2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.053
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of environmental impacts of domestic wastewater treatment using life cycle assessment: A review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
22
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
22
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Carbon footprint evaluations of WWTPs reported in the literature are often inconsistent and non-transparent, meaning that all relevant factors and processes are not included in the assessment, they are not in line with the European guidelines (JRC, 2011), and all choices related to methodology and data sources are not clarified. This observation is in line with a review study performed by Sabeen et al (2018) that underlined the need to define more stringent guidelines when evaluating the impacts of the domestic wastewater treatment in all impact categories, including global warming.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Carbon footprint evaluations of WWTPs reported in the literature are often inconsistent and non-transparent, meaning that all relevant factors and processes are not included in the assessment, they are not in line with the European guidelines (JRC, 2011), and all choices related to methodology and data sources are not clarified. This observation is in line with a review study performed by Sabeen et al (2018) that underlined the need to define more stringent guidelines when evaluating the impacts of the domestic wastewater treatment in all impact categories, including global warming.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Over the WWTP's life cycle the greatest environmental impacts contributing were as follows: the final effluent, operation and, to a lesser extent, the construction. The most relevant impact for the operation phase confirms those of other LCA studies on wastewater treatment (Lopsik, 2013;Paéz et al, 2017;Garfí et al, 2017;Sabeen et al, 2018). Some researchers have exempted the construction phase, arguing that this phase has little impact compared to the impact of the whole lifecycle WWTP (Hospido et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…The authors also emphasized that the comparison between different designs causes variations in the results for the categories of impact. In a general way, among a variety of technologies, anaerobic reactors and CWL have good environmental performance due to the low complexity and mechanization and low energy consumption (Sabeen et al, 2018). Therefore, improving the quality of the final effluent results in a greater demand for natural resources, high energy consumption, chemical and operational complexity, in addition to the increased of the greenhouse gases emissions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent review of LCA studies conducted for domestic wastewater treatment plants since the year 1990 concludes that the development of guidelines and standards is necessary to further shape a consistent LCA methodology for the field. For example, different functional units which serve as reference units in LCA are used in different studies which aggravates a comparison of already assessed treatment processes in the environmental dimension [111].…”
Section: Technical Process Assessment (Gate Ii)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LCA databases provide readily defined impacts for a wide range of different conventional products and materials [113]. Other needed life cycling inventory data can be collected from published studies in the field of WWTP LCA [110,111]. Already available LCAs that include impacts associated with wastewater resource recovery mostly assess both energy recovery [114,115] and/or fertilizer recovery [116,117] as a consequence of different sludge handling technologies.…”
Section: Technical Process Assessment (Gate Ii)mentioning
confidence: 99%