Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Wastewater and Its Management in Latin America
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Pilot Sites
2.1.1. Panajachel Site description
2.1.2. Tepeji Site Description
2.2. Dataset Framework
2.2.1. Preliminary Step. System Model: Boundaries and Scales of Analysis
2.2.2. Constructing the Dataset Framework
2.2.2.1. Extended Dataset Framework
2.2.2.2. Site-Specific Dataset Framework
- Local legislation (region, state, basin).
- National legislation.
- Legislation valid for the other case study of this project (in this case Mexico or Guatemala).
- International organisations (not legally binding but accepted as guidelines or recommendations).
2.3. Data Gathering
2.3.1. Identifying Data Holders
2.3.2. Data Collection
2.4. Sustainability Assessment
- Green = 1
- Yellow = 0
- Red = −1
- The colour-values are added, and a simple average in each category is calculated.
- The results are later presented again using the “traffic light” colour-coding for the performance of each dimension of sustainability, as follows: (see results section)
- Green: >0.33
- Yellow: between −0.33 and 0.33
- Red: ≤−0.33.
3. Results
3.1. Dataset Framework
3.1.1. Extended Dataset Framework
3.1.2. Site-Specific Dataset Framework
3.2. Data Gathering
- Data quality. Stakeholders sometimes provided no supporting facts or documentation for the data they provided, or there was a considerable difference between data found for the same item from various sources, with no straight-forward way to choose amongst them.
- No existing threshold. The data could be obtained but no threshold was found, and therefore the data was not used further.
3.3. Sustainability Assessment
3.3.1. Panajachel
3.3.2. Tepeji
4. Discussion
4.1. Dataset Framework for Describing Wastewater Management Systems
4.1.1. Methodological Issues
4.1.2. Data Availability
4.2. Sustainability of the Pilot Wastewater Management Systems
4.2.1. Technical-Environmental Issues
4.2.2. Management Issues
4.2.3. Social Issues
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Prioritised (Site-Specific) Dataset Framework—Panajachel | ||||||||
Total Data Items | 218 | |||||||
PS = Prioritised by stakeholders | LI = Data Item comes from the literature | |||||||
RG = Included in Guatemala regulation | RM = Included in Mexican regulation | |||||||
The numbers in the ID column refer to those of the extended set. | ||||||||
DATASET 0—Context Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | RG | RM | Data Item | Item Description | Notes |
GEOGRAPHY A | A0.003 | 1 | Map | Cartography at the adequate scale to understand the location of the plant in relation to nearest population settlement, water resources and other relevant features. | All non-domestic wastewater generators have to prepare a technical study including this item. Acuerdo Gubernativo 12-2011, article 5 and 6 | |||
DATASET I.01—Technical Environmental Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | RG | RM | Data Item | Item Description | Notes |
GENERAL A | A0.001 | x | x | 1 | Technology used | Technical procedure with which the plan treats wastewater. Note any relevant particularities. If needed, include a diagram of the process in an annex. | All non-domestic wastewater generators have to prepare a technical study including this item. Acuerdo Gubernativo 12-2011, article 5 and 6 | |
A0.005 | x | x | Number of people served | |||||
INPUTS B | B0.001 | x | x | Design inflow | Flow capacity that the plant was originally designed for. | |||
68 | B0.002 | x | x | Volume wastewater input | Total volume of water entering the plant in the reporting year | |||
B0.005 | x | x | Average plant capacity utilization | Percent of design capacity being used, on average, during the reporting year | ||||
B0.006 | x | x | Volumetric Efficiency | Total wastewater entering the plant/Treated Wastewater (100) | ||||
Inflow quality parameters | B1.001 | x | x | Temperature | ||||
B1 | B1.002 | x | x | BOD | Biological Oxygen demand | |||
B1.003 | x | x | COD | Chemical oxygen demand | ||||
Inflow Nutrients | B1.004 | x | x | Total Nitrogen | ||||
B1.008 | x | x | Total Phosphorus | |||||
B1.015 | x | Faecal coliforms | ||||||
Pathogens inflow | B1.016 | x | E.Coli | |||||
B1.021 | x | TSS | Total suspended solids | |||||
B1.023 | x | pH | ||||||
Other inputs B2 | B2.001 | x | x | Raw materials used | Raw materials as inputs necessary for the plant to function (e.g., machine oils, fuel, chemicals for the flocculation phase or other stages of the process, etc.), as well as office supplies and such. When data available is in other units, make sure to note so in the units column. Tonnes per year is a recommended unit. | |||
B2.003 | x | x | Total energy consumed | Energy consumed in the reporting year, all energy carriers together and all energy uses considered. | ||||
OUTPUTS C | C0.001 | x | x | Total volume Treated Water produced | Total Outflow of wastewater from the plant, in yearly total average. | |||
C1.001 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Temperature | |||
C1.002 | x | x | 1 | 1 | BOD | Biological Oxygen demand | ||
C1.003 | x | x | 1 | COD | Chemical oxygen demand | |||
C1.004 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Total Nitrogen | |||
C1.008 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Total Phosphorus | |||
Pathogens in outflow | C1.015 | x | x | 1 | Faecal coliforms | |||
C1.016 | x | x | E.coli | |||||
C1.017 | x | x | Helminths | |||||
C1.019 | x | x | Organic Matter | |||||
C1.021 | 1 | Sedimentable solids | ||||||
C1.022 | x | x | 1 | 1 | TSS | |||
C1.023 | x | x | Turbidity | |||||
C1.024 | x | x | 1 | 1 | pH | |||
Metals, metalloids and trace elements in outflow | C1.025 | x | x | Al | ||||
C1.026 | x | x | 1 | 1 | As | |||
C1.027 | x | x | Cd | |||||
C1.028 | 1 | 1 | Cyanide (CN) | |||||
C1.029 | x | x | Co | |||||
C1.030 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Cr | |||
C1.031 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Cu | |||
C1.032 | x | x | Fe | |||||
C1.033 | x | x | Mn | |||||
C1.034 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Ni | |||
C1.035 | x | x | Ti | |||||
C1.036 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Zn | |||
C1.037 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Hg | |||
C1.038 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Pb | |||
C1.039 | x | x | Se | |||||
C1.040 | x | x | B | |||||
C1.041 | x | x | Mo | |||||
C1.043 | x | 1 | 1 | Grease and oils | ||||
C1.044 | x | 1 | 1 | Floating matter | ||||
C1.045 | 1 | Colour | ||||||
Wastewater Reuse C2 | C2.001 | x | x | Percentage of wastewater output being recycled or reused | ||||
Sludge C3 | C3.001 | x | x | Total Sludge produced yearly | Total amount of sludge produced in the reporting year. | |||
Sludge Quality parameters | C3.002 | x | x | Al | ||||
Metals, metalloids and trace elements in sludge | C3.003 | x | x | 1 | 1 | As | ||
C3.004 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Cd | |||
C3.005 | x | x | Co | |||||
C3.006 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Cr | |||
C3.007 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Cu | |||
C3.008 | x | x | Fe | |||||
C3.009 | x | x | Mn | |||||
C3.010 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Ni | |||
C3.011 | x | x | Ti | |||||
C3.012 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Zn | |||
C3.013 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Hg | |||
C3.014 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Pb | |||
C3.015 | x | x | Se | |||||
C3.016 | x | x | B | |||||
C3.017 | x | x | Mo | |||||
C3.030 | x | x | Calorific value | |||||
Pathogens in sludge | C3.031 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Helminths | ||
C3.032 | x | x | 1 | 1 | Total coliforms | |||
C3.033 | x | x | E.coli | |||||
C3.034 | 1 | Salmonella sp. | ||||||
Organics | C3.035 | x | x | Organic Matter | ||||
Sludge use C4 | C4.001 | x | x | Scope of sludge management | % of sludge that is managed, including treatment in different ways, such as use in agriculture, thermal disposal, landfills, etc. As proposed by Popovic & Kraslawski (2018). | |||
C4.002 | x | x | Current use/management of sludge | What is done with sludge once it is dried at the plant? | ||||
C4.004 | x | x | Potential sludge users | |||||
Emissions C5 | C5.001 | x | x | Total Biogas production | How much biogas was produced in the reporting year? | |||
C5.005 | x | x | GHG emissions | Can be divided into GHG emissions linked to plant operation and maintenance, and emissions produced by the wastewater itself. Specify and disclose method for Calculations performed in an annex. The online tool ECAM (wacclim.org/ecam) is an option for estimation. | ||||
Management D2 | D0.001 | x | x | Number of operators | ||||
Staff D0 | D0.003 | x | x | Employee/inhabitant ratio | Number of employees per 1000 inhabitants served by the plant. | |||
Management D1 | D1.001 | x | x | Existence Operation manual | Does a clear, up to date operations manual exist on site, and available to all people operating the plant? | |||
D1.002 | x | x | Regularity of maintenance | |||||
Capacities D2 | D2.001 | x | x | Capacity sufficiency | Does all the personnel involved have the knowledge and skills they need to have? | |||
D2.003 | x | x | Accessible sampling and processing equipment | Does the plant have its own equipment or easy and hassle-free access to sample and analyse incoming wastewater, treated water and by-products quality? | ||||
Compliance and certification D3 | D3.001 | x | Discharge standards compliance | Percent of time that the plant’s outflow complies with applicable regulations. State the regulations are being considered. | ||||
D3.002 | x | 1 | Analysis frequency compliance | Ratio of number of effluent samplings per month to number of effluent sampling per month required by law of wastewater treatment policy (as proposed by Popovic & Kraslawski (2018). | ||||
D3.003 | x | Certification | Does the plant have some quality certification (ISO, or other national/international standards)? | |||||
RISK E1 | E0.001 | x | Has a health risk assessment related to wastewater been performed at the site? | |||||
E0.002 | x | x | Are health risks being managed? | |||||
Health E0 | E0.003 | x | x | Do the operators have the necessary health and safety equipment? | ||||
E1.001 | Has a natural hazard risk assessment been performed at the facility? | |||||||
E1.002 | Are natural hazard risks being managed? | |||||||
E1.003 | Has an environmental impact study relating wastewater with ecosystem health been performed at the site? | |||||||
Other hazards E1 | E1.004 | x | x | What efforts are being made to reduce or manage environmental impacts? | ||||
E1.005 | Presence or risk of groundwater pollution | |||||||
E1.006 | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | |||||||
DATASET IIA.01—Economic Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | Data Item | Item Description | Notes | ||
Costs A0 | A0.002 | x | Cost per m3 of water treated | Cost of producing one cubic meter of water | ||||
A0.003 | x | Cost per inhabitant served | ||||||
A0.006 | x | x | Proportion of costs: maintenance and repairs | What proportion of the total expenses corresponds to energy? | ||||
A0.009 | Proportion of costs: training, capacity building | What proportion of the total expenses corresponds to energy? | ||||||
Income A1 | A1.001 | x | Total plant income | Total income of the plant yearly. Specify currency used under ‘units’ | ||||
A1.002 | x | Real financial availability per inhabitant served | ||||||
A1.003 | Budget deficit | |||||||
A1.006 | x | Valorisation of by products | Are products of the plant being valorised (sold, recycled, etc.) | |||||
DATASET IIB.01—Social Acceptance—Multi-Scalar | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | IL | Data Item | Item Description | Notes | ||
SOCIAL B | B0.001 | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | ||||||
Inclusion/Participation | B0.002 | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | ||||||
B0.003 | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | |||||||
B0.004 | Accessibility to information | |||||||
B0.005 | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | |||||||
B0.006 | Recommendations are considered? | |||||||
B0.007 | Willingness to participate in decision-making | |||||||
B0.008 | Participative decision-making | |||||||
B0.009 | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | |||||||
B0.010 | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management |
Appendix B
Prioritised (Site-Specific) Dataset Framework—Tepeji | ||||||||
Total Data Items | 195 | |||||||
PS = Prioritised by stakeholders | LI = Data Item comes from the literature | |||||||
RG = Included in Guatemala regulation | RM = Included in Mexican regulation | |||||||
The numbers in the ID column refer to those of the extended set. | ||||||||
DATASET 0.1—Context Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | RG | RM | Data Item | Item Description | Notes |
GEOGRAPHY A | A0.003 | 1 | Map | Cartography at the adequate scale to understand the location of the plant in relation to nearest population settlement, water resources and other relevant features. | All non-domestic wastewater generators have to prepare a technical study including this item. Acuerdo Gubernativo 12-2011, article 5 and 6. | |||
A0.006 | x | Land uses in 1 km radius | ||||||
A0.007 | x | Distance to nearest house | ||||||
DATASET I.01—Technical Environmental Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | RG | RM | Data Item | Item Description | Notes |
GENERAL A | A0.001 | x | Technology used | Technical procedure with which the plan treats wastewater. Note any relevant particularities. If needed, include a diagram of the process in an annex. | All non-domestic wastewater generators have to prepare a technical study including this item. Acuerdo Gubernativo 12-2011, article 5 and 6 | |||
A0.002 | x | Construction year | Year of construction. When construction lasted more than one year, state ending year. | |||||
A0.005 | x | Number of people served | ||||||
INPUTS B | B0.001 | x | Design inflow | Flow capacity that the plant was originally designed for. | ||||
B0.002 | x | Volume wastewater input | Total volume of water entering the plant in the reporting year | |||||
Inflow B0 | B0.003 | Average inflow (AF) | Average flow (in a year) of wastewater into WWTP. | |||||
B0.005 | x | Average plant capacity utilization | Percent of design capacity being used, on average, during the reporting year | |||||
B0.006 | x | Volumetric Efficiency | Total incoming wastewater/total treated water | |||||
Inflow quality parameters | B1.001 | x | Temperature | |||||
B1 | B1.002 | x | BOD | Biological oxygen demand | ||||
B1.003 | x | COD | Chemical oxygen demand | |||||
Inflow Nutrients | B1.004 | x | Total Nitrogen | |||||
B1.008 | x | Total Phosphorus | ||||||
Salts inflow | B1.009 | x | K | |||||
B1.010 | x | Ca | ||||||
B1.011 | x | Mg | ||||||
B1.012 | x | Na | ||||||
B1.014 | x | Electric conductivity | Useful when data for Na and other related parameters is not available, as general guidance of salts contents. | |||||
B1.015 | x | Faecal coliforms | ||||||
Pathogens inflow | B1.016 | x | E.coli | |||||
B1.021 | x | TSS | Total suspended solids | |||||
B1.023 | x | pH | ||||||
B1.025 | x | As | ||||||
B1.026 | x | Cd | ||||||
B1.028 | x | Cr | ||||||
B1.029 | x | Cu | ||||||
B1.030 | x | Fe | ||||||
B1.031 | x | Mn | ||||||
B1.032 | x | Ni | ||||||
B1.033 | x | Ti | ||||||
B1.034 | x | Zn | ||||||
B1.035 | x | Hg | ||||||
B1.036 | x | Pb | ||||||
B1.037 | x | Se | ||||||
B1.038 | x | B | ||||||
B1.039 | x | Mo | ||||||
Others | B1.040 | x | Residual chlorine | |||||
B1.041 | Grease and oils | |||||||
B1.042 | Floating matter | |||||||
B1.043 | Colour | |||||||
B2.003 | x | Total energy consumed | Energy consumed in the reporting year, all energy carriers together and all energy uses considered. | |||||
B2.004 | x | Energy/m3 treated water | ||||||
OUTPUTS C | C0.001 | x | Total volume Treated Water produced | Total Outflow of wastewater from the plant, in yearly total average. | ||||
C1.001 | x | Temperature | ||||||
C1.002 | x | BOD | Biological oxygen demand | |||||
C1.003 | x | COD | Chemical oxygen demand | |||||
C1.004 | x | Total Nitrogen | ||||||
Nutrients in outflow | C1.006 | x | Nitrates | |||||
C1.007 | x | Nitrites | ||||||
C1.008 | x | Total Phosphorus | ||||||
Salts in outflow | C1.009 | x | K | |||||
C1.010 | x | Ca | ||||||
C1.011 | x | Mg | ||||||
C1.012 | x | Na | ||||||
C1.014 | x | Electric conductivity | Useful when data for Na and other related parameters is not available, as general guidance of salts contents. | |||||
Pathogens in outflow | C1.015 | x | Faecal coliforms | |||||
C1.016 | x | E.coli | ||||||
C1.017 | x | Helminths | ||||||
C1.021 | Sedimentable solids | |||||||
C1.022 | x | TSS | Total suspended solids | |||||
C1.024 | x | pH | ||||||
C1.026 | x | As | ||||||
C1.027 | x | Cd | ||||||
C1.028 | Cyanide (CN) | |||||||
C1.030 | x | Cr | ||||||
C1.031 | x | Cu | ||||||
C1.034 | x | Ni | ||||||
C1.036 | x | Zn | ||||||
C1.037 | x | Hg | ||||||
C1.038 | x | Pb | ||||||
C1.043 | Grease and oils | |||||||
C1.044 | Floating matter | |||||||
C1.045 | Colour | |||||||
Wastewater Reuse C2 | C2.001 | x | Percentage of wastewater output being recycled or reused | |||||
Sludge C3 | C3.001 | x | Total Sludge produced yearly | Total amount of sludge produced in the reporting year. | ||||
Metals, metalloids and trace elements in sludge | C3.003 | x | As | |||||
C3.004 | x | Cd | ||||||
C3.006 | x | Cr | ||||||
C3.007 | x | Cu | ||||||
C3.010 | x | Ni | ||||||
C3.012 | x | Zn | ||||||
C3.013 | x | Hg | ||||||
C3.014 | x | Pb | ||||||
Pathogens in sludge | C3.031 | x | Helminths | |||||
C3.032 | x | Total coliforms | ||||||
C3.034 | Salmonella sp. | |||||||
sludge use C4 | C4.001 | x | Scope of sludge management | % of sludge that is managed, including treatment in different ways, such as use in agriculture, thermal disposal, landfills, etc. As proposed by Popovic & Kraslawski (2018) | ||||
GHG Emissions | C5.006 | x | Are there complaints regarding odours? | E.g., neighbours | ||||
C5.007 | x | Strength of odour in the treated wastewater | high, medium, low | |||||
Solid Waste | C6.002 | x | Solid waste sustainable management plan | Is there a waste management programme in place that considers reuse and/or recycling of solid waste, and/or plans to reduce waste or eliminate it, e.g. by changing inputs? | ||||
Staff D0 | D0.003 | x | Employee/inhabitant ratio | Number of employees per 1000 inhabitants served by the plant. | ||||
Management D1 | D1.001 | x | Existence Operation manual | Does a clear, up to date operations manual exist on site, and available to all people operating the plant? | ||||
D1.002 | x | Regularity of maintenance | ||||||
Capacities D2 | D2.001 | x | Capacity sufficiency | Does all the personnel involved have the knowledge and skills they need to have? | ||||
D2.003 | x | Accessible Sampling and processing equipment | Does the plant have its own equipment or easy and hassle-free access to sampling and analysis to monitor wastewater, treated water and by-products quality? | |||||
Compliance and certification D3 | D3.001 | x | Discharge standards compliance | Percent of time that the plant’s outflow complies with applicable regulations. State which regulations are being considered | ||||
D3.002 | x | Analysis frequency compliance | Ratio between the number of effluent samplings per month and number of effluent sampling per month required by law of wastewater treatment policy (as proposed by Popovic & Kraslawski (2018)) | |||||
D3.003 | Certification | Does the plant have some quality certification (ISO, or other national/international standards) | ||||||
RISK E1 | E0.001 | x | Has a health risk assessment related to wastewater been performed at the site? | |||||
E0.002 | x | Are health risks being managed? | ||||||
Health E0 | E0.003 | x | Do the operators have the necessary health and safety equipment? | |||||
E1.001 | Has a natural hazard risk assessment been performed at the facility? | |||||||
E1.002 | Are natural hazard risks being managed? | |||||||
E1.003 | Has an environmental impact study relating wastewater with ecosystem health been performed at the site? | |||||||
Other hazards E1 | E1.004 | x | What efforts are being made to reduce or manage environmental impacts? | |||||
E1.005 | Presence or risk of groundwater pollution | |||||||
E1.006 | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | |||||||
DATASET IIA.01—Social Economic Data—WWTP Scale | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | Data Item | Item Description | Notes | ||
Costs A0 | A0.002 | x | Cost per m3 of water treated | Cost of producing one cubic meter of water | ||||
16 | A0.003 | x | Cost per inhabitant served | |||||
A0.009 | Proportion of costs: training, capacity building | What proportion of the total expenses corresponds to energy? | ||||||
Income A1 | A1.001 | x | Total plant income | Total income of the plant yearly. Specify currency used under ‘units’ | ||||
A1.002 | x | Real financial availability per inhabitant served | ||||||
A1.003 | Budget deficit | |||||||
A1.006 | x | Valorisation of by products | Are products of the plant being valorised (sold, recycled, etc.) | |||||
DATASET IIB.01—Social Acceptance—Multi-Scalar | ||||||||
Category | ID | PS | LI | Data item | Item description | Notes | ||
SOCIAL B | B0.001 | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | ||||||
Inclusion/Participation | B0.002 | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | ||||||
B0.003 | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | |||||||
B0.004 | Accessibility to information | |||||||
B0.005 | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | |||||||
B0.006 | Recommendations are considered? | |||||||
B0.007 | Willingness to participate in decision-making | |||||||
B0.008 | Participative decision-making | |||||||
B0.009 | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | |||||||
B0.010 | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management |
Appendix C
Dataholders for the Panajachel Study Site—Final List | |||||||||
1—Stakeholder Local/Municipality | 2—Stakeholder Provincial or National | 3—Own Calculations | 4—Scientist Interview or Scientific Literature | 5—NGO Interview or Report | |||||
1 | Plant operator Julio Pablo de León | 1 | AMSCLAE interviews | 1 | Sampling and analysis | 1 | UVG—CEA | 1 | Amigos del Lago |
2 | Encargado de la planta Cebollales Ing. Genaro Umul | 2 | AMSCLAE reports | 2 | Calculations | 2 | Laura Ferrans | 2 | Mancomunidad (Mankatitlán). Delvín Rolón, gerente |
3 | Environmental office (oficina municipal del medio ambiente)/DIGAM | 3 | NE | 3 | ERIS | 3 | Proyecto ProAtitlán | ||
4 | Reports, monographs, other documentation published by municipality | 4 | MARN—provincial delegation at Sololá | 4 | Elisandra Hernandez USAC | 4 | ANACAFE | ||
5 | DGP—Planning authority at the municipality. Oficina Municipal de Agua | 5 | Ministerio de Salud | 5 | Puravida | ||||
6 | Agua | 6 | MAGA—Ministerio de agricultura y ganadería | 6 | Vivamos mejor | ||||
7 | Instituto Nacional de Estadística | ||||||||
8 | Energuate |
Dataholders for the Tepeji Study Site—Final List | |||||||||
1—Stakeholder Local/Municipality | 2—Stakeholder Provincial or National | 3—Own Calculations | 4—Scientist Interview or Scientific Literature | 5—NGO Interview or Report | |||||
1 | CAAMTROH director | 1 | CONAGUA at state capital Pachuca | 1 | Sampling and analysis | 1 | Research by UNAM | ||
2 | CAAMTROH/Field personnel | 2 | CONAGUA central office Mexico City | 2 | Calculations | ||||
3 | Dirección de ecología municipal | 3 | INEGI | ||||||
4 | FIAVHI director | ||||||||
5 | FIAVHI technical staff | ||||||||
6 | Plant operator | ||||||||
7 | Urban development office at the municipality | ||||||||
8 | Owner of agricultural field who will receive treated WW |
Appendix D
Water Quality Parameters Analyzed in Panajachel—Field Campaign 08.2018 | |||
Raw (WW) and Treated Wastewater (TWW) | Sludge | ||
1 | Temperature | 1 | Fecal coliforms |
2 | pH | 2 | Helminth eggs |
3 | Grease and oils | 3 | Al |
4 | Floating matter | 4 | As |
5 | BOD | 5 | Ca |
6 | COD | 6 | Cd |
7 | TSS | 7 | Co |
8 | Total Nitrogen | 8 | Cr |
9 | Total Phosphorus | 9 | Cu |
10 | Fecal coliforms | 10 | Fe |
11 | Apparent Color | 11 | Hg |
12 | Al | 12 | K |
13 | As | 13 | Mn |
14 | Ca | 14 | Na |
15 | Cd | 15 | Ni |
16 | Co | 16 | P |
17 | Cr | 17 | Pb |
18 | Cu | 18 | Se |
19 | Fe | 19 | Zn |
20 | Hg | ||
21 | K | ||
22 | Mn | ||
23 | Na | ||
24 | Ni | ||
25 | P | ||
26 | Pb | ||
27 | Se | ||
28 | Zn |
Water Quality Parameters Analyzed in Tepeji—Field Campaign 08.2018 | |
Raw and Treated Wastewater | |
1 | Grease and oils |
2 | Floating matter |
3 | BOD |
4 | COD |
5 | Suspended solids |
6 | TN |
7 | TP |
8 | pH |
9 | Fecal coliforms |
10 | Apparent color |
11 | Al |
12 | As |
13 | Ca |
14 | Cd |
15 | Co |
16 | Cr |
17 | Cu |
18 | Fe |
19 | Hg |
20 | K |
21 | Mn |
22 | Na |
23 | Ni |
24 | P |
25 | Pb |
26 | Se |
27 | Zn |
27 | Cn |
28 | Sedimentable solids |
29 | Nitrites |
30 | Nitrates |
Appendix E
Variables and Thresholds for SA in Panajachel | ||||||||
Gt: Guatemala Regulation Mx: Mexican Regulation ST-Team: SludgeTec Team WHO (2006): Guidelines for SUWA—Vol 2 | ||||||||
No. | Code (ID) | Variable | Unit | Threshold Value | Source | Red | Yellow | Green |
1 | TE7B | Temperature—WW | °C | 40 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >44 | >40 and ≤44 | ≤40 |
2 | TE8B | Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)—WW | mg/L | 100 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >110 | >100 and ≤110 | ≤100 |
3 | TE9B | Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)—WW | mg/L | 200 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >220 | >200 and ≤220 | ≤200 |
4 | TE10B | Total Nitrogen—WW | mg/L | 20 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >22 | >20 and ≤22 | ≤20 |
5 | TE11B | Total Phosphorus—WW | mg/L | 10 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >11 | >10 and ≤11 | ≤10 |
6 | TE12B | Faecal coliforms—WW | MPN/100 mL | 100,000 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >110,000 | >100,000 and ≤110,000 | ≤100,000 |
7 | TE14B | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—WW | mg/L | 125 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | >137.5 | >125 and ≤137.5 | ≤125 |
8 | TE15B | pH—WW | pH unit | between 6–9 | AG 12-2011 Art. 14 (p.10) Gt | <6 and >9 | - | ≥6 and ≤9 |
9 | TE19C | Temperature—TWW | °C | TRWB ±3 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | <20 and >26 | - | ≥20 and ≤26 |
10 | TE20C | Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)—TWW | mg/L | 30 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >33 | >30 and ≤33 | ≤30 |
11 | TE21C | Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)—TWW | mg/L | 60 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >66 | >60 and ≤66 | ≤60 |
12 | TE22C | Total Nitrogen—TWW | mg/L | 5 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >5.5 | >5 and ≤5.5 | ≤5 |
13 | TE23C | Total Phosphorus—TWW | mg/L | 3 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >3.3 | >3 and ≤3.3 | ≤3 |
14 | TE24C | Faecal coliforms—TWW | MPN/100 mL | 500 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >550 | >500 and ≤550 | ≤500 |
15 | TE26C | Helminths—TWW | - | 5 | NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997 Mx | >5.5 | >5 and ≤5.5 | ≤5 |
16 | TE29C | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—TWW | mg/L | 40 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | >44 | >40 and ≤44 | ≤40 |
17 | TE31C | pH—TWW | pH units | between 6–9 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.7) Gt | <6 and >9 | - | ≥6 and ≤9 |
18 | TE33C | Arsenic (As)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
19 | TE34C | Cadmium (Cd)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
20 | TE37C | Chromium (Cr)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
21 | TE38C | Copper (Cu)—TWW | mg/L | 0.5 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.55 | >0.5 and ≤0.55 | ≤0.5 |
22 | TE41C | Nickel (Ni)—TWW | mg/L | 0.5 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.55 | >0.5 and ≤0.55 | ≤0.5 |
23 | TE43C | Zinc (Zn)—TWW | mg/L | 1 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >1.1 | >1 and ≤1.1 | ≤1 |
24 | TE44C | Mercury (Hg)—TWW | mg/L | 0.01 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.011 | >0.01 and ≤0.01 | ≤0.01 |
25 | TE45C | Lead (Pb)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
26 | TE49C | Grease and oils—TWW | mg/L | 15 | NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.15) Mx | >16.5 | >15 and ≤16.5 | ≤15 |
27 | TE50C | Floating matter—TWW | Present-Absent | Present-Absent | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | Present | - | Absent |
28 | TE51C | Colour—TWW | PCU | 400 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >440 | >400 and ≤440 | ≤400 |
29 | TE52C | Water reuse | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
30 | TE55C | Arsenic (As)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 50 | AG 236-2006 para lodos—Application in soil Gt | >55 | >50 and ≤55 | ≤50 |
31 | TE56C | Cadmium (Cd)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 50 | AG 236-2006 para lodos Gt | >55 | >50 and ≤55 | ≤50 |
32 | TE58C | Chromium (Cr)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 1500 | AG 236-2006 para lodos Gt | >1650 | >1500 and ≤1650 | ≤1500 |
33 | TE59C | Copper (Cu)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 1500 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6)—Excellent Biosolid Mx | >1650 | >1500 and ≤1650 | ≤1500 |
34 | TE62C | Nickel (Ni)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 420 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6)—Excellent Biosolid Mx | >462 | >420 and ≤462 | ≤420 |
35 | TE64C | Zinc (Zn)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 2800 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6)—Excellent Biosolid Mx | >3080 | >2800 and ≤3080 | ≤2800 |
36 | TE65C | Mercury (Hg)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 25 | AG 236-2006 para lodos—Application in soil Gt | >27.5 | >25 and ≤27.5 | ≤25 |
37 | TE66C | Lead (Pb)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 500 | AG 236-2006 para lodos—Application in soil Gt | >550 | >500 and ≤550 | ≤500 |
38 | TE71C | Helminths—Sludge | egg/g (dry weight) | 10 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6) Mx | >11 | >10 and ≤11 | ≤10 |
39 | TE72C | Total coliforms—Sludge | MPN/g (dry weight) | 1000 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6) Mx | >1100 | >1000 and ≤1100 | ≤1000 |
40 | TE74C | Salmonella—Sludge | - | 300 | NOM-004-SEMARNAT-2002 (p.6) Mx | >330 | >300 and ≤330 | ≤300 |
41 | TE76C | Scope of sludge management | % | 100 | ST team | <33.33 | ≥33.33 and <66.67 | ≥66.67 and ≤100 |
42 | TE78C | Identification of potential sludge consumers/users | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
43 | TE80C | Quantification of GHG emissions | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
44 | TE83D | Operation Manual | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
45 | TE84D | Regular maintenance | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
46 | TE85D | Capacity sufficiency | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
47 | TE86D | Accessible Sampling and processing equipment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
48 | TE87D | Discharge standards compliance | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
49 | TE88D | Analysis frequency compliance—water | samples/year | 2 | AG 236-2006 para lodos Gt | <2 | - | ≥2 |
50 | TE89D | Analysis frequency compliance—sludge | samples/year | 2 | AG 236-2006 para lodos Gt | <2 | - | ≥2 |
51 | TE90D | Certification | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
52 | TE91D | Health risk assessment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
53 | TE92E | Current management of health risks | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
54 | TE93E | Health and safety equipment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
55 | TE94E | Performance of risk assessment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
56 | TE95E | Current management of risks | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
57 | TE96E | Environmental impact assessment (EIA) | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
58 | TE97E | Efforts to reduce or manage environmental impacts | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
59 | TE98E | Presence or risk of groundwater pollution | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
60 | TE99E | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
61 | Ec2A | Per capita cost of WWT | USD/hab (inhabitants)/year | 4–8 | WHO | >8.8 | >8 and ≤8.8 | ≤8 |
62 | Ec7A | Budget deficit | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
63 | Ec8A | Valorisation of by-products | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
64 | S1B | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
65 | S2B | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
66 | S3B | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
67 | S4B | Accessibility to information | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
68 | S5B | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
69 | S9B | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
70 | S10B | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
Variables and Thresholds for SA in Tepeji | ||||||||
Gt: Guatemala Regulation Mx: Mexican Regulation ST-Team: SludgeTec Team WHO (2006): Guidelines for SUWA—Vol 2 | ||||||||
No. | Code (ID) | Variable | Unit | Threshold Value | Source | Red | Yellow | Green |
1 | TE9B | Temperature—WW | °C | 40 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | >44 | >40 and ≤44 | ≤40 |
2 | TE12B | Total Nitrogen—WW | mg/L | 80 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | >88 | >80 and ≤88 | ≤80 |
3 | TE13B | Total Phosphorus—WW | mg/L | 20 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | >22 | >20 and ≤22 | ≤20 |
4 | TE19B | Faecal coliforms—WW | MPN/100 mL | 10,000 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | >1100 | >1000 and ≤1100 | ≤1000 |
5 | TE22B | pH—WW | pH unit | between 6–9 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | <6 and >9 | - | ≥6 and ≤9 |
6 | TE23B | Arsenic (As)—WW | mg/L | 0.5 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >0.55 | >0.5 and ≤0.55 | ≤0.5 |
7 | TE24B | Cadmium (Cd)—WW | mg/L | 0.5 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >0.55 | >0.5 and ≤0.55 | ≤0.5 |
8 | TE25B | Chromium (Cr)—WW | mg/L | 0.5 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >0.55 | >0.5 and ≤0.55 | ≤0.5 |
9 | TE26B | Copper (Cu)—WW | mg/L | 10 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >11 | >10 and ≤11 | ≤10 |
10 | TE29B | Nickel (Ni)—WW | mg/L | 4 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >4.4 | >4 and ≤4.4 | ≤4 |
11 | TE31B | Zinc (Zn)—WW | mg/L | 6 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >6.6 | >6 and ≤6.6 | ≤6 |
12 | TE32B | Mercury (Hg)—WW | mg/L | 0.01 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >0.011 | >0.01 and ≤0.01 | ≤0.01 |
13 | TE33B | Lead (Pb)—WW | mg/L | 1 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >1.1 | >1 and ≤1.1 | ≤1 |
14 | TE38B | Grease and oils—WW | mg/L | 50 | NOM-002-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.41) Mx | >55 | >50 and ≤55 | ≤50 |
15 | TE39B | Floating matter—WW | Absent-Present | Absent | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | Present | - | Absent |
16 | TE40B | Colour—WW | PCU | 500 | AG 236-2006 Art. 28 Gt | >550 | >500 and ≤550 | ≤500 |
17 | TE47C | Total Nitrogen—TWW | mg/L | 30 | WHO | >33 | >30 and ≤33 | ≤30 |
18 | TE54C | Sodium (Na)—TWW | meq/l | 9 | WHO | >9.9 | >9 and ≤9.9 | ≤9 |
19 | TE55C | Electric conductivity—TWW | µS/cm | 30 | WHO | >33 | >30 and ≤33 | ≤30 |
20 | TE56C | Faecal coliforms—TWW | MPN/100 mL | 1000 | NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997 Mx | >1100 | >1000 and ≤1100 | ≤1000 |
21 | TE58C | Helminths—TWW | egg/L | 5 | NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997 Mx | >5.5 | >5 and ≤5.5 | ≤5 |
22 | TE60C | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—TWW | mg/L | 100 | WHO | >110 | >100 and ≤110 | ≤100 |
23 | TE61C | pH—TWW | pH units | between 6.5–8 | WHO | <6.5 and >8 | - | ≥6.5 and ≤8 |
24 | TE62C | Arsenic (As)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | WHO | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
25 | TE63C | Cadmium (Cd)—TWW | mg/L | 0.01 | WHO | >0.011 | >0.01 and ≤0.01 | ≤0.01 |
26 | TE64C | Cyanide (CN)—TWW | mg/L | 2 | NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.14) Mx | >2.2 | >2 and ≤2.2 | ≤2 |
27 | TE65C | Chromium (Cr)—TWW | mg/L | 0.1 | WHO | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
28 | TE66C | Cupper (Cu)—TWW | mg/L | 0.2 | WHO | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
29 | TE67C | Nickel (Ni)—TWW | mg/L | 0.2 | WHO | >0.11 | >0.1 and ≤0.11 | ≤0.1 |
30 | TE68C | Zinc (Zn)—TWW | mg/L | 2 | WHO | >2.2 | >2 and ≤2.2 | ≤2 |
31 | TE69C | Mercury (Hg)—TWW | mg/L | 0.005 | NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.14) Mx | >0.0055 | >0.01 and ≤0.01 | ≤0.01 |
32 | TE70C | Lead (Pb)—TWW | mg/L | 5 | WHO | >5.5 | >5 and ≤5.5 | ≤5 |
33 | TE71C | Grease and oils—TWW | mg/L | 15 | NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.14) Mx | >16.5 | >15 and ≤16.5 | ≤15 |
34 | TE72C | Floating matter—TWW | Absent-Present | Absent | NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996 (p.14) Mx | Present | - | Absent |
35 | TE73C | Colour—TWW | PCU | 400 | AG 12-2011 Art. 11 (p.10) Gt | >440 | >400 and ≤440 | ≤400 |
36 | TE74C | Water reuse | % | between 0–100 | ST team | <33.33 | ≥33.33 and <66.67 | ≥66.67 and ≤100 |
37 | TE88C | Odours | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
38 | TE89C | Solid waste management | - | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
39 | TE91C | Operation Manual | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
40 | TE92C | Regular Maintenance | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
41 | TE93C | Capacity sufficiency | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
42 | TE94C | Accessible Sampling and processing equipment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
43 | TE95C | Discharge standards compliance | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
44 | TE96C | Analysis frequency compliance—water | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
45 | TE98C | Certification | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
46 | TE99C | Health risk assessment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | 0 | - | - |
47 | TE100C | Current management of health risks | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
48 | TE101C | Health and safety equipment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
49 | TE102C | Performance of risk assessment | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
50 | TE103C | Current management of risks | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | 0 | - | - |
51 | TE104C | Environmental impact assessment (EIA) | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
52 | TE105C | Efforts to reduce or manage environmental impacts | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | 0 | - | - |
53 | TE106C | Presence or risk of groundwater pollution | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | 0 | - | - |
54 | TE107C | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
55 | Ec2A | Per capita cost of WWT | USD/hab/year | 1–1.5 | WHO | >8.8 | >8 and ≤8.8 | ≤1.5 |
56 | Ec6A | Budget deficit | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | YES | - | NO |
57 | Ec7A | Valorisation of by-products | YES-NO | YES-NO | ST team | NO | - | YES |
58 | S1B | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
59 | S2B | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
60 | S3B | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
61 | S4B | Accessibility to information | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
62 | S5B | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
63 | S9B | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
64 | S10B | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | between 1–4 | ST team | ≥1 and <2 | ≥2 and <3 | ≥3 and ≤4 |
Appendix F
Sustainability Assessment Results Per Variable (Panajachel, Guatemala) | |||||
R: Red Y: Yellow G: Green | |||||
No. | Code (ID) | Variable | Unit | Measured/Gathered Data | Category |
1 | TE7B | Temperature—WW | °C | 23.50 | G |
2 | TE8B | Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)—WW | mg/L | 1060.00 | R |
3 | TE9B | Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)—WW | mg/L | 1150.00 | R |
4 | TE10B | Total Nitrogen—WW | mg/L | 33.05 | R |
5 | TE11B | Total Phosphorus—WW | mg/L | 26.65 | R |
6 | TE12B | Faecal coliforms—WW | MPN/100 mL | 2.75 × 1015 | R |
7 | TE14B | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—WW | mg/L | 610.00 | R |
8 | TE15B | pH—WW | pH unit | 7.27 | G |
9 | TE19C | Temperature—TWW | °C | 22.68 | G |
10 | TE20C | Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)—TWW | mg/L | 287.50 | R |
11 | TE21C | Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)—TWW | mg/L | 224.00 | R |
12 | TE22C | Total Nitrogen—TWW | mg/L | 33.50 | R |
13 | TE23C | Total Phosphorus—TWW | mg/L | 16.19 | R |
14 | TE24C | Faecal coliforms—TWW | MPN/100 mL | 1.32 × 1011 | R |
15 | TE29C | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—TWW | mg/L | 565.00 | R |
16 | TE31C | pH—TWW | pH units | 6.80 | G |
17 | TE33C | Arsenic (As)—TWW | mg/L | Not detectable | G |
18 | TE34C | Cadmium (Cd)—TWW | mg/L | Not detectable | G |
19 | TE37C | Chromium (Cr)—TWW | mg/L | 0.10 | G |
20 | TE38C | Copper (Cu)—TWW | mg/L | 0.01 | G |
21 | TE41C | Nickel (Ni)—TWW | mg/L | Not detectable | G |
22 | TE43C | Zinc (Zn)—TWW | mg/L | 0.12 | G |
23 | TE44C | Mercury (Hg)—TWW | mg/L | Not detectable | G |
24 | TE45C | Lead (Pb)—TWW | mg/L | Not detectable | G |
25 | TE49C | Grease and oils—TWW | mg/L | 367.50 | R |
26 | TE50C | Floating matter—TWW | Present-Absent | Present | R |
27 | TE51C | Colour—TWW | PCU | 648.00 | R |
28 | TE52C | Water reuse | YES-NO | NO | R |
29 | TE55C | Arsenic (As)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 53.00 | Y |
30 | TE56C | Cadmium (Cd)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 1.00 | G |
31 | TE58C | Chromium (Cr)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 60.00 | G |
32 | TE59C | Copper (Cu)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 100.00 | G |
33 | TE62C | Nickel (Ni)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 21.00 | G |
34 | TE64C | Zinc (Zn)—Sludge | mg/kg (dry weight) | 0.15 | G |
35 | TE65C | Mercury (Hg)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | Not detectable | G |
36 | TE66C | Lead (Pb)—Sludge | mg/kg dry matter (104 °C) | 61.00 | G |
37 | TE71C | Helminths—Sludge | egg/g (dry weight) | 9.00 | G |
38 | TE72C | Total coliforms—Sludge | MPN/g (dry weight) | 9 × 1013 | R |
39 | TE76C | Scope of sludge management | % | Negligible | R |
40 | TE78C | Identification of potential sludge consumers/users | YES-NO | 0.00 | G |
41 | TE83D | Operation Manual | YES-NO | NO | Y |
42 | TE84D | Regular maintenance | YES-NO | NO | R |
43 | TE85D | Capacity sufficiency | YES-NO | NO | R |
44 | TE86D | Accessible Sampling and processing equipment | YES-NO | NO | R |
45 | TE88D | Analysis frequency compliance—water | samples/year | 2 | G |
46 | TE89D | Analysis frequency compliance—sludge | samples/year | 2 | G |
47 | TE90D | Certification | YES-NO | NO | R |
48 | TE91D | Health risk assessment | YES-NO | NO | R |
49 | TE93E | Health and safety equipment | YES-NO | NO | R |
50 | TE94E | Performance of risk assessment | YES-NO | NO | R |
51 | TE96E | Environmental impact assessment (EIA) | YES-NO | NO | R |
52 | TE99E | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | YES-NO | YES | R |
53 | Ec2A | Per capita cost of WWT | USD/hab/year | 1.00 | R |
54 | Ec7A | Budget deficit | YES-NO | Yes | R |
55 | Ec8A | Valorisation of by-products | YES-NO | No | R |
56 | S1B | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 4.00 | G |
57 | S2B | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 4.00 | G |
58 | S3B | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 3.60 | G |
59 | S4B | Accessibility to information | scale 1–4 | 2.40 | Y |
60 | S5B | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | scale 1–4 | 3.40 | G |
61 | S9B | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | 1.20 | R |
62 | S10B | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | 1.30 | R |
Sustainability Assessment Results Per variable (Tepeji, Mexico) | |||||
R: Red Y: Yellow G: Green | |||||
No. | Code (ID) | Variable | Unit | Measured/Gathered Data | Category |
1 | TE9B | Temperature—WW | °C | 21.00 | G |
2 | TE12B | Total Nitrogen—WW | mg/L | 115.38 | R |
3 | TE13B | Total Phosphorus—WW | mg/L | 4.71 | G |
4 | TE19B | Faecal coliforms—WW | MPN/100 mL | 2.40 × 103 | R |
5 | TE22B | pH —WW | pH unit | 8.85 | G |
6 | TE23B | Arsenic (As)—WW | mg/L | 0.00 | G |
7 | TE24B | Cadmium (Cd)—WW | mg/L | 0.02 | G |
8 | TE25B | Chromium (Cr)—WW | mg/L | 0.05 | G |
9 | TE26B | Cupper (Cu)—WW | mg/L | 0.02 | G |
10 | TE29B | Nickel (Ni)—WW | mg/L | 0.05 | G |
11 | TE31B | Zinc (Zn)—WW | mg/L | 0.02 | G |
12 | TE32B | Mercury (Hg)—WW | mg/L | 0.00 | G |
13 | TE33B | Lead (Pb)—WW | mg/L | 0.00 | G |
14 | TE38B | Grease and oils—WW | mg/L | 5.41 | G |
15 | TE39B | Floating matter—WW | Absent-Present | Absent | G |
16 | TE40B | Colour—WW | PCU | 100.00 | G |
17 | TE47C | Total Nitrogen—TWW | mg/L | 120.62 | R |
18 | TE55C | Electric conductivity—TWW | µS/cm | 1.84 | G |
19 | TE56C | Faecal coliforms—TWW | MPN/100 mL | 2400.00 | R |
20 | TE60C | Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—TWW | mg/L | 46.00 | G |
21 | TE61C | pH —TWW | pH units | 8.32 | R |
22 | TE62C | Arsenic (As)—TWW | mg/L | 0.00 | G |
23 | TE63C | Cadmium (Cd)—TWW | mg/L | 0.02 | R |
24 | TE64C | Cyanide (CN)—TWW | mg/L | 0.64 | G |
25 | TE65C | Chromium (Cr)—TWW | mg/L | 0.05 | G |
26 | TE66C | Cupper (Cu)—TWW | mg/L | 0.02 | G |
27 | TE67C | Nickel (Ni)—TWW | mg/L | 0.05 | G |
28 | TE68C | Zinc (Zn)—TWW | mg/L | 0.02 | G |
29 | TE69C | Mercury (Hg)—TWW | mg/L | 0.00 | G |
30 | TE70C | Lead (Pb)—TWW | mg/L | 0.10 | G |
31 | TE71C | Grease and oils—TWW | mg/L | 5.00 | G |
32 | TE72C | Floating matter—TWW | Absent-Present | Absent | G |
33 | TE73C | Colour—TWW | PCU | 100.00 | G |
34 | TE74C | Water reuse | % | 100.00 | G |
35 | TE88C | Odours | YES-NO | YES | R |
36 | TE89C | Solid waste management | - | NO | R |
37 | TE91C | Operation Manual | YES-NO | NO | R |
38 | TE92C | Regular Maintenance | YES-NO | Daily | G |
39 | TE93C | Capacity sufficiency | YES-NO | NO | R |
40 | TE94C | Accessible Sampling and processing equipment | YES-NO | NO | R |
41 | TE95C | Discharge standards compliance | YES-NO | NO | R |
42 | TE96C | Analysis frequency compliance—water | YES-NO | NO | R |
43 | TE98C | Certification | YES-NO | YES | G |
44 | TE100C | Current management of health risks | YES-NO | YES | G |
45 | TE101C | Health and safety equipment | YES-NO | YES | G |
46 | TE102C | Performance of risk assessment | YES-NO | NO | R |
47 | TE104C | Environmental impact assessment (EIA) | YES-NO | NO | R |
48 | TE107C | Presence or risk of surface water pollution | YES-NO | NO | G |
49 | S1B | Personal interest in wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 3.71 | G |
50 | S2B | Personal awareness of wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 3.57 | G |
51 | S3B | Willingness to be informed about the wastewater management problems | scale 1–4 | 3.29 | G |
52 | S4B | Accessibility to information | scale 1–4 | 1.86 | R |
53 | S5B | Possibilities for providing a recommendation | scale 1–4 | 2.71 | Y |
54 | S9B | Personal acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | 2.64 | Y |
55 | S10B | Perception of social acceptance of the current wastewater management | scale 1–4 | 1.64 | R |
References
- Muga, H.E.; Mihelcic, J.R. Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UN Habitat. Water and Sanitation in Latin America and the Caribbean; UN Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010; ISBN 978-92-1-132300-9. [Google Scholar]
- UN Habitat. Estado de las Ciudades de América Latina y el Caribe; UN Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ballestero, M.; Arroyo, V.; Mejía, A. Inseguridad Económica del Agua en Latinoamérica: de la abundancia a la inseguridad; CAF: Caracas, Venezuela, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mateo-Sagasta, J. Reutilización de Aguas para Agricultura en América Latina y el Caribe: Estado, Principios y Necesidades; FAO: Santiago, Chile, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Libralato, G.; Volpi Ghirardini, A.; Avezzù, F. To centralise or to decentralise: An overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UN General Assembly A/RES/71/256—New Urban Agenda GA Adopted 68th Plenary N1646655-E. Available online: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/New-Urban-Agenda-GA-Adopted-68th-Plenary-N1646655-E.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2017).
- UN. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- UN-Habitat. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures; World Cities Report; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016; ISBN 978-92-1-132708-3. [Google Scholar]
- Alcamo, J.; Bennet, E. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources Institute, Eds.; Island: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-1-55963-402-1. [Google Scholar]
- Ghodeif, K. Baseline Assessment Study for Wastewater Treatment Plant for Al Gozayyera Village, West Kantara City, Ismailia Governorate, Egypt; Network of Demonstration Activities for Sustainable Integrated Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Mediterranean: Cairo, Egypt, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Seecon Sustainable Sanitation and Water Tool 2017. Available online: URL (accessed on 10 May 2018).
- Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Ministry of Construction-Hanoi Asset Management Guideline for Drainage Sewerage System; Ministry of Construction: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2009.
- GIZ. IWA The Energy Performance and Carbon Emissions Assessment and Monitoring (ECAM) Tool; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zussamenarbeit: Eschborn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Balkema, A.J.; Preisig, H.A.; Otterpohl, R.; Lambert, F.J. Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 2002, 4, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quadros, S.; João Rosa, M.; Alegre, H.; Silva, C. A performance indicators system for urban wastewater treatment plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 2398–2407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lundin, M.; Olofsson, M.; Pettersson, G.; Zetterlund, H. Environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge handling options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 41, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özerol, G.; Newig, J. Evaluating the success of public participation in water resources management: Five key constituents. Water Policy 2008, 10, 639–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostert, E. The challenge of public participation. Water Policy 2003, 5, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millington, P. Integrated River Basin Management: From Concepts to Good Practice; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, A. Integrated Water Resources Management; Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000; ISBN 978-91-630-9229-9. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zscheischler, J.; Rogga, S. Transdisciplinarity in land use science—A review of concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures 2015, 65, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Korff, Y.; d’Aquino, P.; Daniell, K.A.; Bijlsma, R. Designing Participation Processes for Water Management and Beyond. Synthesis, part of a special feature on implementing participatory water management: Recent advances in theory, practice and evaluation. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, W.E.; Grant, W.E.; Pedersen, E.K.; Marin, S.L.; Marín, S.L. Ecology and Natural Resource Management: Systems Analysis and Simulation; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 978-0-471-13786-3. [Google Scholar]
- Grant, W.E. Ecology and natural resource management: reflections from a systems perspective. Ecol. Model. 1998, 108, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odum, H.T. General and Ecological Systems; University Press of Colorado: Niwot, CO, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Schmidt-Bleek, F. The Factor 10/MIPS-Concept: Bridging Ecological, Economic, and Social Dimensions with Sustainability Indicators; ZEF: Tokyo, Japan; Berlin, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrenfeld, J.R. The roots of sustainability. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2005, 46, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Kissinger, M.; Rees, W.E. An interregional ecological approach for modelling sustainability in a globalizing world—Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221, 2615–2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avellan, T.; Koester, K.; Selvam, V.; Brueggemann, K.; Ruiz, N. Understanding the Water-Soil-Waste Nexus. In Proceedings of the Constructed Wetland Knowledge Platform Meeting 2017, Dresden, Germany, 10 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Loiseau, E.; Junqua, G.; Roux, P.; Bellon-Maurel, V. Environmental assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 112, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UNU-FLORES. Sustainability of Wastewater Systems: Current and Future Perspectives—An Assessment Workshop; United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES): Dresden, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hacking, T.; Guthrie, P. A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pope, J.; Bond, A.; Hugé, J.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pope, J.; Annandale, D.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toumi, O.; Le Gallo, J.; Ben Rejeb, J. Assessment of Latin American sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertanza, G.; Baroni, P.; Canato, M. Ranking sewage sludge management strategies by means of Decision Support Systems: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 110, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fay, M.; Andres, L.A.; Fox, C.; Narloch, U.; Straub, S.; Slawson, M. Rethinking Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Bottom Up | Top Down | |
---|---|---|
1 | System model analysis | Research literature review |
2 | Stakeholder input (assessment workshop) on locally relevant data items and indicators | Policies and regulations review |
3 | - | Technical guidelines review |
Criteria | Priority | |
---|---|---|
1a | Stakeholders chose the item during Assessment Workshop | P1 |
PLUS (+) | ||
1b | Literature on wastewater management mentions it | |
2 | Locally applicable regulation calls for the parameter | P2 |
3 | Thresholds to compare current value against are available | P3 |
Data Type | Criteria | Ranking | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Red | Yellow | Green | ||
Real number | 10% tolerance | MV > TH × 1.1 | TH < MV ≤ TH × 1.1 | MV ≤ TH |
Percentage | Range divided into 3 equal parts (33% each) | MV < 33% or 67% ≤ MV | 33% ≤ MV < 67% | 67% ≤ MV or MV < 33% |
Absolute values (e.g., yes/no questions) | No yellow range, unless mentioned otherwise | YES/NO Present/Absent Outside pH range | - | YES/NO Present/Absent Within pH range |
Social variables (dataset IIb) | Scale 1 to 4 | 1 ≤ MV < 2 | 2 ≤ MV < 3 | 3 ≤ MV ≤ 4 |
Subset | Description | Scales | Number of Data Items | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset 0 Context indicators | Understanding of context: geographical location and characteristics, poverty and employment indicators, etc. | 50 data items for 4 scales | 01 | WWTP | 7 |
02 | Municipal | 18 | |||
03 | Subcatchment | 13 | |||
04 | Watershed | 12 | |||
Dataset I Technical-Environmental | Technical and environmental variables (e.g., population served, chemical parameters of water bodies and of effluents, WWTP management) | 380 data items across 4 scales | 01 | WWTP | 211 |
02 | Municipal | 31 | |||
03 | Subcatchment | 70 | |||
04 | Watershed | 68 | |||
Dataset II Socio-Economical | Economic, financial, budget variables. Dataset IIb useful to understand the social acceptance of the system | IIa. 52 data items for 4 scales | 01 | WWTP | 16 |
02 | Municipal | 17 | |||
03 | Subcatchment | 7 | |||
04 | Watershed | 12 | |||
IIb. 10 data items, across scales | Social space (cross-scale) | 10 | |||
Total data items | 492 |
Tepeji Dataset Framework | Panajachel Dataset Framework | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dataset | Scale | Number of Items | Dataset | Scale | Number of Items |
Dataset 0 Context | 01 | 3 | Dataset 0 Context | 01 | 1 |
02 | 3 | 02 | 0 | ||
03 | 4 | 03 | 0 | ||
04 | 5 | 04 | 0 | ||
Total | 15 | Total | 1 | ||
Dataset I Technical Environmental | 01 | 107 | Dataset I Technical Environmental | 01 | 98 |
02 | 15 | 02 | 15 | ||
03 | 15 | 03 | 55 | ||
04 | 18 | 04 | 18 | ||
Total | 155 | Total | 186 | ||
Dataset IIa Social-Economic | 01 | 7 | Dataset IIa Social-Economic | 01 | 8 |
02 | 5 | 02 | 8 | ||
03 | 0 | 03 | 0 | ||
04 | 3 | 04 | 5 | ||
Total | 15 | Total | 20 | ||
Data IIb Multi-scalar Social | Total | 10 | Data IIb Multi-scalar Social | Total | 10 |
Total items in framework | 195 | Total items in framework | 218 | ||
Grey shaded areas indicate the data that used in sustainability assessment |
All Scales: Data Found | Scale 01: Data Found | Scale 01: Data Found and Useful | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Items | Items Found | % Found | Total Items | Items Found | % | Number of Items Found and Useful | % | |
Dataset 0 | 1 | 1 | 100.00 | 1 | 1 | 100 | - * | - * |
Dataset I | 186 | 88 | 47.31 | 98 | 73 | 74.49 | 52 | 71.23 |
Dataset II | 31 | 23 | 74.19 | 18 | 16 | 88.89 | 10 | 62.50 |
Total | 218 | 112 | 51.38 | 117 | 90 | 76.92 | 62 | 68.89 |
All Scales: Data Found | Scale 01: Data Found | Scale 01: Data Found and Useful | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Items | Items Found | % Found | Total Items | Items Found | % | Number of Items Found and Useful | % | |
Dataset 0 | 15 | 10 | 66.67 | 3 | 3 | 100.00 | - * | - * |
Dataset I | 155 | 93 | 60.00 | 107 | 81 | 75.70 | 48 | 59.26 |
Dataset II | 25 | 18 | 72.00 | 17 | 12 | 70.59 | 7 | 58.33 |
Total | 195 | 121 | 62.05 | 127 | 96 | 75.59 | 55 | 57.29 |
Variables Per Category | % Variables Per Category | Dimension Average | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dimension | R * | Y | G | Total | R | Y | G | Total | Value | Colour |
Technical-Environmental (TE) | 27 | 2 | 23 | 52 | 52% | 4% | 44% | 100% | −0.08 | Y |
Economic (Ec) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 100% | −1.00 | R |
Social (S) | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 29% | 14% | 57% | 100% | 0.29 | Y |
Total or Average | 32 | 3 | 27 | 62 | 60% | 6% | 34% | 100% | −0.26 | Y |
Variables Per Category | % Variables Per Category | Dimension Average | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dimension | R * | Y | G | Total | R | Y | G | Total | Value | Colour |
Technical-Environmental (TE) | 15 | 0 | 33 | 48 | 31% | 0% | 69% | 100% | 0.38 | G |
Economic (Ec) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ND | ND | ND | 0% | ND | ND |
Social (S) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 29% | 29% | 43% | 100% | 0.14 | Y |
Total or Average | 17 | 2 | 36 | 55 | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Benavides, L.; Avellán, T.; Caucci, S.; Hahn, A.; Kirschke, S.; Müller, A. Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America. Water 2019, 11, 249. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020249
Benavides L, Avellán T, Caucci S, Hahn A, Kirschke S, Müller A. Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America. Water. 2019; 11(2):249. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020249
Chicago/Turabian StyleBenavides, Lucía, Tamara Avellán, Serena Caucci, Angela Hahn, Sabrina Kirschke, and Andrea Müller. 2019. "Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America" Water 11, no. 2: 249. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020249