1 s2.0 S0048969721065633 Main

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 13

Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

How decentralized treatment can contribute to the symbiosis between


environmental protection and resource recovery
Sofía Estévez ⁎, Sara González-García, Gumersindo Feijoo, María Teresa Moreira
Department of Chemical Engineering, CRETUS, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Environmental-economic analysis for


wastewater treatment and urban farming
• Life cycle assessment and environmental
life cycle costing were the methodologies
used.
• The best environmental profile corre-
sponds to a hybrid-decentralized system.
• Internalisation of some external costs is
relevant to the polluter pays principle.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Challenges associated with the sustainability of the water cycle pose new opportunities for resource recovery and
Received 20 July 2021 greater environmental protection. While centralized wastewater treatment plants must evolve in their design
Received in revised form 15 October 2021 and operation to adapt to a scenario of increasing demand for water, resources and energy, the decentralized ap-
Accepted 2 November 2021
proach emerges as an option to be considered in small communities or developing residential areas where
Available online 3 November 2021
bioenergy production can be improved through the recovery of organic matter in segregated streams or where
Editor: Paola Verlicchi the investment in the sewer network for connection to a centralized facility may be technologically or econom-
ically unfeasible. The main objective of this work is to evaluate the environmental and economic profile of a
hybrid-decentralized configuration for the purpose of efficient wastewater management and resource recovery
Keywords: and its comparative evaluation with the centralized treatment scenario. Beyond water reclamation, decentralized
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems treatment offers the possibility of valorization of digestate streams as nutrient sources for horticultural or orna-
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) mental crops in the vicinity of the plant. Based on the results of the environmental profile, this manuscript shows
Environmental Life Cycle Costing (ELCC) that the decentralized treatment approach is in line with the philosophy and guidelines of the circular economy,
Mineral fertilizers
as it allows the use of reclaimed water and biofertilizers under safe and environmental-friendly conditions.
Biofertilizers
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Urban farming
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction exploitable resources (Sheikh et al., 2019). Agriculture is the main


water user and accounts for up to 80% of freshwater withdrawals,
The need for water, energy and food are key elements inherent to a with irrigation of food crops being the dominant use (Velasco-Muñoz
world population with a growing demand for increasingly scarce et al., 2018). The use of reclaimed wastewater can represent a resource
recovery option for small and medium-sized agricultural areas as it not
⁎ Corresponding author. only supplies irrigation needs, but also reclaimed water can provide a
E-mail address: sofia.estevez.rivadulla@usc.es (S. Estévez). potential source of nutrients for crops (Poustie et al., 2020). The use of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151485
0048-9697/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

reclaimed water has become a reality in different regions of countries in (ELCC) with the estimation of internal costs (CAPEX and OPEX) and ex-
the Mediterranean area such as Murcia (Spain), where more than ternal costs (monetization of environmental impacts) (Roh et al., 2018).
100 Mm3·year−1 are reused for agriculture or the rural area surround-
ing the city of Milan (Italy) that uses high quality treated wastewater for 2. Materials and methods
agricultural irrigation (SUWANU Europe, 2019). Although the EU policy
in water issues has been especially intense in recent times, the extensive 2.1. Description of scenarios under comparison
wastewater recycling has also been supported by other countries. For
example, Israel treats and reuses around a 90% of the municipal waste- 2.1.1. Overall description
water (Craddock et al., 2021). Zhu and Dou (2018) have reported for This study comprises an environmental assessment for a baseline
2015 a utilization ratio of 30% of the reclaimed water in Beijing scenario from which the nutrients recovered from the wastewater of
(China). California and Florida (United States) have been irrigating agri- a decentralized/hybrid treatment facility were used for the fertiliza-
cultural crops with recycled water for decades (more than 50 years for tion of the crops of in an urban area. The scenario has been divided
Florida) (Parsons, 2018; Sheikh et al., 2018). into two different subsystems: the first (SS1 - wastewater manage-
Considering wastewater treatment alternatives, centralized systems ment and fertilizer production) considers the management of segre-
are associated with high energy consumption and extensive sewerage gated wastewater flows in a decentralized facility (for black water)
infrastructure, although it presents as main strength the proven techno- and in a centralized facility (for grey water) and the manufacture
logical robustness linked to widely developed treatment strategies of mineral fertilizers. The second (SS2 - gardening activities) includes
(Ashok et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2018). However, when it comes to agricultural production as well as emissions from cultivation and fer-
reusing reclaimed water from centralized wastewater treatment sys- tilization. This decentralized baseline scenario (DBS) was compared
tems, the distance between facilities and agricultural areas can become to a centralized scenario (CS) where the resources for land fertiliza-
a major drawback, as a reclaimed water distribution network has to be tion were recovered from the combined wastewater treatment of the
enabled that would duplicate treatment, reclamation and discharge in- black water (BW) and grey water (GW) in a centralized facility in-
frastructures (Qureshi, 2020). On the other hand, the need for agricul- stead of a hybrid treatment. Fig. 1 depicts the flowchart of the config-
tural water may be seasonal, which implies the storage of large uration of both scenarios.
volumes of reclaimed water (Cirelli et al., 2008). In this framework,
decentralized wastewater plants relieve pressure on central plants 2.1.2. Wastewater management in subsystem SS1 for the decentralized
that may be at their capacity limit, while reducing wastewater pumping baseline scenario (DBS)
costs (Capodaglio, 2017). Moreover, the decentralized treatment ap- The decentralized BW management has been proposed in the frame-
proach can address the challenges of reuse of reclaimed water and work of Run4Life (Recovery and Utilization of Nutrients 4 Low Impact
biofertilizers by considering their application in green areas and agricul- Fertilizer) project as a decentralized treatment for a residential or
tural lands in the surrounding areas of the facilities (Bisschops et al., urban development area of 80–90 inhabitants where ultra-vacuum toi-
2019; Malila et al., 2019). lets have been installed. Interest in these low-flow toilets has increased
A classic approach to decentralized systems is based on the segrega- in recent years due to the minimal water consumption, which means
tion of three waste streams: black water (BW) generated in the toilets, that the BW stream has a high concentration of organic matter, ensuring
grey water (GW) from laundry, showers or dishwashers and kitchen a higher yield of biogas production in the anaerobic digestion treatment.
waste (KW) (Wielemaker et al., 2018). Segregation of BW streams It consists of a compact unit that incorporates an intermediate discharge
avoids their dilution and improves the resource recovery performance tank, where the vacuum is maintained and is connected to the toilet
in the form of biogas and nutrients (Zeeman and Kujawa-Roeleveld, through an inlet valve. In quantitative terms, an average consumption
2011). Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), anaerobic membrane of approximately 0.5–0.9 L of water per flush was considered, corre-
bioreactors (anMBR) and thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) are sponding to an average BW production flow of 0.3 m3·day−1 and an av-
examples of anaerobic technologies for BW treatment (Kujawa- erage electricity consumption of 13.33 kWh·m−3.
Roeleveld et al., 2006; Pretel et al., 2016). On the other hand, the In this neighbourhood, BW is collected separately and sent to a
management of GW after treatment allows its reuse for refilling toilet decentralized system consisting of a thermophilic anaerobic digestion
flushing as well as irrigation water (Skambraks et al., 2017). unit (TAD) operating at 55 °C. The biogas produced is sent to a boiler
A holistic and comparative assessment between both treatment op- to produce heat required for the operation of the TAD and the excess
tions as well as activities related to the reuse of recovered flows should can be supplied to the neighbourhood. The composition of the biogas
be carried out in the context of an environmental and economic assess- is 72.6% methane, 27.3% carbon dioxide and 0.1% other gases. The path-
ment (Garrido-Baserba et al., 2018; Kobayashi et al., 2020). When con- ogen -free liquid and solid biofertilizers produced are used for fertiliza-
sidering the introduction of a water reuse scheme, it is important to tion activities in urban gardens, where residents have a small plot of
examine the benefits and drawbacks that could be considered in the land for horticultural crops (Zhang et al., 2020). The GW, on the other
decision-making process to provide a clear conclusion (Ofori et al., hand, was managed in a centralized facility. The sludge produced in
2021). Environmental and Economic life cycle methodologies not only the GW treatment is not relevant and it is not feasible to use it for
consider the impacts and costs associated with the treatment stage, crop fertilization due to the small quantity of sludge produced
but also the implications derived from the sanitation network, the re- (Tervahauta et al., 2014).
covery of resources such as energy and biofertilizers, and the impact
of fertilization activities (Resende et al., 2019; Morelli et al., 2018). 2.1.3. Wastewater management in subsystem SS1 for the centralized
This manuscript comprises an environmental assessment from a life scenario (CS)
cycle perspective following the LCA methodology that integrates the This alternative scenario considers the same population where con-
water reclamation and the production of biofertilizers in wastewater ventional toilets are installed so that GW and BW streams are not segre-
treatment systems with their use in crops in residential areas for food gated and are treated in a conventional centralized facility for a total
production. A comparison of various scenarios has been proposed con- capacity of 55,000 m3·d−1 (Morera et al., 2017). Conventional toilets
sidering technological and scale differences in the wastewater treat- use more water per flush (7 L/flush), which implies the production of
ment facility and the electrical energy source and requirements of the 4.17 m3 BW per day. The treatment plant is divided into five sections:
vacuum toilets of an innovative system for black water treatment. pumping and pre-treatment, primary treatment, activated sludge, an-
The economic evaluation will be only performed for this aerobic digestion and composting. As main outputs of the system, elec-
decentralized BW treatment using an Environmental Life Cycle Costing tricity, compost and treated water are considered.

2
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

System boundaries

(A)
Potable water Energy Chemicals
producon producon producon

Raw materials SS1 – Wastewater management


and ferliser producon SS2 – Gardening Emissions
acvies
N Mineral ferlizers producon

Wastewater
Wastewater Crops
Centralized scheme

Compost

Treated
water Electricity

System boundaries

(B)
Potable water Energy
producon producon

SS1- Wastewater management


and ferliser producon
Raw materials

Biogas Heat SS2 – Gardening


Boiler Emissions
acvies
Sewer grid system Storage
& vacuum staon Reclaimed water
TAD
transport Pumping Boiler
Digestate
Blackwater Crops
Avoided
heat
Wastewater Decentralized scheme

Greywater
Wastewater N-Mineral ferlizer
Centralized scheme producon

Treated
water

Fig. 1. Flow chart and subsystems of the CS (Centralized Scenario) (a) and DBS (Decentralized Baseline Scenario).

2.1.4. Fertilizer production in subsystem SS1 and subsystem SS2 pumping distance and the flows of tap water and wastewater. Energy
The amount of nutrients recovered from the wastewater manage- consumption has been reported as a remarkable parameter in the envi-
ment in CS or in the decentralized scenario DBS where used to grow ronmental profiles shown in many LCA studies conducted for wastewa-
vegetables (peppers, bush beans, carrots and cabbages) in the land ter treatment plants (Takeshita et al., 2020; Rashid and Liu, 2020; Wang
plots of a residential area. In this sense, biofertilizers could be applied et al., 2019). Therefore, the energy demand of both scenarios was exam-
to agricultural land embedded in urban soil through two approaches: ined and compared to effectively reduce the environmental impacts.
urban farming and urban gardening (Pölling et al., 2017). Both alterna- Based on the results obtained from the decentralized baseline sce-
tives, despite their similarities, are not semantically the same. Urban nario (DBS) and with the aim of reducing the energy demand, an alter-
farming takes advantage of the proximity of densely populated areas native decentralized scenario with energy reduction in the vacuum
by harvesting products that can provide economic benefits. Gardening, toilets (DRS) was proposed. The electricity demand considered for the
however, is more related to the production of food and non-food sys- toilets was 7.76 kWh·m−3 which is a data provided by commercial sup-
tems that fulfil the social benefits of agricultural activity itself being in- pliers (a variation of about 50% was identified) (SwedEnviro, 2001).
dependent of economic gains (Lohrberg et al., 2016). Thus, the concept Two more scenarios were proposed. In one of them the electricity is
of urban farming was integrated with the wastewater treatment in this supplied by photovoltaic cells (DSS) while in the other the analysis fo-
manuscript. The resources obtained from wastewater treatment sys- cuses on the joint implementation (DJS) of the measures taken in the
tems may not be sufficient to ensure the required N and P fertilization DRS and DSS scenarios. These new scenarios have the same scheme
levels for the crop, implying the need for extra input of mineral fertil- shown in Fig. 1B for the DBS scenario, differing only in the energy con-
izers. A minor amount of N-based mineral fertilizer was required to siderations taken for the vacuum system.
meet nutrient needs. In contrast, P and K demands were fully met by Further research is needed in the development of vacuum toilets to
the biofertilizer. make them more environmentally competitive, since a large difference
has been identified in the literature/market not only in the electricity
2.1.5. Alternative scenarios to decentralized baseline scenario (DBS) demand for the vacuum toilets but also in the water consumption per
Regardless of the treatment scheme, differences in energy can be de- flush. Conventional toilets demand large amounts of water (approx.
tected between centralized and decentralized systems due to the 6–12 L/flush) and novel technologies are being developed to reduce

3
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

this consumption by promoting that water-saving wastewater manage- perspective is related to the valorization of sludge (Leung Lam et al.,
ment, which has potential environmental and economic benefits. Low- 2020). Broader limits of the system have been considered in this study.
vacuum and vacuum toilets reduce drastically the amount of wastewa- Thus, the defined functional unit has also incorporated activities related
ter, which is more concentrated in organic matter. Therefore, it would to food production in urban gardens under the concept of urban farming
be necessary to perform a sensitivity analysis to identify the influence (Dorr et al., 2021).
of these parameters (electricity and water). Primary data were handled for water consumption in both conven-
The ultra-low vacuum toilets considered in the hybrid scenarios tional and vacuum toilets, as well as for the electricity requirement in
have a lower electricity water demands than other commercially the latter. As for the BW decentralized wastewater treatment system,
available vacuum toilets. The energy consumption for this kind of the information used to carry out the analysis was based on direct
toilets can be of up to 34 kWh·person−1·year−1 (Mohr et al., 2018) data provided by the Run4Life pilot plant located in Sneek (The
although numerous studies reported that this energy is in the range of Netherlands). A summary of the main inputs and outputs for the BW
15–30 kWh·person−1·year−1 (Münch and Winker, 2009; Remy and decentralized scheme is detailed in Table 1.
Jekel, 2012; Herrmann and Hesse, 2002). Concerning to the water con- The environmental impacts associated with the background pro-
sumption, a normal range is between 0.70 and 1.50 L·flush−1 (Remy cesses of the subsystems SS1 and SS2 were estimated based on data
and Jekel, 2012; Mohr et al., 2018; SwedEnviro, 2001). However, some available in the Ecoinvent v3.0.0.1 database. The following processes
technical reports have identified improvements in energy and electric- were considered: tap water consumption, electricity production, small
ity consumption that make the well-known vacuum toilet competitive scale-heat production (avoided burden), reclaimed water (avoided bur-
enough with other emerging technologies (such as ultra-low vacuum den) and mineral fertilizer production. Since there is a surplus heat flow
toilets). The electricity and water demand of vacuum toilets has been in the BW decentralized treatment strategy, it was assumed that the re-
found to be 4 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 0.50–1 L·flush−1 (Otter covered heat avoids the production of an equivalent amount of heat
Vacuum, 2021). from natural gas (Leung Lam et al., 2020). Thus, the impacts associated
Considering these references and the effect on the environmental with the production of this fossil heat were deducted from those de-
profile of vacuum systems from the electricity demand, different alter- rived from SS1 (see Fig. 1B). Similarly, an avoided allocation was also as-
native scenarios have been considered for discussion to compare our re- sumed for the reclaimed water generated in the decentralized BW
sults with those of the literature and the conventional system. Hence, treatment, that is the water content of the liquid stream will save a com-
four scenarios have been proposed for comparison considering the parable amount of irrigation water. The distance between the central-
same neighbourhood. ized facility and the urban plots becomes a drawback for pumping
The water consumption is identical in three of them. Thus, they have water. Therefore, the treated water is discharged directly into the envi-
been named according to their energy consumption. The scenario with ronment instead of being reused as reclaimed water.
the highest demand (H) was designed using Mohr et al. (2018) data. The biofertilizers from wastewater treatment facilities has been ap-
The remaining scenarios were designated as M (medium energy de- plied in the urban areas to supply the exact demand of nutrients to
mand), L (Lower energy demand), and W (different water consump- the crops when the phosphorus is the limiting element.
tion). Data from Münch and Winker (2009) were considered for The nutrient requirements (as mineral fertilizer) in the subsystem
scenario M, data from Remy and Jekel (2012) for scenario L and data SS2 for the cultivation of the same tract of land destined to each of the
from Otter Vacuum (2021) for scenario W. The energy and water de- selected crops (carrots, bush beans, cabbage and peppers) was
mand for each of them is: 25 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1.40 L·flush−1
(scenario H), 22.5 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1.40 L·flush−1 (Scenario
M), 15 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1.40 L·flush−1 (Scenario L) and Table 1
4 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1 L·flush−1 (Scenario W). Main inventory data for the BW decentralized scheme, step common in Scenarios DBS,
DRS, DSS and DJS. Data are reported per functional unit that is, 1 m2.
2.2. LCA framework
DBS DRS DSS DJS

Inputs from the technosphere


2.2.1. Goal and scope definition
Materials
The environmental analysis has been performed following the Life COD (kg) 0.74
Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology under ISO standards 14040:2006 TN (kg) 0.01
and 14044:2006. The objective is to evaluate the environmental profile TP (kg) 3.00 · 10−3
of systems with integrated wastewater management and agricultural ac- K (kg) 1.50 · 10−2
Tap water (kg) 20.41
tivities. The impacts are compared in relation to the origin (from central- Energya
ized or hybrid configurations) of the biofertilizer obtained from Electricity (kWh)- tap water pumping 4.08 · 10−3
wastewater treatment to fertilize the crops of a residential area. In this Electricity (kWh)- toilets and sewer 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.16
analysis, attention has been paid to the operation stage and, therefore, Electricity (kWh)- pumping to TAD 0.06
the construction of the different infrastructures corresponding to both Outputs to the environment
scenarios were excluded, since their contribution is negligible (Arias CO2 (g) 183.45
et al., 2020; Santana et al., 2019). S (mg) 133.80

Outputs to the technosphere


2.2.2. LCA data collection Liquid digestate to SS2
The functional unit (FU) was defined as 1 m2 of urban garden as inte- N (g) 8.92
P2O5 (g) 6.61
grates the valorization of the biofertilizer from the wastewater treatment
K2O (g) 17.61
process. This unit was considered as a reference for reporting all inventory Solid digestate to SS2
data based on mass and energy flows. Many wastewater treatment facil- N (g) 0.57
ities have been analysed using a process perspective that studies one of P2O5 (g) 0.27
the most important functions of the facility: wastewater treatment K2O (g) 0.51

(Corominas et al., 2013). However, the multifunctionality of these facili- Avoided flows
ties must also be considered and a product perspective should also be Heat (kWh) 0.77
used to reflect the resource recovery function of the new treatment plants Irrigation water (L) 20.41

(Moretti et al., 2020). The most typical functional unit for this type of a
Electricity demand in scenarios DSS and DJS is solar power.

4
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

14.5 g N·m−2, 4.12 g P·m−2 and 1.34 g K·m−2 (ShresthaI et al., 2020). It the profiles of the four decentralized scenarios and the centralized one.
should be noted that the nutrient assimilation efficiency of a The choice of this endpoint approach allows reporting a single score that
biofertilizer is lower than that of a mineral fertilizer (Ashekuzzaman facilitates the communication of the environmental results. For this pur-
et al., 2021). Moreover, the liquid and solid digestates of the BW treat- pose, the normalization and weighting factors taken from ReCiPe 2016
ment in scenario DBS (and DRS, DSS, DJS by extension) and the compost Endpoint method have been considered, reporting the environmental
from CS have different fractions of N and P available for the crops and results in terms of three indicators to express the relative severity of
therefore additional nitrogen-based mineral fertilizer is required to damage according to the Human Health (HH), Ecosystem Quality (EQ)
meet crop needs in SS2. and Resource Scarcity (RS). Those three endpoint indicators are the re-
An average mineral replacement ratio was 52% for solid fertilizer and sult of an aggregation process from specific midpoint categories using
compost and 72% for liquid digestate for nitrogen and 60% for phosphorus endpoint characterization factors. In this analysis, only the impact cate-
(Ashekuzzaman et al., 2021). Nitrous oxides (N2O) emissions were gories previously selected for environmental assessment at midpoint
estimated according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change level have been considered for the estimation of the single environmen-
(IPCC, 2019). Tier 1 nitrogen dioxides (NOx) and Tier 2 ammonia (NH3) tal score, considering the corresponding normalization and weighting
emissions were calculated according to the methodology of the factors established by the method. The SimaPro software v9.0.0.29
European Environment Agency and the European Monitoring and Evalu- (PRé Consultants, 2021) has been used for the computational imple-
ation Program (EMEP/EEA, 2019). Nitrate (NO− 3 ) leaching (Faist mentation of the life cycle inventories.
Emmenegger et al., 2009), and phosphorus (PO−3 4 ) leaching and runoff
(ShresthaI et al., 2020) were also taken into account. CO2 emissions 2.3. ELCC framework
resulting from land use change were not included as it has been
assumed that the garden area has been devoted to agriculture for the The economic analysis performed within this manuscript studies the
last 20 years. The main inventory data corresponding to the scenarios construction and operational phases of the black water decentralized
under study are shown in Table 2. treatment included in the subsystem SS1 of the DBS scenario to meet
the requirements of the Directive 91/271/EEC195. The Environmental
2.2.3. Life Cycle Environmental assessment method Life Cycle Costing (ELCC) is a methodology that estimates the monetary
Two impact assessment methods have been considered in the anal- value of both internalities and externalities (at least one). The internal
ysis. Firstly, the ReCiPe 2016 Hierarchist Midpoint method V1.03 World costs can be classified into two main categories: CAPEX (capital expen-
(2010) (Huijbregts et al., 2017) has been used for the selection of char- diture) and OPEX (operating expenditure).
acterization factors required to estimate the environmental burdens, The capital costs are related to the investments required to purchase
which were reported according to a set of impact categories at midpoint and install the assets of the treatment process. The initial investment
level: global warming (GW), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD), ter- comprises fixed assets and working capital. Fixed costs have been esti-
restrial acidification (TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), marine eu- mated as an acquisition cost through purchase. The storage tank for
trophication (ME), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET), freshwater ecotoxicity black water, the reactor feed pump, the TAD reactor and the boiler are
(FET), marine ecotoxicity (MET) and fossil resource scarcity (FRS). Sec- the main units of the decentralized wastewater treatment system. The
ondly, the ReCiPe 2016 Hierarchist Endpoint method V1.03 World storage tank costs can be determined from The National Tank Outlet
(2010) H/H (Huijbregts et al., 2017) has been considered to benchmark (2021). The thermophilic anaerobic reactor of the decentralized scenar-
ios has the same configuration of a typical UASB reactor. Libhaber and
Orozco-Jaramillo (2012), Sato et al. (2007) and Puchongkawarin
Table 2 (2015) have provided estimations for UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Main inventory data (per m2) for the Subsystem SS2 corresponding to gardening activities.
Blanket) reactors and Soltero et al. (2018), Picardo et al. (2019),
DBS/DRS/DSS/DJSa CS Sandvall et al. (2017) and Gowreesunker and Tassou (2016) for boilers.
SS1- production and treatment activities Apart from the purchased costs of the different equipment, other items
Outputs to technosphere have been considered: costs of the hydraulic and electrical connections
N-Mineral fertilizer to SS2 (g) 7.78 7.37 (as 15% of the equipment costs). The indirect costs of execution were re-
N-biofertilizer to SS2 (g) 9.50 11.88 lated to the general costs of the construction company (15% of the
P-biofertilizer to SS2 (g) 6.87 6.87
K-biofertilizer to SS2 (g) 18.11 2.61
equipment and connection costs) and profits of the construction com-
Outputs to the environment pany (10% of the equipment and connection costs) (Acampa et al.,
Treated water (L) – 4508.11 2019). A lifetime of 30 years and a discount rate of 5% were assumed
SS2- gardening activities
(Karczmarczyk et al., 2021). Thus, all assets have been amortized annu-
Inputs from technosphere ally at a constant depreciation rate (12%) and the residual value has
N-Mineral fertilizer from SS1 (g) 7.78 7.37 been assumed zero (Ernst and Young, 2018). Because of the long-time
N-biofertilizer to SS1 (g) 9.50 11.88 horizon selected for the economic analysis of BW treatment facility,
P-biofertilizer to SS1 (g) 6.87 6.87
new investments for machinery replacement have been considered.
K-biofertilizer to SS1 (g) 18.11 2.61
Outputs to technosphere The OPEX includes all costs (variable and fixed) of goods and ser-
Bell peppers (kg) 1.05 1.05 vices for the daily operation and management of the facilities as well
Carrots (kg) 0.89 0.89 as the benefits from the sale of the products. The cost of the water con-
Cabbages (kg) 0.83 0.83 sumed in households varies from one European country to another with
Bush Beans (kg) 0.89 0.89
prices ranging from 1.07 to 9.32 €/m3 for 2020 (prices for Bulgaria and
Outputs to the environment
Emissions into air Denmark, respectively) (EurEau, 2020). However, these costs are al-
N2O- Direct (g) 0.27 0.30 ready undertaken directly by the users and, thus, the costs associated
N2O- Indirect (g) 0.10 0.12 with water demand are not covered by the overall budget of the
NH3 (g) 3.26 3.79
decentralized wastewater treatment plant and they were left out of
NO (g) 2.98 2.87
Emissions into water the ELCC boundaries. For similar reasons, the ultra-low vacuum toilets,
PO−34 (g) 0.18 0.18 and sewer system (collection and conveyance) costs were not included.
NO− 3 (g) 18.86 20.47 The total variable cost of energy, such as heat or electricity, is estimated
a
This column includes all the inventory of the hybrid scenarios. Same inventory for all from the Energy Price Data Visualization Tool of Eurostat (Canaj et al.,
of them in subsystem SS2. 2021). The average European price of electricity for a non-domestic

5
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

100%
consumer with a demand lower than 20 MWh is 0.26 €·kWh−1 and that
of natural gas for heat production is 0.06 €·kWh−1 (Eurostat, 2020). As
there is not consumption of chemicals in the BW decentralized system 80%

Relative contribution (%)


analysed, the operational costs are associated only with the electricity
demand. In this sense, electricity consumption is a drawback from an 60%
economic point of view. The BW pumping from the storage tank to
the thermophilic anaerobic reactor has been assumed as the only 40%
main consumer device because the energy required by the reactor is
supplied by heat from the revalorization of the produced biogas.
20%
Fertilizer transportation costs were considered insignificant because
they were applied in the residential area under the concept of urban
0%
farming. Part-time staff labour costs were included in the estimates for CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS CS DBS
occasional maintenance (2 h per week for the normal operation, 4 h GW SOD TA FE ME TET FET MET FRS
extra for the monthly maintenance and 8 h twice every year for general Impact categories

maintenance) (Jung et al., 2018). Other costs included were insurance Centralized Scenario (CS) Decentralized Baseline Scenario (DBS)

and taxes, supervision and general services. Wastewater treatment CS Wastewater treatment DBS
On-field emissions CS On-field emissions DBS
Revenues can be expected from the operation of the BW
Nitrogen producon CS Nitrogen producon DBS
decentralized treatment facility. Prices have not been assumed constant Compost transport CS
for these estimates and the Harmonized Consumer Prices Index (HCPI)
has been considered to be 2.20% (average European value of the last Fig. 2. Distribution of burdens between the contributing processes involved and
20 years) (European Central Bank, 2021). Internal benefits come from comparison of the DBS (Decentralized Baseline Scenario) and CS (Centralized Scenario)
the excess heat that is exported to nearby households as well as from scenarios. GW: Global Warming; SOD: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion; TA: Terrestrial
the valorization of biofertilizers in crop cultivation and fees from the acidification; FE: Freshwater Eutrophication; ME: Marine Eutrophication; TET:
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity; MET: Marine Ecotoxicity; FRS: Fossil Resource Scarcity.
wastewater service imposed to users. The prices of nutrients such as ni-
trogen, phosphorus and potassium (as fertilizer components) can be es-
timated from the reported values of mineral fertilizers (nitrogen, DAP or
diammonium phosphate and potassium chloride) (World Bank Group,
2020). of the greatest environmental impacts of agricultural systems. Parajuli
Operational external costs are calculated as a way to compensate for et al. (2017) have demonstrated the large impact on the environment
environmental pollution from the monetization of LCA results, which of the use of synthetic fertilizers to produce raw materials that can be
reports the conversion of the physical environmental impacts into fi- used in biorefineries. Ghasempour and Ahmadi (2018) and Romeiko
nancial ones according to the set of environmental prices provided by (2019) have also reached the same conclusion for food crops of corn,
De Bruyn et al. (2018) for the ReCiPe midpoint impact categories soybean and wheat. Unlike these studies, in this manuscript the nutri-
(Hunkeler et al., 2008). Thus, the environmental costs were estimated ents obtained for a small-scale agricultural system located in an urban
translating the LCA results of a gate-to-gate assessment for the BW area come mainly from the valorization of wastewater resources, al-
decentralized treatment for the impact categories analysed. Since the though in both cases the indirect impacts due to the production of fertil-
environmental impact contribution of the construction phase has been izers and transport and direct emissions derivative from their
assumed negligible in the LCA assessment, the externality costs of the application can be clearly differentiated. Thus, the results of the central-
construction stage were also disregarded. ized and hybrid scenario were disaggregated in Fig. 2. The following four
Finally, the total costs are represented by the Net Present Value processes stand out in the environmental profile: production of N-based
(NPV), as shown in Eq. (1) where n and i are the life span and the dis- mineral fertilizer, the wastewater treatment, diffuse emissions from the
count rate, respectively (Hermelink and Jarger de, 2015). application of fertilizers in the garden and the transportation of the
compost produced in the centralized facility.
OPEX The main difference on the environmental profile of the scenarios is
NPV ¼ CAPEX þ ∑ ð1Þ
n ð1 þ iÞn given by the environmental impacts of the biofertilizer production pro-
cess (wastewater treatment facility). This process represents the
highest environmental impact in most categories (80–98%), except for
3. Results and discussion SOD (20.1%) and TA (55.7%). For this reason, the comparison between
the DBS and CS scenarios is mainly due to the different characteristics
3.1. Environmental outcomes of the wastewater treatment systems. Various studies have demon-
strated the reduction of the environmental impact of decentralized
3.1.1. Comparison between the decentralized baseline scenario (DBS) and wastewater systems when they are compared to centralized facilities
the centralized scenario (CS) (Ishii and Boyer, 2015; Opher and Friedler, 2016; Romeiko, 2020; Xue
The comparative results of the life cycle impact assessment of the et al., 2016). Even though, there are others more sceptical about these
DBS and CS scenarios are shown in Fig. 2. Based on the outcomes of environmental benefits. Rish et al. (2021) have studied and compared
the analysis, there is a notable difference in the total relative contribu- six wastewater management scenarios. They have concluded that cen-
tion profile between the baseline scenario DBS considering tralized systems better manage their emissions (less impact on the eco-
decentralized BW treatment and the one corresponding to a total (BW system category) while decentralized ones are best on the category of
and GW) centralized treatment. For all categories, the total loads of resources. Besides, the environmental improvement is also dependant
the hybrid scenario are minor than those of the centralized scenario. on the length of the drain connections. Igos et al. (2012) obtained incon-
The mayor difference in the total environmental profile between both clusive results when both types of facilities were compared considering
scenarios is given by the FRS category (74.8% of reduction) followed the removal of pharmaceutical compounds. The comparison between
by TET (70.1%), MET (66.8%) and FET (66.7%). both types of systems is complex since it depends on the technologies
The production of fertilizers to supply the necessary nutrients to en- used, the segregation at source of the wastewater, the specificity of
ergy and food plantations is, together with the emissions derived from the local conditions and the objective of the study. Differences on the
their application and the use of machinery (in large-scale crops), one environmental impact have also been detected between different

6
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

types of small-scale facilities (Lourenço and Nunes, 2021; Machado located in the influent in the TAD are the only equipment with environ-
et al., 2007; Lopsik, 2013; Garfí et al., 2017; Gallagher and Gill, 2021). mental repercussions in the decentralized BW treatment. The water re-
The production of mineral nitrogen fertilizer in DBS is an environ- duction in the toilets should be accompanied by an electricity reduction.
mental hotspot in the category of SOD (29%) although also affects to As illustrated in Fig. 3, this energy consumption is relevant in all impact
other categories such as GW (5.8%), TET (9.6%), FET (3.8%), MET categories but marine eutrophication with an upper and lower range
(3.4%) and FRS (4.7%) due to the background processes involved in its values of 8–12% for the remaining categories. Moreover, the CO2
production which entail emissions of N2O, contributing to GW and gaseous emissions from burning the biogas in the boiler are also
SOD and metals (Cu and V among others) accounting for ecotoxicity. significant in GW (13%).
The transportation of the compost produced in the centralized facility
is only relevant in the TET (8.7%, heavy metal emissions from fuel) in 3.1.3. Energy for wastewater treatment in subsystems SS1- DBS and SS1-CS
the CS scenario being below 0.6% in the remaining impact categories. Table 3 disaggregates the energy consumption from the cradle
On-field emissions from the application of fertilizers play a key role and per functional unit of the subsystem SS1 (production of mineral
in SOD (63%, dinitrogen monoxide), TA (66%, ammonia) and ME (45%, nitrogen fertilizer not included). Extraction and treatment of the
nitrate) for DBS. It should be noted that the estimation of these emis- water, the tap water and wastewater pumping, and the wastewater
sions considers the emission factors established by EMEP/EEA (2019), treatment were the stages analysed. Considering the drinking
where the factor applied to nitrogen emission in the form of ammonia water supply, the energy consumption associated with drinking
is double in the case of biofertilizer application instead of mineral- water purification is estimated to be around 0.42 kWh·m−3, a
based fertilizers. However, similar mass quantity of mineral fertilizers value in line with the results reported by Wakeel et al. (2016)
was used in both scenarios (7.78 g N·m−2 for DBS and 7.37 g N·m−2 (0.01–0.44 kWh·m−3), Majid et al. (2020) (0.46–0.92 kWh·m−3),
for CS) and thus differences between scenarios on the environmental Porse et al. (2020) (0.32–0.65 kWh·m −3 ), Yoon et al. (2018)
profile related to on-field emissions (also to mineral nitrogen produc- (0.17–0.96 kWh·m−3) and Smith and Liu (2017) (0.29 kWh·m−3)
tion) were not significant. and Macharia et al. (2021) (0.2–4.07 kWh·m−3).
Tap water is transported through a 40 km network pipeline to the
3.1.2. Environmental performance of the wastewater treatment in dwellings. The energy consumption for this activity (independent of
subsystem DBS-SS1 wastewater treatment) is 5 · 10−3 kWh·m−3·km−1 (Plappally and
The wastewater treatment of the hybrid scheme (DBS-SS1), where Lienhard, 2012). The differences in water demand for the ultra-low vac-
the biofertilizers are produced, can be designated as the stage with the uum and conventional toilets: 0.3 m3·d−1 and 4.17 m3·d−1, imply dif-
highest contribution in seven impact categories: GW, FE, ME, TET, FET, ferent electricity consumption for the BW pumping for the same
MET and FRS. The relative characterization results corresponding to specific energy and distance (5 · 10−3 kWh·m−3·km−1 and 40 km).
the subsystem SS1 (focusing on wastewater management) of scenario Gu et al. (2017) reported values of 0.02–0.37 kWh·m−3 for wastewater
DBS are shown in Fig. 3. Considering the profile shown in this figure, collection and pumping. The consumption of energy to pump GW can
three processes involved in the system play key roles according to the be similarly estimated.
impact categories analysed: the GW treatment, the tap water supply, Despite the high energy consumption of the vacuum toilets in
the energy consumed in the vacuum toilets. The grey water treatment the BW treatment of DBS, the net balance is negative (self-sustain-
in a centralized plant is behind the worst results, which is attributed able) which reduces considerably the global energy balance of the
to the energy demand for aeration and the consumption of sodium alu- hybrid system. The use of vacuum toilets with a stream segregation
minate in the secondary treatment. The impact is as low as 43% (SOD) at source and decentralization prevents the phenomena of dilution,
and as high as 97% (ME). The tap water supply to the households is which translates into better energy recovery (Capodaglio, 2017).
also relevant with shares from 2% (ME) to 48% (SOD). Thus, the imple- Then, this wastewater system can be classified as high-energy pro-
mentation of ultra-low vacuum toilets for the collection of faces and duction process due to the generation of thermal energy from bio-
urines reduces the environmental impact related to water consumption. gas during the treatment of concentrated black water by anaerobic
However, the ultra-low vacuum toilets and sewer system and the pump digestion. In a large-scale digestion process at room temperature,
energy requirements are in the range of 0.05–0.1 kWh·m −3 due
to pumping needs (de Mes et al., 2003). However, small facilities
are affected by the diseconomies of scale in the energy consump-
100%
tion and production. Thus, in the BW treatment of the DBS scenario
80% the energy demand per pumping reaches 2.96 kWh·m−3 per BW
influent. The energetic effects according to the size of the facilities
60%
Relative contribution (%)

have been addressed in multiple studies. For example, Vaccari et al.


40% (2018) have investigated four types of Italian facilities according to
their size to identify their potential for energy savings. The energy
20%
needs of small plants (<2000 population equivalent) was around of
0% 0.21–1.77 kWh·m−3 while in larger installations (>100,000 popula-
GW SOD TA FE ME TET FET MET FRS tion equivalent) this demand reduced to 0.14–0.71 kWh·m−3 .
-20%
Christoforidou et al. (2020) have reported similar results with values
-40% above 245 kWh·person−1 ·year−1 for small plants and values be-
Impact categories
tween 22 and 95 kWh kWh·person−1 ·year −1 for large facilities.
Vacuum toilet and sewer system Centralised grey water treatment
Decentralized
Thermophilic Anaerobic digester (TAD) Reclaimed water
Many other studies have shown this increase in the ratio between
black water
treatment Black water feed pump Recovery of heat the size of water treatment plants and energy consumption
Emissions from the boiler Recovery of electricity (Trapote et al., 2014; Gu et al., 2017).
Tap water supply The consumption of the thermal energy necessary to increase the
temperature of the influent up to 55 °C in the anaerobic digestion is off-
Fig. 3. Environmental profile of the hybrid wastewater treatment process included in SS1 set by the energy produced from the revalorization of the biogas. De-
for the DBS (Decentralized Baseline Scenario) scenario. GW: Global Warming; SOD:
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion; TA: Terrestrial acidification; FE: Freshwater
spite the energy disadvantage, the increase in temperature contributes
Eutrophication; ME: Marine Eutrophication; TET: Terrestrial Ecotoxicity; MET: Marine to the removal of pathogens. The concern about the risks of applying
Ecotoxicity; FRS: Fossil Resource Scarcity. biofertilizers in agricultural systems (not only environmental but also

7
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

Table 3
Summary of the energy balance per type of facility express as kWh/m2·y.

CSa,d DBS (BW-GW)d DBS (BW)c

Energy consumption Extraction and treatment of watere 1.88 0.53 0.01


Pumping of tap water 0.90 0.26 4.08 · 10−3
Wastewater transportation to treatment 0.90 0.41 0.27
Wastewater treatment electricity demand 1.66 0.53 0.06
Wastewater treatment heat demand – – –
Net energy production Electricity production (WWTP/DWTP) −0.06b – –
Heat production (WWTP/DWTP) – −0.77 −0.77
Net balance 5.29 0.96 −0.42
a
The biological treatment of the facilities is the typical aerobic activated sludge.
b
Energy recovered through the anaerobic digestion of the sludge.
c
Only black water is treated.
d
Treatment with black water and grey water.
e
Energy from extraction and treatment only includes pumping and direct energy in the water treatment. Energy from chemical production is excluded.

human health) including micro-pollutants (both microbial and heavy The difference between scenarios DBS and DRS is the electricity con-
metals and antibiotic compounds) has led to the appearance of new sumption data of vacuum toilets. The possibility of changing the toilet
standards for their regulation. Several studies have analysed in depth for a more energy efficient one is being evaluated. A reduction close to
the new legislative aspects that affect both solid and liquid organic fer- 42% of electricity consumption has been assumed in Scenario DRS con-
tilizers. Some of them are Collivignarelli et al. (2019), Reuland et al. sidering a bibliographic data as detailed in Section 2.1. A European aver-
(2021), Rosemarin et al. (2020) and Lavnić et al. (2017). age profile has been considered for the estimation of the environmental
The wastewater pumping has higher energy demand for the hybrid loads associated with the production of the required electricity. This as-
system than the centralized system per habitant equivalent (25.88 and sumption implies a noticeable improvement in categories such as GW
19.47 kWh·person−1·year−1) for a distance of 40 km of centralized (−3.6%), TA (−1.7%), FE (−5.2%), TET (−3.0%), FET (−5.3%), MET
sewer network. However, the installation of the vacuum toilets has (−5.3%) and FRS (−7.0%). The relative profile associated with this sce-
proven to reduce this energy demand for higher length of the sewerage nario is depicted in Fig. 4. The burdens of the hybrid treatment scheme
infrastructure. Jóżwiakowski et al. (2018) has reported a 71.62 km sew- integrated with the urban farming concept are lower due to the reduc-
age system and 114.6 km water supply system for Zamość (Poland). tion in electricity demand in the toilets. The GW impact category has ex-
Table 3 shows how per square meter of land fertigated with perienced a 4.15% of reduction if related only to the wastewater
biofertilizers this energy consumption is lower for the hybrid system. treatment and not to the recovery of nutrients in the crops. Zawartka
If expressed per habitant equivalent, the hybrid (from cradle to gate of et al. (2020) have obtained similar lowering of GW emissions (3.65%)
the facility) also has a better environmental profile. Around 79.57 and
75.75 kWh·person−1·year−1 are needed for the CS and DBS systems,
respectively. The segregation of the wastewater from source to obtain
a concentrated BW stream to recover energy is a good strategy to de- GW
crease the negative effects on the environment related to the energy
consumption.
100%
As shown in Table 3, the hybrid system has lower energy require- FRS 80% SOD
ments for pumping and treatment of the tap water. The energy con-
sumed was 60.11 and 49.86 kWh·person−1·year−1 for each of them 60%
(CS and DBS, respectively). The reason is related to the lower tap
water requirements of the toilet which implies a lower energy de- 40%
mand for treatment and pumping to the houses. In both cases the dif-
ference in the energy demand is around 17%. This deviation is higher MET 20% TA
(72%) when the results are expressed per functional unit (square
meter of land fertigated). Considering only extraction, treatment
0%
and pumping of the tap water the energy consumed was 3.69 and
1.20 kWh·m−2·year−1 for scenarios CS and DBS. The disparity in re-
sults is related to the amount of nutrients recovered from the treat-
ment processes and used in the land. The hybrid system is more FET FE
efficient recovering nutrients from the wastewater and thus more
land can be fertilized.

3.1.4. Environmental performance of scenarios DRS, DSS and DJS TET ME


The reduction of the environmental impact goes through a sustain-
able design of the treatment facilities with a decrease on the consump-
tion of materials and energy or with an exchange of the resources for
other more environmentally friendly (Machado et al., 2007). LCA stud- DBS DRS DSS DJS
ies have revealed that the fossil based-energy consumption is the
main contributor to environmental pollution during wastewater treat- Fig. 4. Comparative relative profile of the scenarios with reduction in energy demand
ment and not only for the decentralized processes (Takeshita et al., (DRS), with renewable energy (DSS) or with joint implementation of energy reduction
and renewable source (DJS) with the baseline scenario (DBS). GW: Global Warming;
2020; Szulc et al., 2021). A reduction in energy consumption can be SOD: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion; TA: Terrestrial acidification; FE: Freshwater
achieved using internal resources (energy from biogas), using more ef- Eutrophication; ME: Marine Eutrophication; TET: Terrestrial Ecotoxicity; MET: Marine
ficient equipment or through proper system operation. Ecotoxicity; FRS: Fossil Resource Scarcity.

8
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

when they have increase (around a 10%) the use of biogas to produce scenario DBS, the novel scenario that has just been established in a
electricity in a centralized facility. neighbourhood, is 22.26 mPt. This score is 1.03, 1.10 and 1.10 times
On the other side, renewable energy can be used instead of fossil higher than those of scenarios DRS, DSS and DJS respectively, which
fuels, contributing to the decarbonization of treatment plants. Some have been designed on the basis of scenario DBS but reducing electricity
possibilities are hydroelectric energy, photovoltaics, or the generation demand by vacuum toilets, considering solar panels to meet electricity
of electricity from the incineration of sludge. The energy source to sup- needs or taken into account both measures. For this reason, this strategy
ply the electricity required by the vacuum toilets and feed pump to the could support the installation of solar panels on building terraces and
TAD in the scenario DSS is solar energy. Muñoz et al. (2006), Guo et al. vacuum toilets with lower energy demand. Thus, the four proposed in-
(2019) and Drouiche et al. (2013) are some examples of solar energy in- novative scenarios can be considered potential substitutes for the cen-
tegration in wastewater treatment plants. The change in supply pro- tralized system according to the environmental profile.
posed for the DSS scenario leads to remarkable environmental Based on the results of the DRS scenario and due to the large difference
benefits in all categories (except in ME and SOD). The largest environ- of electricity demand and water consumption per flush identified in the
mental improvement in DSS occurs in FRS (around 18.5%) due to the literature for the vacuum toilets, a sensitivity analysis has been performed
non-dependence on fossil resources to produce the electricity required to identify the influence of these parameters. For comparison, the electric-
by the toilets (to supply tap water and vacuum BW). The quantification ity demand was taken directly from the European grid in all scenarios,
of the environmental impact decrease by taking both measures has which is the current situation in the pilot neighbourhood. Fig. 6 shows
been carried out with the DJS scenario. The improvement for each cate- the comparative profiles between the four alternative scenarios proposed
gory was: GW (−9.5%), TA (−4.5%), FE (−13.9%), TET (−7.9%), FET for this sensitivity analysis as described in Section 2.1.
(−14.1%), MET (−14.0%) and FRS (−18.5%). The impacts of the sce- Considering these profiles, only scenarios L (Lower energy demand)
nario DJS are quite like to those of scenario DSS. Once the impact has and W (different water consumption) are competitive with the estab-
been reduced considerably with the measures taken in scenarios DRS lished novel scenario (scenario DBS, Fig. 5) although only scenario W
and DSS, changes in the energy in the vacuum toilets result in negligible enhances the environmental profile when compared to DRS. This sce-
impacts compared to the other processes of the system. nario results in 5.6% and 2.2% reduction in the environmental score in
relationship to DBS and DRS. Although this scenario requires twice the
3.1.5. Comparison between scenarios and sensitivity analysis water consumption, it is energy optimized implying an 88% reduction
The scenarios DBS, DRS, DSS and DJS proposed for analysis incorpo- in the electrical demand in the toilets. Scenarios DSS and DJS should
rate the use of low-vacuum toilets in the neighbourhood, while manag- be the best option. Therefore, Scenario DBS should be further investi-
ing the wastewater in a hybrid system to satisfy both wastewater gated to make it more environmentally friendly, focusing on optimizing
treatment and the production of the necessary nutrients. the electricity consumption of the pneumatic system.
In this sense, an environmental comparison is made between the On the contrary, the other alternative scenarios (H, M and L) derive
centralized system CS and the novel ones based on an endpoint method higher environmental scores compared to scenario DRS. The demand
to have a single environmental score per system (in millipoints -mPt) for more water and electricity is behind these worse profiles. Neverthe-
and facilitate the message to stakeholders. The result of the comparison less, in all scenarios, improvements are achieved compared to the
is depicted in Fig. 5, which is intended to represent the magnitude of the
overall impact. The corresponding shares of each endpoint category and
each process involved are also represented on Fig. 5a and b per scenario.
The single score for the centralized scenario (79.75 mPt) is considerably Human Health
higher than that of the innovative systems. The estimated score for
Ecosystems
Resources

Three endpoint
indicators

23.04 22.81
mPt mPt
Scenario H
Scenario M
Scenario L
Scenario W
21.00 22.11
mPt mPt

Fig. 6. Comparative single score profiles for the DBS (Decentralized Baseline Scenario)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the magnitude of the overall impact (single score) of the different scenario with the implementation of alternative vacuum toilets (data from literature) in
hybrid scenarios and the centralized scenario. (a) Relative contribution per endpoint four differentiated scenarios (H, M, L and W). Scenario H: 25 kWh·person−1·year−1 and
impact category and (b) relative contribution per process involved. CS: Centralized 1.40 L·flush−1; Scenario M: 22.5 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1.40 L·flush−1; Scenario L:
Scenario; DBS: Decentralized Baseline Scenario; DRS: Decentralized with energy 15 kWh·person−1·year−1 and 1.40 L·flush−1; Scenario W: 4 kWh·person−1·year−1
Reduction Scenario; DSS: Decentralized with Solar energy Supply Scenario. and 1 L·flush−1.

9
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

conventional system, which supports the interest in promoting the in- decentralized wastewater treatment plant requires part-time staff for
stallation of this type of toilet combined with a decentralized system occasional maintenance, the labour costs cannot be considered negligi-
and BW segregation to simultaneously treat biowaste and produce ble for this scenario (Jung et al., 2018). Molinos-Senante et al. (2010)
biofertilizers. have estimated a cost of 0.07€·m−3 for staff in a centralized wastewater
treatment plant, which would give a total cost of 7.80 €·year−1 this fa-
3.2. Economic results cility instead of the 6080 €·year−1 estimated. The solid and liquid fertil-
izers, biogas heat yield and wastewater treatment service would
The results obtained by the NPV (Net Present Value) for the BW provide a profit of 6.08 €·m−3 of BW influent in the first year of opera-
decentralized facility included in the DBS scenario shows a lack of finan- tion but due to inflation (a rate of 2.20%) this benefit could reach
cial self-sufficiency in wastewater management. The total NPV for a dis- 11.67 €·m−3 after 30 years. On the other hand, it is assumed that the
count rate of 5% is 334,304.35€. If expressed per population equivalent costs for a user of an urban garden are those of fertilizers:
the annual average price result is 255.85 €·person−1 (replacement 0.012 €·m−2 for biofertilizers and mineral fertilizers in DBS (average
costs included). The investment for the operation and construction can- cost).
not be recovered when considering the current tariffs imposed on habi- In agreement to the Environmental Life Cycle Costing (ELCC) meth-
tants for the service of wastewater treatment (without considering that odology, environmental costs were also included for the estimation of
the imbalance is covered by public subsidies) as an income. However, the NPV although only direct external costs (currently considered
Moral Pajares et al. (2019), Reynaud (2016), Valero et al. (2018) and within the polluter pays principle) were internalized. Thus, only the im-
other studies conducted for wastewater treatment plants have demon- pact of the CO2 emissions was included in the budget, as already done by
strated that the treatment fees currently applied do not guarantee suffi- Roh et al. (2018). In the BW decentralized treatment, the direct external
cient benefits to support the investment in this type of facilities. For costs are associated to the carbon dioxide emissions in the boiler
example, Acampa et al. (2019) have calculated for different low- (0.54 €·m−3) while indirect external costs are from the impacts of the
medium size wastewater treatment plants the total parametric capital production of electricity for pumping and avoided flows. Regarding to
cost, which is in the range of 56.26–95.73 €·person−1 for 5000–4500 in- the other external costs, the most important category is TET with a rel-
habitants. Zessner et al. (2010) concluded that the annual average price ative contribution of 98.5% compared to other categories. The final envi-
in terms of wastewater treatment was at least 90 €·person−1. Maurer ronmental costs are 8.2 · 10−2 €·m−2 of land fertigated.
et al. (2005) have estimated and equivalent investment in the range
of 272–2179 US$·person−1 for decentralized wastewater treatment 4. Conclusion
plants which mainly depend on the sewer system solutions. The equa-
tion of the parametric cost curve for wastewater treatment plant of This study analyses the environmental profile of an emerging hybrid
Acampa et al. (2019) would provide a construction cost of 246.10 wastewater treatment scenario that is integrated within the concept of
€·person−1 for the same number of inhabitants of the BW facility. urban farming for resource recovery. The BW decentralized system in-
This cost is higher than the one estimated for the decentralized facility: cluded in the hybrid scenario will be study following the LCA methodol-
196.88 €·population−1 (construction and operational costs) or 36.54 ogy. Different farming-wastewater treatment scenarios have been
€·population−1 (only construction costs). The assumptions made for designed and compared with another scenario with the same character-
the first year of operation regarding the total construction, fixed and istics of the crop land but with a centralized system for wastewater
variable costs were summarized in Table 4. treatment. The environmental results show that the emerging scenarios
The operational variable costs are related to the pumping of the BW in which energy and nutrients are recovered from black water, despite
to the TAD. Approximately 0.37 €·m−3 of BW will be needed for such demanding energy in the toilets, result into an improvement for the en-
purpose. On the other hand, the fixed costs are 124.09 €·m−3 and vironment. The incorporation of the avoided heat within the system
55.52 €·m−3 of BW (45%) are related to labour costs. Although a boundaries due to the extra heat produced using biogas in a boiler im-
plies environmental credits that offset the environmental burdens de-
rived from other steps included in the decentralized system. As for the
Table 4
Inventory data for the construction, maintenance and operational costs. economic evaluation, the NPV of the BW decentralized treatment facil-
ity was 255.85 €·person−1, which is in line with the results obtained by
Economic item Unit Value Source
other studies but also reflects how the treatment fees currently applied
Black water storage tank € 1000.0 The National Tank do not guarantee sufficient benefits to support the investment. The pro-
Outlet (2021) posed configurations are appropriate for including wastewater treat-
Pump € 5000.0 Run4Life project
TAD € 28,900.0 Run4Life project
ment schemes within the circular economy, as they are flexible
Boiler € 1576.9 Sandvall et al. (2017) systems that allow resource recovery close to the point of generation.
Costs of the hydraulic and € 5471.5 Acampa et al. (2019) However, further research is needed, mainly concerning the electricity
electrical connections demand by vacuum toilets and in the centralized treatment technolo-
General costs of the construction € 6921.5 Acampa et al. (2019)
gies, as it is the bottleneck of the environmental profile.
company
Profits of the construction € 4614.3 Acampa et al. (2019)
company CRediT authorship contribution statement
Construction costs € 57,679.1 –
Working capital € 2342.3 – Sofía Estévez: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing –
Staff €·year−1 6080.0 Run4Life project
Maintenance €·year −1
2097.4 Humphreys (2005)
original draft, Visualization. Sara González-García: Methodology, Formal
Insurances and taxes €·year −1
419.5 Humphreys (2005) analysis, Writing – original draft. Gumersindo Feijoo: Validation,
Supervision €·year −1
912.0 Humphreys (2005) Writing – review & editing, Supervision. María Teresa Moreira: Concep-
General services €·year−1 4544.7 Humphreys (2005) tualization, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Fixed costs €·year−1 13,588.5 –
TAD €·year−1 0.0 –
Pump €·year−1 40.6 Eurostat (2021) Declaration of competing interest
−1
CO2 emissions €·year 59.6 Delf (2010)
Variable costs €·year−1 100.1 – The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
−1
Benefits €·year 665.4 – interest or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
NPV (Net Present Value) € 334,304.4 –
the work reported in this paper.

10
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

Acknowledgements European Central Bank, 2021. Measuring inflation – the Harmonised Index of Consumer
Prices (HICP). Retrieved September 20, 2021, from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/
stats/macroeconomic_and_sectoral/hicp/html/index.en.html.
This research was supported by the Run4Life project, which receives Eurostat, 2020. Energy Prices. Visualization Tools. Retrieved May 3, 2021, from https://ec.
funding from the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme europa.eu/eurostat/help/first-visit/tools.
Eurostat, 2021. Interactive Data visualization tool. Retrieved October 13, 2021,
(GA no 730285-1). The authors would like to thank DeSaH and WUR
fromEnergy Prices . https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/visualisation-tools.
(Wageningen University & Research) for all the support provided in Faist Emmenegger, M., Reinhard, J., Zah, R., 2009. Sustainability Quick Check for Biofuels.
data gathering. All of them belong to the Galician Competitive Research Intermediate Background Report. Dübendorf CE Delft 175.
Group (GRC ED431C 2017/29), to CRETUS (Interdisciplinary Center for Gallagher, J., Gill, L.W., 2021. The life cycle environmental performance of on-site or
decentralised wastewater treatment Systems for Domestic Homes. Water 13, 2542.
Research in Environmental Technologies) and to the department of https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182542.
chemical engineering of the University of Santiago de Compostela. Dr. Garfí, M., Flores, L., Ferrer, I., 2017. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment systems
S. González-Garcia would also like to express her gratitude to the for small communities: activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal
ponds. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.116.
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for financial support
Garrido-Baserba, M., Virnadell, S., Molinos-Senante, M., Rosso, Diego, Poch, M., 2018. The
(Grant reference RYC-2014-14984). All these programs are co-funded economics of wastewater treatment decentralization: a techno-economic evaluation.
by FEDER (EU). S. Estévez also thanks to the Spanish Ministry of Science, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (15), 8965–8976. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01623.
Innovation and Universities for financial support (Grant reference Ghasempour, A., Ahmadi, E., 2018. Evaluation of environmental effects in producing three
main crops (corn, wheat and soybean) using life cycle assessment. V-Management,
PRE2020-092074). Ergonomics and Systems Engineering. 20, p. 2.
Gowreesunker, B., Tassou, S., 2016. The impact of renewable energy policies on the adop-
References tion of anaerobic digesters with farm-fed wastes in Great Britain. Energies 9 (12),
1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9121038.
Acampa, G., Giustra, M.G., Parisi, C.M., 2019. Water treatment emergency: cost evaluation Gu, Y., Li, Y., Li, X., Luo, P., Wang, H., Wang, X., Wu, J., Li, F., 2017. Energy self-sufficient
tools. Sustainability 11, 2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092609. wastewater treatment plants: feasibilities and challenges. Energy Procedia 105,
Arias, A., Rama, M., González-García, S., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., 2020. Environmental 3741–3751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.868.
analysis of servicing centralised and decentralised wastewater treatment for popula- Guo, Z., Sun, Y., Pan, S.-Y., Chiang, P.-C., 2019. Integration of green energy and advanced
tion living in neighbourhoods. J. Water Process Eng. 37, 101469. energy-efficient Technologies for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Int.
Ashekuzzaman, S.M., Forrestal, P., Richards, K.G., Daly, K., Fenton, O., 2021. Grassland J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 (7), 1282. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071282.
phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer replacement value of dairy processing dewatered Hermelink, A., Jarger de, D., 2015. Evaluating Our Future: the Crucial Role of Discount
sludge. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 25, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11. Rates in European Commission Energy System Modelling [WWW Document]. .
017. http://www.eceee.org/policy-areas/discount-rates/ evaluating-our-future-report.
Ashok, S.S., Kumar, T., Bhalla, K., 2018. Integrated greywater management systems: a de- Herrmann, T., Hesse, T., 2002. Wastewater recycling concept for an urban multi-storey
sign proposal for efficient and decentralised greywater sewage treatment. Procedia building. Water Sci. Technol. 46 (6–7), 325–332. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.
CIRP 69, 609–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.098. 0696.
Bisschops, I., Kjerstadius, H., Meulman, B., van Eekert, M., 2019. Integrated nutrient recov- Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M.D.M.,
ery from source-separated domestic wastewaters for application as fertilizers. Curr. Hollander, A., Zijp, M., van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1. Retrieved April 30,
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 40, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.010. 2021, from. https://pre-sustainability.com/legacy/download/Report_ReCiPe_2017.
pdf.
Canaj, K., Mehmeti, A., Morrone, D., Toma, P., Todorović, M., 2021. Life cycle-based evalu-
Humphreys, Kenneth K., 2005. Project and Cost Engineers’ Handbook. Fourth edition. 0-
ation of environmental impacts and external costs of treated wastewater reuse for ir-
8247-5746-7.
rigation: a case study in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126142. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2021.126142. Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. SETAC /
CRC Press, USA ISBN: 1420054708,9781420054705.
Capodaglio, A.G., 2017. Integrated, decentralized wastewater Management for Resource
Recovery in rural and peri-urban areas. Resources 6 (2), 22. https://doi.org/10. Igos, E., Benetto, E., Venditti, S., Kohler, C., Cornelissen, A., Moeller, R., Biwer, A., 2012. Is it
3390/resources6020022. better to remove pharmaceuticals in decentralized or conventional wastewater treat-
ment plant? A life cycle assessment comparison. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 533–540.
Christoforidou, P., Bariamis, G., Iosifidou, M., Nikolaidou, E., Samaras, P., 2020. Energy
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.096.
benchmarking and optimization of wastewater treatment plants in Greece. Environ.
IPCC, 2019. N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2. Emissions from lime and urea
Sci. Proc. 2 (1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/environsciproc2020002036.
application. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Cirelli, G.L., Consoli, S., Di Grande, V., 2008. 218 (1–3), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Gas Inventories, pp. 1–48.
desal.2006.09.030.
Ishii, S.K.L., Boyer, T.H., 2015. Life cycle comparison of centralized wastewater treatment
Collivignarelli, M.C., Abbà, A., Frattarola, A., Carnevale Miino, M., Padovani, S., Katsoyiannis, I.,
and urine source separation with struvite precipitation: focus on urine nutrient man-
Torretta, V., 2019. Legislation for the reuse of biosolids on agricultural land in Europe:
agement. Water Res. 79, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.04.010.
overview. Sustainability 11, 6015. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216015.
Jóżwiakowski, K., Podbrożna, D., Kopczacka, K., Jaguś, M., Marzec, M., Listosz, A., Malik, A.,
Consultants, P.R.é, 2021. SimaPro Database Manual. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from 2018. The state of water and wastewater management in the municipalities of the
Methods library, The Netherlands. https://simapro.com/wp-content/ Roztocze National Park. Journal of Ecological Engineering 19 (2), 255–262. https://
uploads/2020/10/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf. doi.org/10.12911/22998993/84764.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A., 2013. Life Jung, Y.T., Narayanan, N.C., Cheng, Y.L., 2018. Cost comparison of centralized and
cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res. 47 decentralized wastewater management systems using optimization model.
(15), 5480–5492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.049. J. Environ. Manag. 213, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.081.
Craddock, H.A., Rjoub, Y., Jones, K., Lipchin, C., Sapkota, A.R., 2021. Perceptions on the use Karczmarczyk, A., Bus, A., Baryła, A., 2021. Assessment of the efficiency, environmental
of recycled water for produce irrigation and household tasks: a comparison between and economic effects of compact type on-site wastewater treatment Plants—results
Israeli and Palestinian consumers. J. Environ. Manag. 297, 113234. https://doi.org/10. from random testing. Sustainability 13, 982. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020982.
1016/j.jenvman.2021.113234. Kobayashi, Y., Ashbolt, N.J., Davies, E.G.R., Liu, Y., 2020. Life cycle assessment of
De Bruyn, S., Bijleveld, M., de Graaff, L., Schep, E., Schroten, A., Vergeer, R., Ahdour, S., decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different scales in cold re-
2018. Environmental Prices Handbook EU28 Version CE Delft 175. gions. Environ. Int. 134, 105215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105215.
Delf, 2010. Valuation and Weighting of Emissions and Environmental Impacts. Re- Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Elmitwalli, T., Zeeman, G., 2006. Enhanced primary treatment of
trieved October 13, 2021, from https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/ concentrated black water and kitchen residues within DESAR concept using two
sites/2/2021/04/7788_defMainReportMaKMV_1271765427.pdf. types of anaerobic digesters. Water Science & Technology 53 (9), 159–168. https://
Dorr, E., Goldstein, B., Horvath, A., Aubry, C., Gabrielle, B., 2021. Environmental impacts doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.265.
and resource use of urban agriculture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Envi- Lavnić, S., Zapater-Pereyra, M., Mancini, M.L., 2017. Water scarcity and wastewater reuse
ron. Res. Lett. 16 (9), 093002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1a39. standards in southern Europe: focus on agriculture. Water Air Soil Pollut. 228, 217.
Drouiche, N., Djouadi-Belkada, F., Ouslimane, T., Kefaifi, A., Fathi, J., Ahmetovic, E., 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3425-2.
Photovoltaic solar cells industry wastewater treatment. Des. Water Treat. 51 Lam, Leung, Ka, Zlatanović, Ljiljana, van der Hoek, Jan Peter, 2020. Life cycle assessment of
(31–33), 5965–5973. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.763217. nutrient recycling from wastewater: A critical review. Water Research 173, 115519.
EMEP/EEA, 2019. Crop production and agricultural soils. Air Pollutant Emission Inventory https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115519.
Guidebook 2019, pp. 1–35 https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-159749152-5/50001-2 CE Libhaber, M., Orozco-Jaramillo, A., 2012. Sustainable Treatment and Reuse of Municipal
Delft 175. Wastewater. IWA Publishing, London 9781780400631 https://doi.org/10.2166/
Ernst, Young, 2018. Worldwide Capital and Fixed Assets Guide. Retrieved September 20, 9781780400631.
2021 from. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/tax/ Lohrberg, Frank, Scazzosi, Lionella, Lićka, Lilli, Timpe, Axel, 2016. Urban Agriculture
guides/worldwide-capital-and-fixed-assets-guide-2018.pdf. Europe. JOVIS Verlag 978-3-86859-371-6.
EurEau, 2020. The Governance of Water Services in Europe. Retrieved May 3, 2021, Lopsik, K., 2013. Life cycle assessment of small-scale constructed wetland and extended
from2020 edition. 978-2-9602226-2-3. https://www.eureau.org/resources/ aeration activated sludge wastewater treatment system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.
publications/5268-the-governance-of-water-services-in-europe-2020-edition-2/file. 10, 1295–1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-012-0159-y.

11
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

Lourenço, N., Nunes, L.M., 2021. Life-cycle assessment of decentralized solutions for Puchongkawarin, C., 2015. Optimisation-based Methodology for the Design and Operation of
wastewater treatment in small communities. Water Sci. Technol., wst2021379 Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Retrieved May 5, 2021, from Imperial
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2021.379. College London. https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk:8443/bitstream/10044/1/44211/1/P
Machado, A.P., Urbano, L., Brito, A.G., Jahnnecht, P., Salas, L.L., Nogueira, R., 2007. Life cycle uchongkawarin-C-2016-PhD-Thesis.pdf.
assessment of wastewater treatment options for small and decentralized communi- Qureshi, A.S., 2020. Challenges and prospects of using treated wastewater to manage
ties. Water Sci. Technol. 56 (3), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.497. water scarcity crises in the Gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Water 12 (7),
Macharia, P., Wirth, M., Yillia, P., Kreuzinger, N., 2021. Examining the relative impact of 1971. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071971.
drivers on energy input for municipal water supply in Africa. Sustainability 13 (15), Rashid, S.S., Liu, Y.Q., 2020. Assessing environmental impacts of large centralized waste-
8480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158480. water treatment plants with combined or separate sewer systems in dry/wet seasons
Majid, A., Cardenes, I., Zorn, C., Russell, T., Colquhoun, K., Bañares-Alcantara, R., Hall, J.W., by using LCA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 15674–15690. https://doi.org/10.1007/
2020. An analysis of electricity consumption patterns in the water and wastewater s11356-020-08038-2.
sectors in south East EnglandUK. 12 (1), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010225. Remy, C., Jekel, M., 2012. Energy analysis of conventional and source-separation systems
Malila, R., Lehtoranta, S., Viskari, E.L., 2019. The role of source separation in nutrient re- for urban wastewater management using life cycle assessment. Water Sci. Technol.
covery – comparison of alternative wastewater treatment systems. J. Clean. Prod. 65 (1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.766.
219, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.024. Resende, J.D., Antunes Nolasco, M., Almeida Pacca, S., 2019. Life cycle assessment and
Maurer, M., Rothenberger, D., Larsen, T.A., 2005. Decentralised wastewater treatment costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour.
technologies from a national perspective: at what cost are they competitive? Water Conserv. Recycl. 148, 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.034.
Supply 5 (6), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2005.0059. Reuland, G., Sigurnjak, I., Dekker, H., Michels, E., Meers, E., 2021. The potential of digestate and
de Mes, T.Z.D., Stams, A.J.M., Reith, J.H., Zeeman, G., 2003. Methane production by anaer- the liquid fraction of digestate as chemical fertiliser substitutes under the RENURE
obic digestion of wastewater and solid wastes. Bio-methane & Bio-hydrogen: status criteria. Agronomy 11 (7), 1374. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071374.
and perspectives of biological methane and hydrogen production. Sectie
Reynaud, A., 2016. Assessing the impact of full cost recovery of water services on euro-
Milieutechnologie. Laboratorium voor Microbiologie.
pean households. Water Resour. Econ. 14, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.
Mohr, M., Beckett, M., Schließmann, U., Erlbeck, R., Trosse, R., 2018. Vacuum sewerage
2016.04.001.
systems – a solution for fast growing cities in developing countries? Water Pract.
Rish, E., Boutin, C., Roux, P., 2021. Applying life cycle assessment to assess the environ-
Technol. 13 (1), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2018.028.
mental performance of decentralised versus centralised wastewater systems. Water
Molinos-Senante, M., Hernández-Sancho, F., Sala-Garrido, R., 2010. Economic feasibility
Res. 196, 116991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.116991.
study for wastewater treatment: a cost–benefit analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 408
(20), 4396–4402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.014. Roh, S., Tae, S., Kim, R., 2018. Development of a streamlined environmental life cycle cost-
ing model for buildings in South Korea. Sustainability 10 (6), 1733. https://doi.org/10.
Moral Pajares, E., Gallego Valero, L., Román Sánchez, I.M., 2019. Cost of urban wastewater
3390/su10061733.
treatment and ecotaxes: evidence from municipalities in southern Europe. Water
(Switzerland) 11, 423. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030423. Romeiko, X.X., 2019. A comparative life cycle assessment of crop systems irrigated with
Morelli, B., Cashman, S., Ma, X.S., Garland, J., Turgeon, J., Fillmore, L., Bless, D., Nye, M., the groundwater and reclaimed water in northern China. Sustainability 11 (10),
2018. Effect of nutrient removal and resource recovery on life cycle cost and environ- 2743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102743.
mental impacts of a small scale water resource recovery facility. Sustainability 10 Romeiko, X.X., 2020. Assessing health impacts of conventional centralized and emerging
(10), 3546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103546. resource recovery-oriented decentralized water systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Morera, S., Corominas, Ll, Rigola, M., Poch, M., Comas, J., 2017. Using a detailed inventory Health 17 (3), 973.. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030973.
of a large wastewater treatment plant to estimate the relative importance of con- Rosemarin, A., Macura, B., Carolus, J., Barquet, K., Ek, F., Järnberg, L., Lorick, D.,
struction to the overall environmental impacts. Water Res. 122, 614–623. https:// Johannesdottir, S., Pedersen, S.M., Koskiaho, J., Haddaway, N.R., Okruszko, T., 2020.
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.069. Circular nutrient solutions for agriculture and wastewater – a review of technologies
Moretti, C., Corona, B., Edwards, R., Junginger, M., Moro, A., Rocco, M., Shen, L., 2020. and practices. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Reviewing ISO compliant multifunctionality practices in environmental life cycle cosust.2020.09.007.
modeling. Energies 13 (14), 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13143579. Santana, M.V.E., Cornejo, P.K., Rodríguez-Roda, I., Buttiglieri, G., Corominas, L., 2019. Holis-
Münch, E., Winker, M., 2009. Technology Review ‘Vacuum Technology’. Edited by Ecosan tic life cycle assessment of water reuse in a tourist-based community. J. Clean. Prod.
Program – Deutsche Gesellscahft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. Retrieved April 30, 233, 743–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.290.
2021, from. http://forum.susana.org/media/kunena/attachments/52/gtz-ecosan-tds- Sandvall, A.F., Ahlgren, E.O., Ekvall, T., 2017. Cost-efficiency of urban heating strategies –
vacuum-technology.pdf. modelling scale effects of low-energy building heat supply. Energy Strategy Rev. 18,
Muñoz, I., Peral, J., Ayllón, J.A., Malato, S., Passarinho, P., Doménech, X., 2006. Life cycle as- 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.10.003.
sessment of a coupled solar photocatalytic–biological process for wastewater treat- Sato, N., Okubo, T., Onodera, T., Agrawal, L., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2007. Economic evalu-
ment. Water Res. 40 (19), 3533–3540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.08.001. ation of sewage treatment processes in India. J. Environ. Manag. 84 (4), 447–460.
Ofori, S., Puškáčová, A., Růžičková, I., Wanner, J., 2021. Treated wastewater reuse for irri- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.019.
gation: pros and cons. Sci. Total Environ. 760, 144026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Szulc, P., Kasprzak, J., Dymaczewski, Z., Kurczewski, P., 2021. Life cycle assessment of mu-
scitotenv.2020.144026. nicipal wastewater treatment processes regarding energy production from the sludge
Opher, T., Friedler, E., 2016. Comparative LCA of decentralized wastewater treatment al- line. Energies 14 (2), 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020356.
ternatives for non-potable urban reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 182, 464–476. https:// Sheikh, B., Nelson, K.L., Haddad, B., Thebo, A., 2018. Grey water: agricultural use of
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.080. reclaimed water in California. J. Contemp. Res. Educ. 165 (1), 28–41. https://doi.
Vacuum, Otter, 2021. Toilets. . http://www.ottervacuum.co.uk/products. org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2018.03291.x.
Parajuli, R., Knudsen, M.T., Djomo, S.N., Corona, A., Birkved, M., Dalgaard, T., 2017. Envi- Sheikh, M., Fakhrul, I., Zahurul, K., 2019. World’s demand for food and water: the conse-
ronmental life cycle assessment of producing willow, alfalfa and straw from spring quences of climate change. In: Farahani, Mohammad Hossein Davood Abadi,
barley as feedstocks for bioenergy or biorefinery systems. Sci. Total Environ. 586, Vatanpour, Vahid, Taheri, Amir Hooshang (Eds.), Desalination - Challenges and Op-
226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.207. portunities. IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85919.
Parsons, L.R., 2018. Agricultural use of reclaimed water in Florida: food for thought. ShresthaI, P., Small, E.G., Kay, A., 2020. Quantifying nutrient recovery efficiency and loss
J. Contemp. Res. Educ. 165 (1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2018. from compost-based urban agriculture. PLoS ONE 15 (4), 0230996. https://doi.org/
03290.x. 10.1371/journal.pone.0230996.
Picardo, A., Soltero, V.M., Peralta, M.E., Chacartegui, R., 2019. District heating based on bio-
Skambraks, A.K., Kjerstadius, H., Meier, M., Davidsson, Å., Wuttke, M., Giese, T., 2017.
gas from wastewater treatment plant. Energy 180, 649–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Source separation sewage systems as a trend in urban wastewater management:
j.energy.2019.05.123.
drivers for the implementation of pilot areas in northern Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc.
Plappally, A.K., Lienhard, H.J., 2012. Energy requirements for water production, treatment, 28, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.013.
end use, reclamation, and disposal. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16 (7), 4818–4848.
Smith, K., Liu, S., 2017. Energy for conventional water supply and wastewater treatment
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.022.
in urban China: a review. Global Chall. 1 (5), 1600016. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Pölling, B., Prados, M.J., Torquati, B.M., Giacchè, G., Recasens, X., Paffarini, C., Alfranca, O.,
gch2.201600016.
Lorleberg, W., 2017. Business models in urban farming: a comparative analysis of
Soltero, V.M., Chacartegui, R., Ortiz, C., Velázquez, R., 2018. Potential of biomass district
case studies from SpainItaly and Germany. 25 (3), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.
heating systems in rural areas. Energy 156, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
1515/mgr-2017-0015.
ergy.2018.05.051.
Porse, E., Mika, K.B., Escriva-Bou, A., Fournier, E.D., Sanders, K.T., Spang, E., Stokes-Draut, J.,
Federico, F., Gold, M., Pincetl, S., 2020. Energy use for urban water management by SUWANU EUROPE, 2019. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://suwanu-europe.eu/
utilities and households in Los Angeles. Environ. Res. Commun. 2 (1), 015003. water-reuse-projects-europe/.
https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab5e20. SwedEnviro, 2001. Market Survery-extremely Low Flush toilets. . https://ccb.se/wp-
Poustie, A., Yang, Y., Verburg, P., Pagilla, K., Hanigan, D., 2020. Reclaimed wastewater as a content/uploads/2014/06/Marketsurveylow-flushtoilets.pdf.
viable water source for agricultural irrigation: a review of food crop growth inhibition Takeshita, S., Farzaneh, H., Dashti, M., 2020. Life-cycle assessment of the wastewater
and promotion in the context of environmental change. Sci. Total Environ. 739, treatment Technologies in Indonesia’s fish-processing industry. Energies 13 (24),
139756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139756. 6591. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246591.
Pretel, R., Robles, A., Ruano, M.V., Seco, A., Ferrer, J., 2016. Economic and environmental Tervahauta, T., Bryant, I.M., Leal, L.H., Buisman, C.J.N., Zeeman, G., 2014. Improved energy
sustainability of submerged anaerobic MBR-based (AnMBR-based) technology as recovery by anaerobic grey water sludge treatment with black water. Water 6,
compared to aerobic-based technologies for moderate-/high-loaded urban wastewa- 2436–2448. https://doi.org/10.3390/w6082436.
ter treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 166, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015. Outlet, The National Tank, 2021. RV Black Water Holding Tanks. Retrieved May 5, 2021,
10.004. from https://www.ntotank.com/rv-black-water-tanks.

12
S. Estévez, S. González-García, G. Feijoo et al. Science of the Total Environment 812 (2022) 151485

Trapote, A., Albaladejo, A., Simón, P., 2014. Energy consumption in an urban wastewater Xue, X., Hawkins, T.R., Schoen, M.E., Garland, J., Ashbolt, N.J., 2016. Comparing the life
treatment plant: the case of Murcia region (Spain). Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 31 (4), cycle energy consumption, global warming and eutrophication potentials of several
304–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2013.866106. water and waste service options. Water 8, 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8040154.
Vaccari, M., Foladori, P., Nembrini, S., Vitali, F., 2018. Benchmarking of energy consump- Yoon, H., Sauri, D., Rico Amorós, A.M., 2018. Shifting scarcities? The energy intensity of
tion in municipal wastewater treatment plants – a survey of over 200 plants in water supply alternatives in the mass tourist resort of BenidormSpain. 10 (3), 824.
Italy. Water Sci. Technol. 77 (9), 2242–2252. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2018.035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030824.
Velasco-Muñoz, J.F., Aznar-Sánchez, J.A., Belmonte-Ureña, L.J., Román-Sánchez, I.M., 2018. Zawartka, P., Burchart-Korol, D., Blaut, A., 2020. Model of carbon footprint assessment for
Sustainable water use in agriculture: a review of worldwide research. Sustainability the life cycle of the system of wastewater collection, transport and treatment. Re-
10 (4), 1084. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041084. trieved September 20, 2021, fromScientific Reports 10, 5799. https://doi.org/10.
Valero, L.G., Pajares, E.M., Sánchez, I.M.R., Pérez, J.A.S., 2018. Analysis of environmental 1038/s41598-020-62798-y.
taxes to finance wastewater treatment in Spain: an opportunity for regeneration? Zeeman, G., Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., 2011. Resource recovery from source separated do-
Water (Switzerland) 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020226. mestic waste(water) streams; full scale results. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (10),
Wakeel, M., Chen, B., Hayat, T., Alsaedi, A., Ahmad, B., 2016. Energy consumption for water 1987–1992. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.562.
use cycles in different countries: a review. Appl. Energy 178, 868–885. https://doi. Zessner, M., Lampert, C., Kroiss, H., Lindtner, S., 2010. Cost comparison of wastewater
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.114. treatment in danubian countries. Water Sci. Technol. 62, 223–230. https://doi.org/
Wang, Z., Li, G., Jin, M., Piao, W., 2019. Environmental analysis of three wastewater treat- 10.2166/wst.2010.271.
ment plants based on the life cycle assessment. IOP Conference Series: Earth and En- Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., Guo, B., Liu, Y., 2020. Mesophiles outperform thermophiles in the an-
vironmental Science. 330 , p. 3.. https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1755-1315. aerobic digestion of Blackwater with kitchen residuals: insights into process limita-
Wielemaker, R.C., Weijma, J., Zeeman, G., 2018. Harvest to harvest: recovering nutrients tions. Waste Manag. 105, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.018.
with new sanitation systems for reuse in urban agriculture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Zhu, Z., Dou, J., 2018. Current status of reclaimed water in China: an overview. J. Water
128, 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.015. Reuse Desalin. 8 (3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2018.070.
World Bank Group, 2020. Commodity Markets Outlook. Persistence of Commodity
Shocks. Retrieved May 3, 2021, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
bitstream/handle/10986/34621/CMO-October-2020.pdf.

13

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy