Within developing countries, wastewater treatment (WWT) has improved in recent years in but remains a high priority sustainability challenge. Accordingly, life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have recently started to analyse the environmental impacts of WWT technologies on the specific context of less developed countries, mainly in China and India. This work presents a comprehensive review of this knowledge with the aim of critically analysing the main conclusions, gaps and challenges for future WWT-related LCAs in developing countries. The most commonly assessed technologies in the 43 reviewed articles are different variations of activated sludge and extensive treatments applied in decentralized systems; however, studies focused on advanced technologies or new sources of pollution (e.g. micropollutants) are still lacking. Goal and system boundaries are normally clearly defined, but significant stages for some technologies such as the construction and sludge management are frequently not included and functional units should be defined accordingly to specific conditions in developing countries. At the inventory level, a more concise description of sources and technical parameters would greatly improve the quality of the LCAs along with accountability of direct greenhouse gas emissions. Eutrophication and global warming are the two
Pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) are of increasing interest because of their ecotoxicological properties and environmental impacts. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are the main pathway for their release into freshwaters due to the inefficiency of conventional WWTPs in removing many of these contaminants from effluents. Therefore, different advanced effluent treatment techniques have been proposed for their treatment. However, it is not known at present how effective these treatment methods are and whether on a life cycle basis they cause other environmental impacts which may outweigh the benefits of the treatment. In an effort to provide an insight into this question, this paper considers life cycle environmental impacts of the following advanced treatment techniques aimed at reducing freshwater ecotoxicity potential of PPCPs: granular activated carbon (GAC), nanofiltration (NF), solar photo-Fenton (SPF) and ozonation. The results suggest that on average NF has the lowest impacts for 13 out of 18 categories considered. GAC is the best alternative for five impacts, including metals and water depletion, but it has the highest marine eutrophication. SPF and ozonation are the least sustainable for eight impacts, including ecotoxicity and climate change. GAC and NF are also more efficient in treating heavy metals while avoiding generation of harmful by-products during the treatment, thus being more suitable for potable reuse of wastewater. However, releasing the effluent without advanced treatment to agricultural land achieves a much higher reduction of freshwater ecotoxicity than treating it by any of the advanced treatments and releasing to the environment. Therefore, the use of advanced effluent treatment for agricultural purposes is not recommended.
These studies were conducted to test the hypothesis that sewage sludge from Lviv municipal wastewater treatment plants (LMWWTP) facilities can be used to create a substrate that can be used for biological reclamation. The qualitative composition of sewage sludge from Lviv municipal wastewater treatment plants is determined. The study of bioindication of a mixture of sludge with dark gray soil was carried out in two stages, which showed a significant difference between fresh and settled sludge. Possible conditions for the use of sludge in the substrate are presented.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.