Evaluation of water services system through LCA. A case study for Iasi City, Romania

Barjoveanu, George; Comandaru, Iulia Maria; Rodriguez-García, Gonzalo; Hospido, Almudena; Teodosiu, Carmen

doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0635-8

Cited by 60 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, the selection of alternatives in each example (PV, eGrid, concrete, and paper pulp) is determined by single impact category. A survey of recent publications from the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment reporting normalized impacts from CML supports the finding that marine aquatic ecotoxicity is the most influential category in evaluations of water services (Barjoveanu et al 2014), diapers (Mirabella et al 2013), exterior household walls (Monteiro and Freire 2012), packing tape (Navajas et al 2014), thermal insulation (Struhala et al 2014), and an entire inventory data library (White and Carty 2010). These results were also reproduced by Sim et al (2007) in a food sourcing application where authors excluded marine aquatic ecotoxicity from normalized results due to masking of other aspects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Prado

Wender

Seager

2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) can be challenging in the presence of multiple incommensurate indicators. To make the problem more manageable, some LCA practitioners apply external normalization to find those indicators that contribute the most to their respective environmental impact categories. However, in some cases, these results can be entirely driven by the normalization reference, rather than the comparative performance of the alternatives. This study evaluates the influence of normalization methods on interpretation of comparative LCA to facilitate the use of LCA in decision-driven applications and inform LCA practitioners of latent systematic biases. An alternative method based on significance of mutual differences is proposed instead. Methods This paper performs a systematic evaluation of external normalization and describes an alternative called the overlap area approach for the purpose of identifying relevant issues in a comparative LCA. The overlap area approach utilizes the probability distributions of characterized results to assess significant differences. This study evaluates the effects in three LCIA methods, through application of four comparative studies. For each application, we call attention to the category indicators highlighted by each interpretation approach. Results and discussion External normalization in the three LCIA methods suffers from a systematic bias that emphasizes the same impact categories regardless of the application. Consequently, comparative LCA studies that employ external normalization to guide a selection may result in recommendations dominated entirely by the normalization reference and insensitive to data uncertainty. Conversely, evaluation of mutual differences via the overlap area calls attention to the impact categories with the most significant differences between alternatives. The overlap area approach does not show a systematic bias across LCA applications because it does not depend on external references and it is sensitive to changes in uncertainty. Thus, decisions based on the overlap area approach will draw attention to tradeoffs between alternatives, highlight the role of stakeholder weights, and generate assessments that are responsive to uncertainty. Conclusions The solution to the issues of external normalization in comparative LCAs proposed in this study call for an entirely different algorithm capable of evaluating mutual differences and integrating uncertainty in the results.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Prado

Wender

Seager

2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the main driver of the carbon footprint increase in the urban water cycle is related to energy efficiency, this variability may depend on several aspects of the energy consumption (such as high level of leakages, the need for significant water treatment, and inefficient plants and pumping stations); in addition, the energy mix adopted at the national level (including sources such as coal, nuclear fission, natural gas, or renewable sources) may produce a different environmental impact of supplied energy. For example, in Barjoveanu et al [11], the results have pointed out that the higher impacts are mainly due to the energetic effort needed for water supply abstraction and the fairly high water losses in the distribution system; for Jeong et al [16], the electricity consumption is mainly due to water transport and treatment. In this case study, rather than water treatment, the greater energy consumption is to be attributed to the pumping stations and to the significant water volumes that need to be pumped to compensate for water losses.…”

Section: Results From the Current Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system boundaries are defined in accordance with the PCR-UN CPC code 6921 [11] of the International EPD System (Environmental Product Declaration) and are represented in the Figure 1. In the present study, the system boundaries include the following processes:…”

Section: Inventory Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The LCA methodology plays a strategic role in identifying critical processes and potential improvement strategies for the urban water system. This is evident in numerous studies of water supply and transport systems, including Godskesen et al [9], where the LCA approach was applied to evaluate three different water supply systems of the water sector in Copenhagen, Denmark, to evaluate the environmental impacts of each process involved; Del Borghi et al [10], providing the analysis of potable water supply service in Sicily, Italy; Barjoveanu et al [11], analysing the water services system in Iasi City (Romania) to demonstrate the usefulness of the LCA approach as a support tool for water resources management; and Sambito et al [12], integrating the LCA approach with an analysis of the system energy and water balance in a water supply system. Other studies focused on urban drainage systems [13,14] and treatment plants [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

LCA Methodology for the Quantification of the Carbon Footprint of the Integrated Urban Water System

Sambito

Freni

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In integrated urban water systems, energy consumption, and consequently the amount of produced CO 2 , depends on many environmental, infrastructural, and management factors such as supply water quality, on which treatment complexity depends, urban area orography, water systems efficiency, and maintenance levels. An important factor is related to the presence of significant water losses, which result in an increase in the supply volume and therefore a higher energy consumption for treatment and pumping, without effectively supplying users. The current European environmental strategy is committed to sustainable development by generating action plans to improve the environmental performance of products and services. The analysis of carbon footprints is considered one such improvement, allowing for the evaluation of the environmental impact of single production phases. Using this framework, the aim of the study is to apply a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to quantify the carbon footprint of an overall integrated urban water system referring to ISO/TS 14067 (2013). This methodology uses an approach known as "cradle to grave" and presumes to conduct an objective assessment of product units, balancing energy, and matter flows along the production process. The methodology was applied to a real case study, i.e., the integrated urban water system of the Palermo metropolitan area in Sicily (Italy). Each process in the system was characterized and globally evaluated from the point of view of water loss, energy consumption, and CO 2 production, and some mitigation strategies are proposed and evaluated to reduce the energy consumption and, consequently, the environmental impact of the system.

show abstract

“…Life cycle assessment (LCA) is known as an effective method for evaluating various environmental impacts and has been widely applied to WWTPs [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Although a number of LCA methodologies have been developed recently [15][16][17], none have addressed the ecotoxicity of NH 3 -N. Corominas et al [18] reported that decision-making in controlling wastewater nutrient removal systems was assessed using a combination of mechanistic process models using life cycle impact assessment models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of an Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment Model for Assessing Nitrogen Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants

Mishima

Yoshikawa

Yoshida

et al. 2016

J. of Wat. & Envir. Tech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental impact assessments for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have evaluated many endpoints including emissions of greenhouse gases, discharges of nutrients and discharges of toxic substances. The primary objective of this study was the development of an integrated environmental impact assessment model for wastewater treatment processes. The assessment model was based on an impact assessment methodology used in Japan for life cycle assessments. Specifically, eutrophication was taken into account in the model along with the impacts of free ammonia, because this chemical was known to have toxic effects on aquatic ecosystems. The model developed was then applied to an actual WWTP operating under two different conditions (case 1, without nitrification; case 2, with nitrification), and the best operating conditions were evaluated based on nitrogen emissions. The results showed that the main contributor to the environmental impacts of the WWTP in case 1 was ecotoxicity from discharges of NH 4 -N. In case 2, the main contributor was eutrophication from discharges of total nitrogen. These results demonstrated that the overall environmental impacts of WWTPs should decrease when nitrification is employed because this will reduce the impacts associated with the ecotoxicity of NH 4 -N.

show abstract

Evaluation of water services system through LCA. A case study for Iasi City, Romania

Cited by 60 publications

References 14 publications

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

LCA Methodology for the Quantification of the Carbon Footprint of the Integrated Urban Water System

Development of an Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment Model for Assessing Nitrogen Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About