO2, ­CH4, ­H2S, ­NH3.
3 Cu 35,156 • Fourth scenario (sludge): transportation of sludge to be
4 Ni 14,085 used in farmlands.
5 Pb 27,866
6 Zn 61,773
4 Interpretation

According to Eco-Indicator 99, when inventory analysis is

Table 9  The main characteristics of treated wastewater
done, the intermediate effects of these items (which may
No. Parameter Amount (kg/day) include multi-layers) should be determined. After data inser-
1 BOD5 11,300
tion and building up an LCA, the critical sources of impact
2 COD 30,000
were identified. Figure 3 represents a comparison between
3 TSS 11,300
impacts associated with each scenario (i.e., chemicals,
4 TKN 13,500
energy, treatment and sludge). It should be mentioned that
5 TP 1800
the SimaPro 7.1.8 software is used to evaluate the environ-
mental effects.
Interpretation for each impact group is provided sepa-
rately as following.
• Damage to human health is measured in terms of
DALY (disability-adjusted life year). According to 4.1 Carcinogen
definition provided by World Health Organization
(WHO): “DALYs for a disease or health condition are As demonstrated in Fig. 3, only “Sludge scenario” caused
calculated as the sum of the Years of Life Lost (YLL) adverse impacts associated with this impact category due to
due to premature mortality in the population and the dispersion of heavy metals to soil. Cadmium has an insig-
Years Lost due to Disability (YLD) for people living nificant concentration in the sludge compared to other heavy
with the health condition or its consequences [50].” metals (0.0003% of total heavy metals); nevertheless, it
DALY measures the severity of the disease on a scale caused the most adverse impact (0.0244 DALY) in carcino-
from 0 (perfect health) to 1 (dead). gen impact category which is equal to 99.2% of total adverse
• Damage to ecosystem quality refers to the loss of species impacts (0.0246 DALY). “Energy scenario” produces a posi-
over a certain area, during a certain time. It is meas- tive impact (0.0017 DALY) which is not considerable.

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 2  Impact categories and pathways covered by the Eco-Indicator 99 methodology [27]

Fig. 3  A comparison between impacts associated with each scenario (i.e., chemicals, energy, treatment and sludge)

4.2 Respiratory Organics impacts) due to largely releasing NMVOCs (non-methane

volatile organic compounds) and hydro-carbons. “Energy
According to Fig. 3, “Chemicals scenario” had the most scenario” produced significant positive impacts mainly
adverse impacts in this category (78% of total adverse because of using biogas to supply required energy for

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 10  The amount of impacts associated with respiratory organics Table 13  The amount of adverse impacts associated with Ecotoxicity
category for each scenario caused by “Sludge scenario”
No. Scenario The amount of No. Heavy metal The amount
impacts (*106 of impacts
DALY) (PAF*m2*year)

1 Energy − 20.2 1 Chrome 86,300

2 Chemicals 15.2 2 Copper 6610
3 Treatment 3.28 3 Nickel 2930
4 Sludge 3 4 Zink 1440
5 Massicot 786

Table 11  The amount of impacts associated with respiratory inorgan-

ics caused by “Treatment scenario” Table 14  The amount of impacts associated with acidification/
eutrophication for each scenario
No. Gas The amount
of impacts No. Scenario Gas The amount
(DALY) of impacts
(PDF*m2*year)
1 NOx 0.0829
2 NO2 0.00852 1 Treatment Nitrogen oxides 5310
3 SO2 0.00197 NO2 546
4 Fine particles 0.00099 SO2 37.5
5 CO 0.00048 2 Sludge Ammonium 2960
3 Energy Ammonium 4640
4 Chemicals Nitrogen oxides 129
Table 12  The amount of No. Gas The amount of
adverse impacts associated with impacts (DALY)
climate change category caused
N2O was produced mainly due to nitrification and deni-
by “Treatment scenario” 1 CO2 0.0305
trification processes. These processes have an important
2 N2O 0.011
role in wastewater treatment; nonetheless they contribute
3 CH4 0.00198
significantly in global warming by producing greenhouse
4 CO2 0.00113
gases (GHGs). The positive impacts created by “Sludge” and
5 CO 0.000197
“Energy” scenarios are mainly because of that in these sce-
narios the release of N
­ 2O, methane and C
­ O2 was prevented.

treatment. The amount of impact associated with respira- 4.5 Ecotoxicity

tory organics for each scenario is presented in Table 10.
As demonstrated in Fig. 3, only “Sludge scenario” made
4.3 Respiratory Inorganics adverse impacts in this category. Chrome exists from the
sludge caused 88% of total adverse impacts associated with
In this category, all scenarios caused adverse impacts except ecotoxicity category. The amount of adverse impacts asso-
“Energy scenario” as shown in Fig. 3. However, only “Treat- ciated with ecotoxicity caused by “Sludge scenario” is pre-
ment scenario” made considerable adverse impacts as pre- sented in Table 13.
sented in Table 11.

4.4 Climate Change 4.6 Acidification/Eutrophication

It can be inferred from Fig. 3 that “Chemicals” and “Treat- Producing nitrogen oxides and S ­ O2 in “Treatment scenario”
ment” scenarios created adverse impacts associated with and ammonium in “Sludge” and “Energy” scenarios created
climate change category. However, the amount of adverse most adverse impacts associated with this category. Table 14
impacts caused by “Chemicals scenario” was insignificant gives information on the amount of impacts associated with
compared to “Treatment scenario”. Table 12 presents the acidification/eutrophication for each of scenarios.
amount of adverse impacts associated with climate change
category caused by “Treatment scenario”.

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 15  The amount of No. Scenario The amount was associated with respiratory inorganics impact category
impacts associated with fossil of impacts produced by “Treatment scenario”. Table 16 summarizes
resources for each scenario (MJ) the results of normalization for all impact categories and
1 Energy − 89,100
scenarios.
2 Chemicals 11,400
It should be noted that the amount of impacts associated
3 Sludge − 17,300
with respiratory organics category was not significant com-
4 Treatment –
pared to the other impact categories, so it was eliminated
from the final list of impact categories in the normaliza-
tion stage. Alanbari et al. [22] studied the application of
Simapro 7.0 on Karbala WWTP, Iraq. They stated that
4.7 Fossil resources the most harmful environmental impact categories in this
WWTP are global warming, respiratory inorganics, and non-
“Energy scenario” made significant positive impacts in this renewable energy. According to Table 16, in Tehran WWTP
category due to using biogas to supply required energy for these impact categories are respiratory inorganics, Acidifica-
sludge digestion (refer to Fig. 3). “Sludge scenario” also tion/Eutrophication, and Climate change, which are similar
made positive impacts in this group. Table 15 presents the to [22] results. However, it is worth mentioning that because
amount of impacts associated with fossil resources for each in Tehran WWTP the produced biogas is used for providing
scenario. the required energy in wastewater treatment processes, it has
As the scales and units used for each impact category are a positive effect on fossil resources.
different, environmental profiles may probably not be able As highlighted by Fig. 4 and Table 16, “Energy scenario”
to generate some solid results [1]. Normalization allows for created positive impacts in most impact categories due to
comparison of all of the environmental impacts on the same large amount of biogas used to supply required energy for
scale [4]. Figure 4 illustrates the normalized results of each wastewater treatment. To assess the amount of positive
impact category for four scenarios. impacts of using biogas on environmental performance of
Figure 4 reveals that the most positive impact was asso- the WWTP, it was assumed that biogas was completely sub-
ciated with fossil resources impact category produced by stituted by natural gas. The results of impact assessment for
“Energy scenario”. On the other hand, most adverse impact new “Energy scenario” are presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4  Normalized results of each impact category for four scenarios

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 16  Normalized amounts No. Impact category Scenario The normalized Summation of the normal-
of environmental impacts for amount of impacts ized amounts in each
Tehran’s WWTP category

1 Carcinogenic Sludge 1.6 1.50

Chemicals 0.00683
Treatment –
Energy − 0.11
2 Respiratory inorganics Sludge 0.928 7.12
Chemicals 0.37
Treatment 6.13
Energy − 0.31
3 Climate change Sludge − 0.404 2.19
Chemicals 0.119
Treatment 2.9
Energy − 0.426
4 Ecotoxicity Sludge 1.96 2.02
Chemicals 0.0179
Treatment –
Energy 0.0422
5 Fossil resources Sludge − 2.9 − 16.00
Chemicals 1.91
Treatment − 
Energy − 15
6 Acidification/eutrophication Sludge 0.59 2.55
Chemicals 0.0322
Treatment 1.15
Energy 0.782

As revealed by Fig. 5, using natural gas to supply 100% new scenario was created in which treated wastewater of
of required energy for wastewater treatment caused consid- Tehran’s WWTP is discharged into river and the results were
erable adverse impacts in climate change and Respiratory compared with the case in which it is used for irrigating
Inorganic impact categories. Using biogas not only created the farmlands. As the impacts associated with nutrients and
few adverse impacts in these categories; but also it made acids discharge into the water and soil is not considered in
considerable positive impacts. This finding is in accordance Eco-Indicator 99 method [53], CML2000—which is a mid-
with the findings of Bastian et al. [52]. The most significant point method—was selected to made a comparison between
difference between impacts caused by using biogas (i.e., 80% two scenarios (i.e., using treated wastewater for irrigation
biogas and 20% natural gas) or only natural gas (i.e., 100% and discharging into river). Figure 6 demonstrates the com-
natural gas) to supply required energy for wastewater treat- parison of the normalized results for the two scenarios.
ment was associated with fossil resources impact category. According to Fig. 6, it can be easily figured out that dis-
“Energy scenario” caused a positive impact with amount of charging the treated wastewater into the river causes sig-
− 33.5 × 10−8 in case of using biogas, while this scenario nificant impacts associated with acidification/eutrophica-
made an adverse impact with amount of 6630 × 10−8 in case tion impact category. The nutrients which have the most
of using only natural gas. Therefore, it can be remarked that contribution in creating adverse impacts associated with
using biogas instead of natural gas might have a significant acidification/eutrophication impact category are presented
role in alleviating the environmental burdens caused by Teh- in Table 17. In a similar study, Miller-Robbie et al. [54] by
ran’s WWTP. comparing the impact of GHG emissions from untreated
As mentioned earlier, treated wastewater of Tehran’s wastewater diluted in surface streams with the life-cycle
WWTP is used for irrigating the farmlands in south of Teh- assessment of wastewater treatment with reuse in agricul-
ran, and is not discharged to surface water resources. To find ture, found out that the treatment-plus-reuse case yields a
out the possible environmental impacts caused by discharg- 33% reduction in life cycle system-wide GHG emissions.
ing the treated wastewater into surface water resources, a

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 5  Impacts associated with “Energy scenario” in case of using biogas and using only natural gas

It can be concluded that discharging the treated wastewa- acidification/eutrophication. Two main concluding remarks
ter into surface water resources makes considerable adverse of this LCA study are as follows:
impacts on the quality of these resources and should be
prevented. • Using biogas instead of natural gas makes a significant
contribution to alleviate the environmental effects cre-
ated by Tehran’s WWTP (e.g., it decreases the impacts of
5 Conclusion energy consumption to one-third of its previous amount).
• Discharging the treated wastewater of the WWTP into
The objective of this study was to identify the critical source surface water resources causes considerable damages to
of environmental impacts of Tehran’s WWTP using life- the quality of these resources and should be prevented.
cycle assessment (LCA) method. Furthermore, LCA was Using treated wastewater for irrigating the farmlands in
adopted to make a comparison between the environmen- south of Tehran is a more eco-friendly practice especially
tal impacts caused by using biogas or natural gas to sup- from an eutrophication perspective (4% of “Discharging
ply required energy for wastewater treatment in the WWTP. to surface water” option).
In this study, the possible environmental burdens caused
by discharging the treated wastewater into river were also In general, the results obtained from implemented case
assessed and compared with impacts created by using treated study showed that despite some shortcomings such as avail-
wastewater for irrigating the farmlands. Eco-Indicator 99 ability of sufficient and reliable data, LCA is an appropriate
was selected to perform life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) environmental system tool capable of streamlining the deci-
using SimaPro 7.0 software. The results were normalized to sion-making process in the wastewater treatment industry
provide a more reliable and practical comparison between in Iran as well as fostering opportunities to achieve sustain-
positive and negative impacts associated with impact catego- ability goals.
ries including carcinogenic, respiratory organics, respiratory
inorganics, ecotoxicity, climate change, fossil resources and

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 6  A comparison of impacts associated with using effluent for irrigation and discharging it into the river

wastewater treatment. Dissertation, University of Autonoma Bar-

Table 17  Nutrients with the most contribution in adverse impacts
celona (UAB), Spain
associated with acidification/eutrophication impact category
4. Corominas LL, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera
No. Name The amount of S, Shaw A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater
impacts (kg ­PO4) treatment: state of the art. Water Res 47(15):5480–5492
5. Ataei A, Iranmanesh A, Rashidi Z (2012) Life cycle assessment
1 Total nitrogen 56,700 of advanced zero emission combined cycle power plants. Int J
2 Total phosphorus 55,100 Environ Res 6(3):801–814. https:​ //doi.org/10.22059/​ ijer.2012.551
6. Shams Fallah F, Vahidi H, Pazoki M, Akhavan-Limudehi F,
3 Phosphate 13,500 Aslemand AR, Samiee Zafarghandi R (2013) Investigation of
4 COD 643 solid waste disposal alternatives in Lavan Island using life cycle
assessment approach. Int J Environ Res 7(1):155–164. https:​ //doi.
org/10.22059​/ijer.2012.594
7. Coopera J, Diesburga S, Babej A, Noon M, Kahn E, Puettmann
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank experts in Tehran M, Colt J (2014) Life cycle assessment of products from Alaskan
Wastewater Company (TWC) and Tehran Province Water and Waste- salmon processing wastes: Implications of coproduction, intermit-
water Company (TPWWC) for their sincere cooperation especially tent landings, and storage time. Fish Res 151:26–38
in providing required data and information on Tehran’s WWTP. The 8. Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2011) Sustainability assessment of
authors also express their gratitude to anonymous reviewers for their flooring systems in the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle
constructive and insightful comments which have significantly contrib- analysis. Constr Build Mater 25(4):2053–2066
uted to the enhancement of the merit of submitted manuscript. 9. Amaryllis A, Sven H. De Cleyn HS, Buyle M (2012) LCA of
low-energy flats using the Eco-indicator 99 method: impact of
insulation materials. Energy Build 47:68–73
10. Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life
cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian
References artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8(2):305–316. https​://
doi.org/10.22059​/ijer.2014.721
11. Houillon G, Jolliet O (2005) Life cycle assessment of processes
1. Ahmed MT (2010) Life cycle analysis in wastewater: a sustain-
for the treatment of wastewater urban sludge: energy and global
ability perspective. In: Waste water treatment and reuse in the
warming analysis. J Clean Prod 13(3):287–299
mediterranean region. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–154
12. Gallego A, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2008) Environ-
2. Finnveden G, Moberg Å (2005) Environmental systems analysis
mental performance of wastewater treatment plants for small
tools e an overview. J Clean Prod 13(12):1165–1173
populations. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(6):931–940
3. Munoz I (2006) Life cycle assessment as a tool for green chem-
istry: Application to different advanced oxidation processes for

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

13. Zhang QH, Wang XC, Xiong JQ, Chen R, Cao B (2010) Appli- Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life
cation of life cycle assessment for an evaluation of wastewater Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200
treatment and reuse project—case study of Xi’an. China Bioresour 30. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G
Technol 101(5):1421–1425 et al (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment
14. Pasqualino JC, Meneses M, Castells F (2010) Life cycle assess- methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330
ment of urban wastewater reclamation and reuse alternatives. J 31. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Hei-
Ind Ecol 15(1):49–63 jungs R et al (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of
15. Li Y, Luo X, Huang X, Wang D, Zhang W (2013) Life cycle the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess
assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant: a case 9(6):394–404
study in Suzhou, China. J Clean Prod 57(15):221–227 32. Josa A, Aguado A, Cardim A, Byars E (2007) Comparative analy-
16. McNamara G, Fitzsimons L, Horrigan M, Phelan T, Delaure Y sis of the life cycle impact assessment of available cement inven-
et al (2016) Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment plants tories in the EU. Cem Concr Res 37(5):781–788
in Ireland. J Sustain Dev Energ, Water Environ Syst, 4(3):216– 33. Sleeswijk AW, Van Oersc LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijsd J, Huij-
233. https​://doi.org/10.13044​/j.sdewe​s.2016.04.0018 bregtsb MAJ (2008) Normalization in product life cycle assess-
17. Remy C, Miehe U, Lesjean B, Bartholomäus C (2014) Comparing ment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in
environmental impacts of tertiary wastewater treatment technolo- the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240
gies for advanced phosphorus removal and disinfection with life 34. Heijungs R, Goedkoop M, Struijs J, Effting S, Sevenster M, Hup-
cycle assessment. Water Sci Technol 69(8):1742–1750. https​:// pes G (2003) Towards a life cycle impact assessment method
doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.087 which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the
18. Sapkota N (2016) Environmental performance evaluation of endpoint level. http://www.leide​nuniv​.nl/inter​fac/cml/ssp/publi​
decentralised wastewater treatment systems using life cycle analy- catio​ns/recip​e_phase​1.pdf. Accessed 02 Apr 2014
sis. Norwegian University of Life Science, Dissertation 35. Sharaai AH, Mahmood NZ, Sulaiman AH (2010) Life cycle
19. Raghuvanshi S, Bhakar V, Sowmya C, Sangwan KS (2017) Waste impact assessment (LCIA) using the ecological scarcity (Eco-
water treatment plant life cycle assessment: treatment process to points) method: a potential impact analysis to potable water
reuse of water. Proc CIRP 61:761–766 production. World Appl Sci J 11(9):1077–1088. https​://doi.
20. De Feo G, Ferrara C (2017) Investigation of the environmen- org/10.5897/AJB11​.428
tal impacts of municipal wastewater treatment plants through 36. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment
a Life Cycle Assessment software tool. Environ Technol taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints,
38(15):1943–1948 endpoints, damages and areas of protection. J Clean Prod
21. Morelli B, Cashman S, Cissy Ma, Garland J, Bless D, Cashdollar 16(10):1021–1035
J (2017) Environmental life cycle assessment and cost analysis of 37. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000)
Bath, NY wastewater treatment plant: Potential upgrade implica- Midpoint versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life
tions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326
EPA/600/R-17/207 38. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unre-
22. Alanbari M, Alazzawi H, Al-Ansari N, Knutsson S (2015) Envi- solved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess
ronmental assessment of Al-Hilla city wastewater treatment 13(5):374–388
plants. J Civ Eng Archit 9(6):749–755. https​://doi.org/10.17265​ 39. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99: A dam-
/1934-7359/2015.06.013 age oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: Methodol-
23. Ahmed MT (2007) Life cycle assessment, a decision-making ogy report, Pré Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherland,
tool in wastewater treatment facilities. In: Wastewater reuse– https:​ //www.pre-sustai​ nabil​ ity.com/downlo​ ad/EI99_annex​e_v3.pdf
risk assessment, decision-making and environmental security. 40. PRé Consultants (2010) SimaPro 7: Introduction into LCA. http://
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 305–314 www.pre-sustai​ nabil​ ity.com/downlo​ ad/manual​ s/SimaPr​ o7Int​ rodu​
24. Tajrishy M (2011) Wastewater treatment and reuse in Iran: Situ- ction​ToLCA​.pdf, Accessed 02 Apr 2014
ation analysis. Paper Presented at the UN-Water Decade Pro- 41. Tehran Wastewater Company (TWC) (2012) Data and informa-
gramme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) Workshop on tion on performance of Tehran’s WWTP. Received in person from
Safe use of wastewater in agriculture, Bonn, Germany Tehran Wastewater Company
25. Tajrishy M, Abrishamchi A (2005) Integrated approach to water 42. Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J,
and wastewater management for Tehran, Iran. In Water conserva- Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T,
tion, reuse, and recycling: proceedings of the iranian-american Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropo-
workshop, Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press genic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner
26. Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R et al (2002) G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex
Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science
standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. https​://doi. basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
org/10.1007/0-306-48055​-7 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
27. Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) ILCD hand- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
book: analyzing of existing environmental impact assessment York, NY, USA. https​://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asses​sment​-repor​t/ar5/
methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. European Com- wg1/WG1AR​5_Chapt​er08_FINAL​.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
mission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sus- 43. Karia GL, Christian RA (2006) Wastewater treatment: Concepts
tainability, Ispra (VA), Italy. http://eplca.​ jrc.ec.europa​ .eu/upload​ s/ and design approach, 2nd edn. PHI Learning, India (ISBN:
ILCD-Handbo​ ok-LCIA-Backgr​ ound-​ analys​ is-online​ -12Marc​ h201​ 8120347358)
0.pdf. Accesed 20 May 2018 44. Ahn JH, Kim S, Park H, Katehis D, Pagilla K, Chandran K (2009)
28. Ortiz O, Francesc C, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the Spatial and temporal variability in N2O generation and emission
construction industry: a review of recent developments based on from wastewater treatment facilities. Proceedings of the Water
LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39 Environment Federation, Nutrient Removal 2009, pp 401–409,
29. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Compari- Washington D.C., USA, https​://doi.org/10.2175/19386​47097​
son of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and 93901​608

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

45. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) IPCC 51. Robust DSC (2014) LCA calculator: methodology. https​://www.
guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5: ecn.nl/lca/(S(orsc4​345l4​eudbr​b0mm5​00it))/metho​dolog​y.aspx,
Waste, http://www.ipcc-nggip​.iges.or.jp, Accessed Mars, 2011 Accessed 02 Apr 2014
46. Hospido A, Moreira MT, Martín M, Rigola M, Feijoo G (2005) 52. Bastian RJ, Cuttica J, Fillmore L, Hedman B, Hornback C, Levy
Environmental evaluation of different treatment processes for D, Moskal J (2011) Opportunities for combined heat and power
sludge from urban wastewater treatments: Anaerobic digestion at wastewater treatment facilities: Market analysis and lessons
versus thermal processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):336–345 from the field. US Environmental Protection Agency Combined
47. Nielson PH, Thomsen TR, Nielsen JL (2004) Bacterial composi- Heat and Power Partnership. https:​ //www.epa.gov/sites/​ produc​ tion​
tion of activated sludge: importance for floc and sludge properties. /files/​ 2015-07/docume​ nts/opport​ uniti​ es_for_combin​ ed_heat_and_
Water Sci Technol 49(49):51–58 power_​ at_wastew ​ ater_​ treatm
​ ent_facili​ ties_​ market​ _analys​ is_and_
48. Svanström M, Fröling M, Olofsson M, Lundin M (2005) Environ- lesso​ns_from_the_field​.pdf
mental assessment of supercritical water oxidation and other sew- 53. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hell-
age sludge handling options. Waste Manag Resour 23(4):356–366 weg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M, Wernet
49. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Greenhouse gas G (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report no. 1.,
emissions estimation methodologies for biogenic emissions from Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf. http://www.
selected source categories: Solid waste disposal, wastewater treat- ecoin​vent.org/filea​dmin/docum​ents/en/01_Overv​iewAn​dMeth​
ment, ethanol fermentation, http://www.epa.gov/ttnch​ie1/efpac​/ odolo​gy.pdf, Accessed 02 Apr 2014
ghg/GHG_Bioge​nic_Repor ​t_draft​_Dec14​10.pdf, Accessed 02 54. Miller-Robbie L, Ramaswami A, Amerasinghe P (2017) Waste-
Apr 2014 water treatment and reuse in urban agriculture: exploring the food,
50. World Health Organization (WHO) (2014) Health statistics and energy, water, and health nexus in Hyderabad, India. Environ Res
information systems, metrics: Disability-Adjusted Life Year Lett 12(7):075005
(DALY), http://www.who.int/healt​hinfo​/globa​l_burde​n_disea​se/
metri​cs_daly/en/, Accessed April 02, 2014

13

View publication stats