No abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is used to evaluate the environmental profile of a product or process from its origin to its final destination. In this paper we used LCA to evaluate the current situation of a wastewater treatment plant and identify improvement alternatives. Currently, the highest environmental impacts are caused by the stages of the plant with the highest energy consumption, the use of biogas from anaerobic digestion (95% burned in torch) and the final destination of the sludge (98.6% for agricultural use and 1.4% for compost). We propose four alternatives for biogas applications and five alternatives for sludge applications and compare them to the current situation. The alternatives were incorporated in a decision support system to identify and prioritize the most positive environmental option. Using biogas to produce electricity or a combination of electricity and heat provided the best environmental options since the energy produced would be enough to supply all the stages of the plant, thus reducing their environmental impact. The best environmental option for the final destination of the sludge is to combine the current situation (fertilizer replacement) with use of the sludge in a cement plant (as a replacement for fuel and raw material).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Continuous population growth is causing increased water contamination. Uneven distribution of water resources and periodic droughts have forced governments to seek new water sources: reclaimed and desalinated water. Wastewater recovery is a tool for better management of the water resources that are diverted from the natural water cycle to the anthropic one.The main objective of this work is to assess the stages of operation of a Spanish Mediterranean wastewater treatment plant to identify the stages with the highest environmental impact, to establish the environmental loads associated with wastewater reuse, and to evaluate alternative final destinations for wastewater. Tertiary treatment does not represent a significant increment in the impact of the total treatment at the plant. The impact of reclaiming 1 cubic meter (m 3 ) of wastewater represents 0.16 kilograms of carbon dioxide per cubic meter (kg CO 2 /m 3 ), compared to 0.83 kg CO 2 /m 3 associated with basic wastewater treatment (primary, secondary, and sludge treatment). From a comparison of the alternatives for wastewater final destination, we observe that replacing potable water means a freshwater savings of 1.1 m 3 , whereas replacing desalinated water means important energy savings, reflected in all of the indicators. To ensure the availability of potable water to all of the population-especially in areas where water is scarce-governments should promote reusing wastewater under safe conditions as much as possible.

No abstract