See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329308714

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case Study of

Tehran, Iran

Article  in  International Journal of Civil Engineering · November 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s40999-018-0375-z

CITATIONS READS

6 2,272

4 authors, including:

Massoud Tabesh Bardia Roghani

114 PUBLICATIONS   1,450 CITATIONS   

University of Tehran
18 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Sajed Motevallian
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg
10 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Non-Revenue Water Assessment and Management View project

My PhD Thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bardia Roghani on 30 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Civil Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-018-0375-z

RESEARCH PAPER

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case

Study of Tehran, Iran
Massoud Tabesh1 · Maryam Feizee Masooleh2 · Bardia Roghani2 · Seyed Sajed Motevallian2

Received: 18 April 2018 / Revised: 3 November 2018 / Accepted: 13 November 2018

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Abstract
Evaluating the environmental impacts of WWTPs and finding ways for wastewater reuse with minimum damage to our envi-
ronment and human societies is a matter of vital importance. The objective of this study is to identify the critical sources of
environmental impacts in Tehran’s WWTP using life-cycle assessment (LCA) method. Eco-Indicator 99 is selected to perform
life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) using SimaPro 7.0 software. Results show that application of biogas instead of natural
gas can make a significant contribution in alleviating the environmental effects of Tehran’s WWTP (e.g., decreasing the nega-
tive impacts of fossil fuels about three times). Discharging the effluent into the surface water resources causes considerable
damages to the quality of these resources and should be prevented. Instead, using the effluent for agricultural purposes in
south of Tehran is a more eco-friendly practice especially from an eutrophication perspective (4% of the previous scenario).
In general, the results obtained from implemented case study show that despite some shortcomings such as availability of
sufficient and reliable data, LCA is an appropriate environmental system tool capable of streamlining the decision-making
process in the wastewater treatment industry in Iran as well as fostering opportunities to achieve sustainability goals.

Keywords  Eco-Indicator 99 · Impact assessment · Life-cycle assessment (LCA) · SimaPro · Wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs)

1 Introduction exist in treated sludge can be used as fertilizer, and hence,

dependence to nutrients extraction from natural resources
Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) play a key role in will reduce. Nevertheless, WWTPs also impose significant
promoting the objectives of sustainable development by rec- impacts on the environment such as emissions, soil and
lamation of valuable resources such as water and nutrients. water pollution, odor problems, etc. Besides, a multitude
Effluent from WWTPs can be used for farmlands and urban of risks and threats impede the use of effluent and treated
landscapes irrigation. Furthermore, nitrogen and phosphorus sludge, especially those related to public health and environ-
ment [1]. In this regard, assessing the environmental impacts
of WWTPs and finding solutions for reusing treated waste-
* Massoud Tabesh water and sludge with minimum damage to the environment
mtabesh@ut.ac.ir
and human beings is a matter of vital importance.
Maryam Feizee Masooleh A variety of environmental analysis tools such as mate-
m.feizee@gmail.com
rial flow analysis (MFA), environmental impact assessment
Bardia Roghani (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and life-
bardia.roghani@ut.ac.ir
cycle assessment (LCA) has been employed by research-
Seyed Sajed Motevallian ers in order to identify the potential environmental impacts
smotevallian@alumni.ut.ac.ir
caused by WWTPs. A brief overview of the above methods
1
Center of Excellence for Engineering and Management can be found in [2]. Munoz [3] compared different environ-
of Civil Infrastructures, School of Civil Engineering, mental analysis tools and showed that LCA outmatches other
College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O methods in multiple aspects. LCA, an ISO-guided step-wise
Box 11155‑4563, Tehran, Iran
process, is considered as the most integrated and holistic tool
2
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, that would encounter all upstream and downstream impacts
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

related to WWTPs [1]. LCA is a tool to measure the impacts
associated with all the stages of a product, service or process
throughout its life-cycle or so-called “cradle-to-grave” [4].
LCA studies has been conducted for a variety of industries
and products such as combined cycle power plants [5], solid
waste disposal [6], fishing industry [7], construction industry
[8, 9] and artichoke production [10]. A fair number of LCA
studies have been carried out for assessing the environmen-
tal impacts of WWTPs. Using average data obtained from
France and Switzerland WWTPs, Houillon and Jolliet [11]
conducted a LCA study to compare six wastewater sludge
treatment scenarios applied to a 300,000 equivalent-inhab-
itant wastewater treatment plant with focus on energy and
emissions contributing to global warming over the whole
treatment’s life cycle. Results show that incineration and
agricultural spreading have the lowest non-renewable pri-
mary energy consumption. Gallego et al. [12] compared the
environmental performance of 13 WWTPs of small commu-
nities in Galicia, Northwestern Spain by means of LCA and
illustrated that, secondary treatment technologies such as
biodenipho and aerobic–anoxic treatment resulted in lesser
environmental impact than extended aeration. Zhang et al.
[13] applied LCA to a WWTP in Xi’an, China and illumi-
nated that the life cycle benefits of treated wastewater reuse
surpassed the life cycle energy consumption considerably.
Pasqualino et al. [14] adopted LCA to compare different
urban wastewater reclamation and reuse alternatives in a
Spanish Mediterranean wastewater treatment plant. They
observed that replacing potable water leads to freshwater
savings of 1.1  m3, whereas replacing desalinated water
leads to important energy savings. Li et al. [15] used LCA
to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the
treatment of wastewater in a WWTP in Kunshan, China. The
objective of their study was to assess the environmental ben-
efits and drawbacks of this WWTP in comparison with other
WWTPs using different advanced treatment units. In another
study, two plants with different size and location were com-
pared according to their environmental costs. Results made
it clear that energy consumption and sludge application
for agricultural purposes are the largest contributors to the
environmental impacts associated with wastewater treatment
[16]. Remy et al. [17] made a comparison between envi-
ronmental impacts associated with different technologies
for tertiary wastewater treatment using LCA. They stated
that LCA is a suitable tool to quantify direct and indirect
environmental impacts of tertiary treatment. Also, Sapkota
[18] by analyzing the environmental performance of the rep-
resentative small-scale decentralized wastewater treatment
modules stated that configuration of the treatment units have
an impact on the environmental performance; which means
the more units the more environmental load during the con-
struction phase. On the other hand, increased in the units or
treatment steps or modules will lead to system performance
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
increasing, and as a result, decreasing the environmental
impacts of the whole system. Recently, Raghuvanshi et al.
[19] conducted the LCA study for WWTP located in a uni-
versity campus in India. They used a LCA software Umberto
NXT Universal, utilizing Eco-invent database v3.0. Results
revealed that the recycled water from the plant has posi-
tive impacts on the assessed categories. Moreover, effects
of treatment system are much superior to the effects of recy-
cled water in other categories such as terrestrial ecotoxic-
ity potential, global warming potential, particulate matter
formation, etc. It should be noted that the social effects of
untreated wastewater and environmental effects of compost
produced by the system was not considered in their research.
De Feo and Ferrara [20] used the Ecoinvent 2.2 data-
base available in the software tool SimaPro v.7.3 to inves-
tigate the total and per capita environmental impacts of
municipal wastewater treatment in the function of the
population equivalent (PE) with a life–cycle assessment
(LCA) approach. This study also considered the wastewa-
ter collection system besides the WWTP in their system
boundary. They found out that the greater the treatment
plant size is, the less per capita environmental impacts are.
However, it should be noted that the Ecoinvent 2.2 data-
base does not contain information about treatment systems
with a capacity lower than 30 Population Equivalent (PE).
They concluded that it would be very beneficial to conduct
an LCA study to compare alternative on-site small-scale
systems with treatment capacity of few PE. In one of the
recent studies, Morelli et al. [21] used LCA to explore
methods for upgrading the New York WWTP, while simul-
taneously transforming it to recover useful energy for heat
and electricity, nutrients for compost, and water for irriga-
tion. Results showed that improvement in effluent quality
comes at the expense of 20–30 percent increases in global
warming, particulate matter formation, smog formation,
fossil depletion, and acidification potential. Moreover,
global warming potential impacts were sensitive to the
fraction of incoming carbon and nitrogen lost as green-
house gases during end-of-life processing.
As pinpointed by [1], “research of LCA in wastewater
extends mostly in developed countries with almost no contri-
bution from developing countries”, One of the few studies of
LCA in developing countries is the scientific paper of Alan-
bari et al. [22]. They investigated the impacts of Al-Hilla
WWTP on the environment. SimaPro software package was
used for this purpose. Results depicted that the most environ-
mental impacts are related to the global warming, respiratory
inorganics and non-renewable energy. In addition, applica-
tion of cement, steel and electricity consumption has the
most disastrous effects on the environment.
Tawfic Ahmed [23] presented an overview of the LCA
application in wastewater with special reference to its use
in developing countries, and the difficulties that hinder
International Journal of Civil Engineering
its usage. Major obstacles in applying LCA in developing
countries are as follows [23]:
• Low awareness of the benefits of this tool among policy
makers
• No internal capacity in both industry and government
• Lack of accessible background data
• Quality assurance
• Need for adequate impact categories
• Lack of collaboration among LCA experts in the
region.
Iran is among those developing countries which suffer
from lack of well-functioning WWTPs. About 40% of the
total population of Iran benefit from efficient WWTPs.
The population served by these plants is about 30 million
and less than 40% of the total domestic sludge is treated
completely [24]. During the last decades, the majority of
cities in Iran used seepage pits as the most conventional
method for wastewater disposal which lead to aquifer and
soil pollution. Increase in groundwater resources pollu-
tion in cities such as Tehran was the main intention for
constructing modern wastewater collection and treatment
systems in Iranian cities which has been accelerated during
the recent years [25]. As domestic wastewater treatment
industry in Iran is not precedent, LCA studies applied to
WWTPs in this country can be considered totally new. The
side-effects caused by WWTPs throughout their life cycle
in Iran are of particular interest for urban water manag-
ers. Thus, LCA can be employed as an efficient decision-
making tool which providing insightful information about
the pros and cons of different domestic wastewater reuse
alternatives.
The objective of this study is to identify the critical source
of impacts in Tehran’s WWTP using life-cycle assessment
(LCA) method. Furthermore, LCA is adopted to make a
comparison between the environmental impacts caused by
using biogas or natural gas to supply required energy for
wastewater treatment processes in the WWTP. Moreover, the
possible environmental impacts caused by discharging the
treated wastewater into river are assessed and compared with
the impacts of utilizing treated wastewater for irrigating the
farmlands. The main objectives of this paper are as follows:
• Applying LCA method to investigate environmental
impacts of urban wastewater treatment plants in Iran, as
a developing country
• Applying LCA method to evaluate the environmen-
tal impacts of wastewater treatment plant which has
advanced nitrogen removal system
• Comparison the LCA results for the cases in which the
effluent discharged into the river and use for agricultural
purposes
• Comparison the LCA results for the cases in which the
whole needed energy of the plant comes from biogas and
natural gas
Eco-Indicator 99 was selected to perform life-cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) using SimaPro 7.0 software. The
results are normalized to provide a more reliable and practi-
cal comparison between positive and adverse impacts asso-
ciated with impact categories including carcinogenic, res-
piratory organics, respiratory inorganics, ecotoxicity, climate
change, fossil resources and acidification/eutrophication.
2 Materials and Methods
The ISO LCA standards concern the technical as well as
organizational aspects of an LCA project [26]. The ISO LCA
methodology has four main components:
1. Goal definition and scoping It is the first stage of an
LCA study and likely the most important one. During
the goal definition process, some important questions
should be addressed such as [1]:
• Why is the study conducted?
• Why there is a need of LCA for this decision, action, or
activity?
• Who is the primary target audience for the study?
Scoping usually refers to describing the system, its
boundaries, the quality of data used, the main hypothesis
and existing limitations. The system boundaries should be
selected with regard to the goal of the study [1].
2. Inventory analysis The inventory analysis is a techni-
cal process of collecting data, in order to determine the
inputs and outputs of the system, as defined in the scope.
In this stage, consumed energy and raw materials, emis-
sions to air, water, soil, and solid waste produced by
the system are calculated for the whole life cycle of the
product or service [1]. The main result of an inventory
analysis is an inventory table listing the quantified inputs
from and outputs to the environment associated with the
functional units, in terms of kilograms of carbon diox-
ide, cubic meters of natural gas, kilograms of iron ore,
etc., [26].
3. Impact assessment Impact assessment is a process to
determine and characterize the potential impacts that the
system has imposed on the environment. In this stage,
the data used for the inventory analysis are classified
into different categories (impact categories), based on
13

the environmental impacts they are expected to contrib-
ute [1].
4. Interpretation This is the last stage of a LCA study in
which the obtained results are presented and accordingly
the critical sources of impact and the alternatives to
reduce them are demonstrated. Interpretation is mainly
conducted to decrease the amount of information gath-
ered throughout the LCA study to a limited number of
major issues that could be used in decision-making pro-
cess [1].
A fair number of methodologies have been adopted by
scholars to perform the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA).
CML 2002, Eco-Indicator 99, EDIP97, EDIP2003, EPS
2000, IMPACT2002+, LUCAS, LIME, ReCipe, Ecopoints
2006, TRACI and MEEup are some examples of most
widely used LCIA methodologies [27]. LCIA methodologies
can be categorized into two main groups including midpoint
and endpoint methods. The LCIA midpoint approach is also
known as problem-oriented approach [28, 29] or classical
impact assessment method [30, 31]. The term “midpoint”
refers to the category indicator for each impact category
which is expressed in the mid pathway of impact, between
LCI results and endpoint [32]. It translates the category
impact into real phenomenon as such as climate change,
acidification and aquatic toxicity [33]. The endpoint LCIA
approach is also known as damage-oriented approach [29].
According to [34], they are the elements inside the impact
pathway that consists of independent value for society. The
term “endpoint” refers to the category indicator for each
impact category located at the end-of-impact pathway [35].
Endpoint indicator translates the category impact based on
the area of protection such as human health, natural environ-
mental quality, natural resources and human made environ-
ment [36]. As indicated by [37], both midpoint and endpoint
methodologies provide useful information to the decision-
maker in a LCA study. Endpoint approach is less compre-
hensive and possess higher level of uncertainty compared to
the midpoint approach, while midpoint LCIA methods are
more difficult to be interpreted because the midpoint impact
category is not directly correlated with the area of protec-
tion (i.e., damage to human health, ecosystem quality and
resource depletion) which is practiced by the endpoint meth-
ods [38]. In addition, many claim that endpoint indicators
are easier to understand and thus interpret, as they express
issues of societal concern, such as human health damage
or ecosystem quality damage [34]. For the purpose of this
study, Eco-Indicator 99 method is adopted as the LCIA
methodology. It is an endpoint methodology developed
with the aim to simplify the interpretation and weighting of
results [27]. Eco-Indicator 99 is one of the most widely used
impact assessment methods in LCA which allows the envi-
ronmental load of a product to be expressed in a single score
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
[39]. One of the main benefits of the single score output of
the Eco-Indicator 99 method is that it makes it relatively
easy to compare different items [9]. The midpoint impacts
covered by Eco-Indicator 99 are climate change, ozone layer
depletion (ODP), acidification/eutrophication (combined),
carcinogenic, respiratory organic, respiratory inorganic,
ionizing radiation, ecotoxicity, land-use, mineral resources
and fossil resources. Human health, ecosystem quality and
resource depletion are endpoint impacts covered by Eco-
Indicator 99 [27]. European normalization data are calcu-
lated with the method for each area of protection. Weighting
in Eco-Indicator 99 are usually performed by one of three
options including the panel method, equal weighting and
monetization methods [27]. Eco-Indicator 99 has the advan-
tage of being included in SimaPro, LCA software. SimaPro
can effectively build and analyze LCA models, and provide
experts and decision-makers with a multitude of analysis
options. By utilizing the SimaPro software, one can access
the life-cycle inventory data at all different stages of the
model and analysis. More details about the capabilities and
features of SimaPro can be found in [40].
Tehran’s wastewater collection and treatment system
comprises 9000 km of pipeline network, 76 km of sewage
tunnels as well as a large WWTP located in the south of
the city. The WWTP is designed in eight modules to cover
a population of 4,200,000 persons. Collected wastewater
enters to the WWTP from the north and treated by aeration
system and activated sludge processes. Treated wastewater
is purified to the level of agricultural use and transported
to the irrigation and drainage system of Varamin region in
the south of Tehran province to irrigate almost 50,000 ha of
farmlands. Furthermore, the treated sludge produced by the
WWTP can provide fertilizer for 6000 farm units [41]. The
main components of Tehran’s WWTP are as follows [41]:
pumping station, bar screen, grit chamber, primary clarifier,
aeration lagoons, tricking filter, secondary clarifier, chlorina-
tion and sludge treatment (anaerobic digestion). It should
be added that the studied wastewater treatment plant in this
paper has advanced nitrogen removal system.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Goal Definition and Scoping
The objective of this LCA study is the life-cycle assessment
of four modules of Tehran’s WWTP with a treatment capac-
ity of 450,000 ­m3 per day, and suggesting some solutions to
reduce the adverse impacts of the WWTP. More precisely,
the goals are as follows:
• Determining the critical source of environmental impacts
in Tehran’s WWTP
International Journal of Civil Engineering

• To make a comparison between the environmental Table 1  The amount of daily savings for important materials in the
impacts caused by using biogas or natural gas to supply WWTP [41]
required energy in Tehran’s WWTP No. Material The amount of Unit
• Assessing the possible environmental burdens caused by savings
discharging the treated wastewater into river and com-
1 Nitrogen 3670 kg/day
pares it with impacts of using treated wastewater for irri-
2 Phosphorus 1800 kg/day
gating the farmlands.
3 Potassium 305 kg/day
4 Electrical energy 5 MW
Evaluating of different phases of the life-cycle of the
WWTP has shown that the operation phase has more sig-
nificant impacts compared to construction and end-of-life
phases. Thus, this study primarily focuses on impacts associ- The main limit in this study was the lack of informa-
ated with the operation phase of the WWTP. System bound- tion about the characteristics of soil and groundwater table.
aries are extended to include sludge disposal and treated Therefore, the impacts of farmlands irrigation with treated
wastewater use for agricultural purposes. Figure 1 illustrates wastewater on soil salinity and the dispersion of heavy
the system boundary selected for this study. metals exist in the soil to groundwater resources were not
The main source of data used in this study is obtained considered.
from Tehran Wastewater Company (TWC). A small amount
of data was extracted from previous studies and in few cases 3.2 Inventory Analysis
some reasonable assumptions were made.
Material savings that can be achieved by the WWTP In this stage, data associated with different processes within
operation are as follows: the system boundary are collected and presented. Tables 2
and 3 present the characteristics of input and output waste-
• Energy Methane gas produced in the process of sludge water and sludge, respectively.
digestion is collected and provides 80% of required Table 3 presents the main characteristics of sludge.
energy. In the WWTP, electrical and thermal energy sources are
• Fertilizer When the sludge is digested and dewatered, it used for running different processes such as pumping, acti-
is used for providing farmlands with fertilizer. vated sludge and nitrification. The total amount of energy
• Water Treated wastewater from the WWTP is transported used for wastewater treatment in the WWTP is 6.25 MW.
to Varamin irrigation canal and irrigates a total area of 80% of required energy is obtained from burning biogas pro-
50,000 ha. duced by anaerobic digestion and the rest of required energy
is supplied by gas power-plants. Main chemicals used in the
Table 1 shows the amount of savings for important mate- WWTP are polymer and chlorine. The latter is required for
rials in Tehran WWTP. killing micro-organisms while the former is used for sludge

Fig. 1  The system boundary

selected for presented LCA Output Emission of
study wastewater to nitrogen and
farmlands phosphorus to
Chlorine groundwater
Transport
production
Polymer
Operation
production Transport Influx of heavy
phase metals into the
soil
Using sludge
Electricity as fertilizer
production
Savings in
fertilizer
Energy Emissions to air such usage
No need to production as GHGs, VOCs, etc
Electricity by burning
production biogas

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 2  The characteristics of input and output wastewater Table 5  The amount of emissions to air caused by sludge digestion
and burning biogas
No. Parameter Unit Amount
No. Process Gas Amount (kg/day)
1 Q m3/day 450,000
2 TSSin mg/l 326.7 1 Sludge digestion [46] CO2 Biogenic 145,237
3 TSSout mg/l 20 Particulates 9
4 TKNin mg/l 50.7 CO 95
5 TKNout mg/l 29.5 NO2 95.6
6 CODin mg/l 533.3 2 Burning biogas [47] CO2 9405
7 CODout mg/l 65 CH4 614
8 BOD5,in mg/l 280 NOx 1025
9 BOD5,out mg/l 20 SO2 36
CO 518

Table 3  The main characteristics of sludge

No. Parameter Unit
1 Q ton/day
2 TS (total solids) % 56.9
3 TKN %TS
4 Total phosphorus %TS
digestion. The daily amount of used polymer and chlorine
are 800 and 4500 kg, respectively.
Daily data on chemicals and sludge transportation are
provided in Table 4. It is assumed that 40-ton trucks are used
for transportation of chemicals. The transportation of sludge
to the location of depot is also considered.
To estimate greenhouse gases produced from wastewa-
ter treatment plants, total amount of produced greenhouse
gases and their global warming potential should be calcu-
lated. Global warming potential of greenhouse gases are
suggested by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) ([42]). Primary treatment does not directly pro-
duce greenhouse gas. In the secondary treatment phase, the
production of greenhouse gases depends on the treatment
method. In the present study, the production rate of these
gases is considered based on the findings of previous stud-
ies and theoretical calculations (e.g., [43–45]). Emission to
the air caused by anaerobic digestion and burning biogas,
include ­CO2, carbon monoxide, H ­ 2O, and nitrogen oxides,
is presented in Table 5. Moreover, discharging the sludge
Amount
into farmlands releases methane, ammonium and nitrogen
oxides. These emissions are presented in Table 6. Finally,
450 the amount of released gases from activated sludge process
and tricking filter is provided in Table 7.
1.43 After the digestion and dewatering of sludge, it is trans-
0.7 ported to be used in farmlands. However, treated sludge may
contain heavy metals causing soil pollution. Table 8 presents
the amount of heavy metals in the treated sludge.
As mentioned earlier, treated wastewater was discharged
into Varamin irrigation canal and used for irrigating farm-
lands in the south of Tehran province. Therefore, it has not
any adverse impacts on surface water resources. For the
purpose of this study, the environmental impacts caused by
discharging the treated wastewater into rivers are compared
to the impacts of using treated wastewater for irrigation
purposes. Table 9 presents the main characteristics of the
treated wastewater.
3.3 Impact Assessment
Three main endpoint impact categories in Eco-Indicator 99
are human health, ecosystem quality and resource deple-
tion. Figure 2 illustrates impact categories and pathways
covered by the Eco-Indicator 99 methodology. It is worth
mentioning that the three main impact categories consid-
ered in this study are exactly the ones which mentioned in
Eco-Indicator 99.

Table 4  Data on chemicals and No. Material Weight (ton) Distance (km) Weight.
sludge transportation distance
(ton km)

1 Chlorine 4.5 100 4500

2 Polymer 0.8 100 80
3 Sludge transported to depot 450 3.5 1575
4 Sludge transported to farmlands 450 18 8100
Total 14,225

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 6  The amount of emissions to air caused by the use of sludge ured in terms of PDF*year*m2 or PAF*year*m2. PDF
in farmlands (potentially disappeared fraction) is “a probability of the
No. Gas Amount (kg/day) References plants species to disappear from the area as a result of
acidification and eutrophication” and PAF (Potentially
1 CH4 358 [46]
Affected Fraction) is “the percentage of the species that
2 NOx 93 [48]
are exposed to the toxic emission [51]”.
3 NH3 214 [48] • Damage to resources is measured as the surplus energy
needed for future extractions of minerals and fossil fuels.

Table 7  The amount of emissions to air caused by activated sludge To make a comparison between impacts caused by dif-
process and tricking filter [49] ferent parts of the WWTP, all processes are categorized into
No. Gas Amount (kg/day) four main groups or so called “Scenarios”.

1 N 2O 160 • First scenario (chemicals): the production of chemicals

2 CO2 biogenic 38,000
(i.e., polymer and chlorine) and transportation of these
materials to the WWTP’s site.
• Second scenario (energy): energy required for driving
Table 8  The amount of heavy metals in the treated sludge wastewater and sludge treatment processes is supplied
No. Parameter Amount (g/day)
by burning biogas and natural gas power-plants.
• Third scenario (treatment): emission of gases produced
1 Cd 11.25 by wastewater treatment and sludge digestion processes
2 Cr 157,556 such as ­N2O, ­CO2, ­CH4, ­H2S, ­NH3.
3 Cu 35,156 • Fourth scenario (sludge): transportation of sludge to be
4 Ni 14,085 used in farmlands.
5 Pb 27,866
6 Zn 61,773
4 Interpretation

According to Eco-Indicator 99, when inventory analysis is

Table 9  The main characteristics of treated wastewater
done, the intermediate effects of these items (which may
No. Parameter Amount (kg/day) include multi-layers) should be determined. After data inser-
1 BOD5 11,300
tion and building up an LCA, the critical sources of impact
2 COD 30,000
were identified. Figure 3 represents a comparison between
3 TSS 11,300
impacts associated with each scenario (i.e., chemicals,
4 TKN 13,500
energy, treatment and sludge). It should be mentioned that
5 TP 1800
the SimaPro 7.1.8 software is used to evaluate the environ-
mental effects.
Interpretation for each impact group is provided sepa-
rately as following.
• Damage to human health is measured in terms of
DALY (disability-adjusted life year). According to 4.1 Carcinogen
definition provided by World Health Organization
(WHO): “DALYs for a disease or health condition are As demonstrated in Fig. 3, only “Sludge scenario” caused
calculated as the sum of the Years of Life Lost (YLL) adverse impacts associated with this impact category due to
due to premature mortality in the population and the dispersion of heavy metals to soil. Cadmium has an insig-
Years Lost due to Disability (YLD) for people living nificant concentration in the sludge compared to other heavy
with the health condition or its consequences [50].” metals (0.0003% of total heavy metals); nevertheless, it
DALY measures the severity of the disease on a scale caused the most adverse impact (0.0244 DALY) in carcino-
from 0 (perfect health) to 1 (dead). gen impact category which is equal to 99.2% of total adverse
• Damage to ecosystem quality refers to the loss of species impacts (0.0246 DALY). “Energy scenario” produces a posi-
over a certain area, during a certain time. It is meas- tive impact (0.0017 DALY) which is not considerable.

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 2  Impact categories and pathways covered by the Eco-Indicator 99 methodology [27]

Fig. 3  A comparison between impacts associated with each scenario (i.e., chemicals, energy, treatment and sludge)

4.2 Respiratory Organics impacts) due to largely releasing NMVOCs (non-methane

volatile organic compounds) and hydro-carbons. “Energy
According to Fig. 3, “Chemicals scenario” had the most scenario” produced significant positive impacts mainly
adverse impacts in this category (78% of total adverse because of using biogas to supply required energy for

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 10  The amount of impacts associated with respiratory organics Table 13  The amount of adverse impacts associated with Ecotoxicity
category for each scenario caused by “Sludge scenario”
No. Scenario The amount of No. Heavy metal The amount
impacts (*106 of impacts
DALY) (PAF*m2*year)

1 Energy − 20.2 1 Chrome 86,300

2 Chemicals 15.2 2 Copper 6610
3 Treatment 3.28 3 Nickel 2930
4 Sludge 3 4 Zink 1440
5 Massicot 786

Table 11  The amount of impacts associated with respiratory inorgan-

ics caused by “Treatment scenario” Table 14  The amount of impacts associated with acidification/
eutrophication for each scenario
No. Gas The amount
of impacts No. Scenario Gas The amount
(DALY) of impacts
(PDF*m2*year)
1 NOx 0.0829
2 NO2 0.00852 1 Treatment Nitrogen oxides 5310
3 SO2 0.00197 NO2 546
4 Fine particles 0.00099 SO2 37.5
5 CO 0.00048 2 Sludge Ammonium 2960
3 Energy Ammonium 4640
4 Chemicals Nitrogen oxides 129
Table 12  The amount of No. Gas The amount of
adverse impacts associated with impacts (DALY)
climate change category caused
N2O was produced mainly due to nitrification and deni-
by “Treatment scenario” 1 CO2 0.0305
trification processes. These processes have an important
2 N2O 0.011
role in wastewater treatment; nonetheless they contribute
3 CH4 0.00198
significantly in global warming by producing greenhouse
4 CO2 0.00113
gases (GHGs). The positive impacts created by “Sludge” and
5 CO 0.000197
“Energy” scenarios are mainly because of that in these sce-
narios the release of N
­ 2O, methane and C
­ O2 was prevented.

treatment. The amount of impact associated with respira- 4.5 Ecotoxicity

tory organics for each scenario is presented in Table 10.
4.3 Respiratory Inorganics
In this category, all scenarios caused adverse impacts except
“Energy scenario” as shown in Fig. 3. However, only “Treat-
ment scenario” made considerable adverse impacts as pre-
sented in Table 11.
As demonstrated in Fig. 3, only “Sludge scenario” made
adverse impacts in this category. Chrome exists from the
sludge caused 88% of total adverse impacts associated with
ecotoxicity category. The amount of adverse impacts asso-
ciated with ecotoxicity caused by “Sludge scenario” is pre-
sented in Table 13.

4.4 Climate Change 4.6 Acidification/Eutrophication

It can be inferred from Fig. 3 that “Chemicals” and “Treat-
ment” scenarios created adverse impacts associated with
climate change category. However, the amount of adverse
impacts caused by “Chemicals scenario” was insignificant
compared to “Treatment scenario”. Table 12 presents the
amount of adverse impacts associated with climate change
category caused by “Treatment scenario”.
Producing nitrogen oxides and S ­ O2 in “Treatment scenario”
and ammonium in “Sludge” and “Energy” scenarios created
most adverse impacts associated with this category. Table 14
gives information on the amount of impacts associated with
acidification/eutrophication for each of scenarios.

13
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 15  The amount of No. Scenario The amount was associated with respiratory inorganics impact category
impacts associated with fossil of impacts produced by “Treatment scenario”. Table 16 summarizes
resources for each scenario (MJ) the results of normalization for all impact categories and
1 Energy − 89,100
scenarios.
2 Chemicals 11,400
It should be noted that the amount of impacts associated
3 Sludge − 17,300
with respiratory organics category was not significant com-
4 Treatment –
pared to the other impact categories, so it was eliminated
from the final list of impact categories in the normaliza-
tion stage. Alanbari et al. [22] studied the application of
Simapro 7.0 on Karbala WWTP, Iraq. They stated that
4.7 Fossil resources the most harmful environmental impact categories in this
WWTP are global warming, respiratory inorganics, and non-
“Energy scenario” made significant positive impacts in this renewable energy. According to Table 16, in Tehran WWTP
category due to using biogas to supply required energy for these impact categories are respiratory inorganics, Acidifica-
sludge digestion (refer to Fig. 3). “Sludge scenario” also tion/Eutrophication, and Climate change, which are similar
made positive impacts in this group. Table 15 presents the to [22] results. However, it is worth mentioning that because
amount of impacts associated with fossil resources for each in Tehran WWTP the produced biogas is used for providing
scenario. the required energy in wastewater treatment processes, it has
As the scales and units used for each impact category are a positive effect on fossil resources.
different, environmental profiles may probably not be able As highlighted by Fig. 4 and Table 16, “Energy scenario”
to generate some solid results [1]. Normalization allows for created positive impacts in most impact categories due to
comparison of all of the environmental impacts on the same large amount of biogas used to supply required energy for
scale [4]. Figure 4 illustrates the normalized results of each wastewater treatment. To assess the amount of positive
impact category for four scenarios. impacts of using biogas on environmental performance of
Figure 4 reveals that the most positive impact was asso- the WWTP, it was assumed that biogas was completely sub-
ciated with fossil resources impact category produced by stituted by natural gas. The results of impact assessment for
“Energy scenario”. On the other hand, most adverse impact new “Energy scenario” are presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4  Normalized results of each impact category for four scenarios

13
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 16  Normalized amounts No. Impact category Scenario The normalized Summation of the normal-
of environmental impacts for amount of impacts ized amounts in each
Tehran’s WWTP category

1 Carcinogenic Sludge 1.6 1.50

Chemicals 0.00683
Treatment –
Energy − 0.11
2 Respiratory inorganics Sludge 0.928 7.12
Chemicals 0.37
Treatment 6.13
Energy − 0.31
3 Climate change Sludge − 0.404 2.19
Chemicals 0.119
Treatment 2.9
Energy − 0.426
4 Ecotoxicity Sludge 1.96 2.02
Chemicals 0.0179
Treatment –
Energy 0.0422
5 Fossil resources Sludge − 2.9 − 16.00
Chemicals 1.91
Treatment − 
Energy − 15
6 Acidification/eutrophication Sludge 0.59 2.55
Chemicals 0.0322
Treatment 1.15
Energy 0.782

As revealed by Fig. 5, using natural gas to supply 100%
of required energy for wastewater treatment caused consid-
erable adverse impacts in climate change and Respiratory
Inorganic impact categories. Using biogas not only created
few adverse impacts in these categories; but also it made
considerable positive impacts. This finding is in accordance
with the findings of Bastian et al. [52]. The most significant
difference between impacts caused by using biogas (i.e., 80%
biogas and 20% natural gas) or only natural gas (i.e., 100%
natural gas) to supply required energy for wastewater treat-
ment was associated with fossil resources impact category.
“Energy scenario” caused a positive impact with amount of
− 33.5 × 10−8 in case of using biogas, while this scenario
made an adverse impact with amount of 6630 × 10−8 in case
of using only natural gas. Therefore, it can be remarked that
using biogas instead of natural gas might have a significant
role in alleviating the environmental burdens caused by Teh-
ran’s WWTP.
As mentioned earlier, treated wastewater of Tehran’s
WWTP is used for irrigating the farmlands in south of Teh-
ran, and is not discharged to surface water resources. To find
out the possible environmental impacts caused by discharg-
ing the treated wastewater into surface water resources, a
new scenario was created in which treated wastewater of
Tehran’s WWTP is discharged into river and the results were
compared with the case in which it is used for irrigating
the farmlands. As the impacts associated with nutrients and
acids discharge into the water and soil is not considered in
Eco-Indicator 99 method [53], CML2000—which is a mid-
point method—was selected to made a comparison between
two scenarios (i.e., using treated wastewater for irrigation
and discharging into river). Figure 6 demonstrates the com-
parison of the normalized results for the two scenarios.
According to Fig. 6, it can be easily figured out that dis-
charging the treated wastewater into the river causes sig-
nificant impacts associated with acidification/eutrophica-
tion impact category. The nutrients which have the most
contribution in creating adverse impacts associated with
acidification/eutrophication impact category are presented
in Table 17. In a similar study, Miller-Robbie et al. [54] by
comparing the impact of GHG emissions from untreated
wastewater diluted in surface streams with the life-cycle
assessment of wastewater treatment with reuse in agricul-
ture, found out that the treatment-plus-reuse case yields a
33% reduction in life cycle system-wide GHG emissions.

13

Fig. 5  Impacts associated with “Energy scenario” in case of using biogas and using only natural gas
It can be concluded that discharging the treated wastewa-
ter into surface water resources makes considerable adverse
impacts on the quality of these resources and should be
prevented.
5 Conclusion
The objective of this study was to identify the critical source
of environmental impacts of Tehran’s WWTP using life-
cycle assessment (LCA) method. Furthermore, LCA was
adopted to make a comparison between the environmen-
tal impacts caused by using biogas or natural gas to sup-
ply required energy for wastewater treatment in the WWTP.
In this study, the possible environmental burdens caused
by discharging the treated wastewater into river were also
assessed and compared with impacts created by using treated
wastewater for irrigating the farmlands. Eco-Indicator 99
was selected to perform life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
using SimaPro 7.0 software. The results were normalized to
provide a more reliable and practical comparison between
positive and negative impacts associated with impact catego-
ries including carcinogenic, respiratory organics, respiratory
inorganics, ecotoxicity, climate change, fossil resources and
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
acidification/eutrophication. Two main concluding remarks
of this LCA study are as follows:
• Using biogas instead of natural gas makes a significant
contribution to alleviate the environmental effects cre-
ated by Tehran’s WWTP (e.g., it decreases the impacts of
energy consumption to one-third of its previous amount).
• Discharging the treated wastewater of the WWTP into
surface water resources causes considerable damages to
the quality of these resources and should be prevented.
Using treated wastewater for irrigating the farmlands in
south of Tehran is a more eco-friendly practice especially
from an eutrophication perspective (4% of “Discharging
to surface water” option).
In general, the results obtained from implemented case
study showed that despite some shortcomings such as avail-
ability of sufficient and reliable data, LCA is an appropriate
environmental system tool capable of streamlining the deci-
sion-making process in the wastewater treatment industry
in Iran as well as fostering opportunities to achieve sustain-
ability goals.
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 6  A comparison of impacts associated with using effluent for irrigation and discharging it into the river

wastewater treatment. Dissertation, University of Autonoma Bar-

Table 17  Nutrients with the most contribution in adverse impacts
associated with acidification/eutrophication impact category
No. Name The amount of
impacts (kg ­PO4)
1 Total nitrogen 56,700
2 Total phosphorus 55,100
6. Shams Fallah F, Vahidi H, Pazoki M, Akhavan-Limudehi F,
3 Phosphate 13,500
4 COD 643
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to thank experts in Tehran
Wastewater Company (TWC) and Tehran Province Water and Waste-
water Company (TPWWC) for their sincere cooperation especially
in providing required data and information on Tehran’s WWTP. The
authors also express their gratitude to anonymous reviewers for their
constructive and insightful comments which have significantly contrib-
uted to the enhancement of the merit of submitted manuscript.
10. Lo Giudice A, Mbohwa C, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C (2014) Life
References
11. Houillon G, Jolliet O (2005) Life cycle assessment of processes
1. Ahmed MT (2010) Life cycle analysis in wastewater: a sustain-
ability perspective. In: Waste water treatment and reuse in the
mediterranean region. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–154
12. Gallego A, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2008) Environ-
2. Finnveden G, Moberg Å (2005) Environmental systems analysis
tools e an overview. J Clean Prod 13(12):1165–1173
3. Munoz I (2006) Life cycle assessment as a tool for green chem-
istry: Application to different advanced oxidation processes for
celona (UAB), Spain
4. Corominas LL, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera
S, Shaw A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater
treatment: state of the art. Water Res 47(15):5480–5492
5. Ataei A, Iranmanesh A, Rashidi Z (2012) Life cycle assessment
of advanced zero emission combined cycle power plants. Int J
Environ Res 6(3):801–814. https:​ //doi.org/10.22059/​ ijer.2012.551
Aslemand AR, Samiee Zafarghandi R (2013) Investigation of
solid waste disposal alternatives in Lavan Island using life cycle
assessment approach. Int J Environ Res 7(1):155–164. https:​ //doi.
org/10.22059​/ijer.2012.594
7. Coopera J, Diesburga S, Babej A, Noon M, Kahn E, Puettmann
M, Colt J (2014) Life cycle assessment of products from Alaskan
salmon processing wastes: Implications of coproduction, intermit-
tent landings, and storage time. Fish Res 151:26–38
8. Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2011) Sustainability assessment of
flooring systems in the city of Tehran: an AHP-based life cycle
analysis. Constr Build Mater 25(4):2053–2066
9. Amaryllis A, Sven H. De Cleyn HS, Buyle M (2012) LCA of
low-energy flats using the Eco-indicator 99 method: impact of
insulation materials. Energy Build 47:68–73
cycle assessment interpretation and improvement of the Sicilian
artichokes production. Int J Environ Res 8(2):305–316. https​://
doi.org/10.22059​/ijer.2014.721
for the treatment of wastewater urban sludge: energy and global
warming analysis. J Clean Prod 13(3):287–299
mental performance of wastewater treatment plants for small
populations. Resour Conserv Recycl 52(6):931–940

13

13. Zhang QH, Wang XC, Xiong JQ, Chen R, Cao B (2010) Appli-
cation of life cycle assessment for an evaluation of wastewater
treatment and reuse project—case study of Xi’an. China Bioresour
Technol 101(5):1421–1425
14. Pasqualino JC, Meneses M, Castells F (2010) Life cycle assess-
ment of urban wastewater reclamation and reuse alternatives. J
Ind Ecol 15(1):49–63
15. Li Y, Luo X, Huang X, Wang D, Zhang W (2013) Life cycle
assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant: a case
study in Suzhou, China. J Clean Prod 57(15):221–227
16. McNamara G, Fitzsimons L, Horrigan M, Phelan T, Delaure Y
et al (2016) Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment plants
in Ireland. J Sustain Dev Energ, Water Environ Syst, 4(3):216–
233. https​://doi.org/10.13044​/j.sdewe​s.2016.04.0018
17. Remy C, Miehe U, Lesjean B, Bartholomäus C (2014) Comparing
environmental impacts of tertiary wastewater treatment technolo-
gies for advanced phosphorus removal and disinfection with life
cycle assessment. Water Sci Technol 69(8):1742–1750. https​://
doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.087
18. Sapkota N (2016) Environmental performance evaluation of
decentralised wastewater treatment systems using life cycle analy-
sis. Norwegian University of Life Science, Dissertation
19. Raghuvanshi S, Bhakar V, Sowmya C, Sangwan KS (2017) Waste
water treatment plant life cycle assessment: treatment process to
reuse of water. Proc CIRP 61:761–766
20. De Feo G, Ferrara C (2017) Investigation of the environmen-
tal impacts of municipal wastewater treatment plants through
a Life Cycle Assessment software tool. Environ Technol
38(15):1943–1948
21. Morelli B, Cashman S, Cissy Ma, Garland J, Bless D, Cashdollar
J (2017) Environmental life cycle assessment and cost analysis of
Bath, NY wastewater treatment plant: Potential upgrade implica-
tions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-17/207
22. Alanbari M, Alazzawi H, Al-Ansari N, Knutsson S (2015) Envi-
ronmental assessment of Al-Hilla city wastewater treatment
plants. J Civ Eng Archit 9(6):749–755. https​://doi.org/10.17265​
/1934-7359/2015.06.013
23. Ahmed MT (2007) Life cycle assessment, a decision-making
tool in wastewater treatment facilities. In: Wastewater reuse–
risk assessment, decision-making and environmental security.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 305–314
24. Tajrishy M (2011) Wastewater treatment and reuse in Iran: Situ-
ation analysis. Paper Presented at the UN-Water Decade Pro-
gramme on Capacity Development (UNW-DPC) Workshop on
Safe use of wastewater in agriculture, Bonn, Germany
25. Tajrishy M, Abrishamchi A (2005) Integrated approach to water
and wastewater management for Tehran, Iran. In Water conserva-
tion, reuse, and recycling: proceedings of the iranian-american
workshop, Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press
26. Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R et al (2002)
Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO
standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/0-306-48055​-7
27. Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) ILCD hand-
book: analyzing of existing environmental impact assessment
methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. European Com-
mission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sus-
tainability, Ispra (VA), Italy. http://eplca.​ jrc.ec.europa​ .eu/upload​ s/
ILCD-Handbo​ ok-LCIA-Backgr​ ound-​ analys​ is-online​ -12Marc​ h201​
0.pdf. Accesed 20 May 2018
28. Ortiz O, Francesc C, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the
construction industry: a review of recent developments based on
LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39
29. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Compari-
son of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and
13
International Journal of Civil Engineering
Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life
Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200
30. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G
et al (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment
methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330
31. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Hei-
jungs R et al (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of
the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess
9(6):394–404
32. Josa A, Aguado A, Cardim A, Byars E (2007) Comparative analy-
sis of the life cycle impact assessment of available cement inven-
tories in the EU. Cem Concr Res 37(5):781–788
33. Sleeswijk AW, Van Oersc LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijsd J, Huij-
bregtsb MAJ (2008) Normalization in product life cycle assess-
ment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in
the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240
34. Heijungs R, Goedkoop M, Struijs J, Effting S, Sevenster M, Hup-
pes G (2003) Towards a life cycle impact assessment method
which comprises category indicators at the midpoint and the
endpoint level. http://www.leide​nuniv​.nl/inter​fac/cml/ssp/publi​
catio​ns/recip​e_phase​1.pdf. Accessed 02 Apr 2014
35. Sharaai AH, Mahmood NZ, Sulaiman AH (2010) Life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) using the ecological scarcity (Eco-
points) method: a potential impact analysis to potable water
production. World Appl Sci J 11(9):1077–1088. https​://doi.
org/10.5897/AJB11​.428
36. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment
taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints,
endpoints, damages and areas of protection. J Clean Prod
16(10):1021–1035
37. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000)
Midpoint versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326
38. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unre-
solved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess
13(5):374–388
39. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99: A dam-
age oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: Methodol-
ogy report, Pré Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherland,
https:​ //www.pre-sustai​ nabil​ ity.com/downlo​ ad/EI99_annex​e_v3.pdf
40. PRé Consultants (2010) SimaPro 7: Introduction into LCA. http://
www.pre-sustai​ nabil​ ity.com/downlo​ ad/manual​ s/SimaPr​ o7Int​ rodu​
ction​ToLCA​.pdf, Accessed 02 Apr 2014
41. Tehran Wastewater Company (TWC) (2012) Data and informa-
tion on performance of Tehran’s WWTP. Received in person from
Tehran Wastewater Company
42. Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J,
Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque J-F, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T,
Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropo-
genic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner
G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex
V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science
basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA. https​://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asses​sment​-repor​t/ar5/
wg1/WG1AR​5_Chapt​er08_FINAL​.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
43. Karia GL, Christian RA (2006) Wastewater treatment: Concepts
and design approach, 2nd edn. PHI Learning, India (ISBN:
8120347358)
44. Ahn JH, Kim S, Park H, Katehis D, Pagilla K, Chandran K (2009)
Spatial and temporal variability in N2O generation and emission
from wastewater treatment facilities. Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, Nutrient Removal 2009, pp 401–409,
Washington D.C., USA, https​://doi.org/10.2175/19386​47097​
93901​608
International Journal of Civil Engineering
45. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006) IPCC
guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5:
Waste, http://www.ipcc-nggip​.iges.or.jp, Accessed Mars, 2011
46. Hospido A, Moreira MT, Martín M, Rigola M, Feijoo G (2005)
Environmental evaluation of different treatment processes for
sludge from urban wastewater treatments: Anaerobic digestion
versus thermal processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):336–345
47. Nielson PH, Thomsen TR, Nielsen JL (2004) Bacterial composi-
tion of activated sludge: importance for floc and sludge properties.
Water Sci Technol 49(49):51–58
48. Svanström M, Fröling M, Olofsson M, Lundin M (2005) Environ-
mental assessment of supercritical water oxidation and other sew-
age sludge handling options. Waste Manag Resour 23(4):356–366
49. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Greenhouse gas
emissions estimation methodologies for biogenic emissions from
selected source categories: Solid waste disposal, wastewater treat-
ment, ethanol fermentation, http://www.epa.gov/ttnch​ie1/efpac​/
ghg/GHG_Bioge​nic_Repor ​t_draft​_Dec14​10.pdf, Accessed 02
Apr 2014
50. World Health Organization (WHO) (2014) Health statistics and
information systems, metrics: Disability-Adjusted Life Year
(DALY), http://www.who.int/healt​hinfo​/globa​l_burde​n_disea​se/
metri​cs_daly/en/, Accessed April 02, 2014
View publication stats
51. Robust DSC (2014) LCA calculator: methodology. https​://www.
ecn.nl/lca/(S(orsc4​345l4​eudbr​b0mm5​00it))/metho​dolog​y.aspx,
Accessed 02 Apr 2014
52. Bastian RJ, Cuttica J, Fillmore L, Hedman B, Hornback C, Levy
D, Moskal J (2011) Opportunities for combined heat and power
at wastewater treatment facilities: Market analysis and lessons
from the field. US Environmental Protection Agency Combined
Heat and Power Partnership. https:​ //www.epa.gov/sites/​ produc​ tion​
/files/​ 2015-07/docume​ nts/opport​ uniti​ es_for_combin​ ed_heat_and_
power_​ at_wastew ​ ater_​ treatm
​ ent_facili​ ties_​ market​ _analys​ is_and_
lesso​ns_from_the_field​.pdf
53. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hell-
weg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M, Wernet
G (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report no. 1.,
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf. http://www.
ecoin​vent.org/filea​dmin/docum​ents/en/01_Overv​iewAn​dMeth​
odolo​gy.pdf, Accessed 02 Apr 2014
54. Miller-Robbie L, Ramaswami A, Amerasinghe P (2017) Waste-
water treatment and reuse in urban agriculture: exploring the food,
energy, water, and health nexus in Hyderabad, India. Environ Res
Lett 12(7):075005
13