You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Resources
Download PDF
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Review
  • Open Access

13 October 2022

Environmental Assessment of Wastewater Treatment and Reuse for Irrigation: A Mini-Review of LCA Studies

and
1
International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM-Bari), Via Ceglie 9, 70010 Valenzano, Italy
2
Department of Management, Finance and Technology, LUM Giuseppe Degennaro University, S.S. 100-Km 18, 70010 Casamassima, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources2022, 11(10), 94;https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11100094
This article belongs to the Special Issue Reuse of Treated Wastewater in Irrigation: Exploring the Current Challenges and Opportunities through Life Cycle Thinking Tools
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of existing LCA literature analyzing the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment and reuses, with irrigation as a process or scenario. Fifty-nine (n = 59) papers published between 2010 and 2022 were reviewed to provide insights into the methodological choices (goals, geographical scope, functional units, system boundaries, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) procedures). The results show that LCA research has steadily increased in the last six years. The LCAs are case-study specific, apply a process perspective, and are primarily conducted by European authors. The LCAs are mainly midpoint-oriented with global warming, acidification and eutrophication potential as the most common impact categories reported. Volumetric-based functional units are the most widely applied. The most commonly used LCIA models were ReCiPe and CML, with Ecoinvent as the most commonly used database and SimaPro as the primary LCA software tool. Despite the fact that these methods cover a wide range of midpoint impact categories, nearly half of the studies focused on a few life cycle impact category indicators. In many studies, the LCA scope is frequently narrowed, and the assessment does not look at the cradle-to-grave system boundary but rather at cradle-to-gate or gate-to-gate system boundaries. Regardless of technology or other system boundary assumptions, the design of environmentally efficient wastewater reuse schemes is primarily determined by the type of energy supplied to the product’s life cycle. Our findings highlight that more holistic studies that take into account the expansion of system boundaries and the use of a broad set of environmental impact categories, supported by uncertainty and/or sensitivity analysis, are required. The overview presented in this paper serves as groundwork for future LCA studies in the field of irrigation with treated wastewater.

1. Introduction

Water is essential for agricultural production and plays an important role in food security. Food consumption is increasing in most parts of the world as a result of population growth and dietary changes, which has a direct impact on agricultural resource scarcity and distribution. As pointed out by the FAO [], farming accounts for almost 70 percent of all water withdrawals, and up to 95 percent in some developing countries.
By 2050, irrigated food production will have to increase by more than 50 percent []. Climate change is expected to exacerbate water scarcity and competition for water resources. Wastewater is frequently regarded as a valuable resource of the emerging circular economy approach. It may be helpful in alleviating water scarcity in arid and semi-arid Mediterranean countries []. It is appealing for toilet flushing, agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and replenishing/recharging of groundwater basins [].
The reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation has a long history of development and has undergone different phases in developing and developed countries []. To address water scarcity, 15 million m3/day of untreated wastewater is used globally for crop irrigation []. About 44 countries worldwide already use wastewater for crop irrigation []. It is extensively applied in China, Pakistan, Colombia, Syria, South Africa, Morocco, and Peru []. Irrigation with treated wastewater is also successfully practiced in Cyprus, Italy, Malta, Israel, the United States, Mexico, and Chile [].
Untreated wastewater irrigation can cause a slew of environmental issues []. On the other hand, the standards set by local governments for wastewater are becoming more stringent. Advanced tertiary treatments must be implemented in conventional wastewater treatment plants to optimize water quality for reuse in agricultural irrigation. Improved water quality and water-related services are frequently associated with increased electricity and chemical demand, together with associated environmental emissions. Yet, a large proportion of the environmental impact occurs for processes in the upstream supply chain (e.g., material production for infrastructure). As a result, the resource utilization and environmental effects in a life cycle outlook is highly necessary an integrated view. Moreover, in crop production, the comparison of environmental life cycle impacts from linear product versions with their circular counterparts is required to ascertain the environmental consequences and to provide scientific guidance for the sustainable utilization of reclaimed water [].
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to evaluate an environmental load of a product, process, or activity throughout its life cycle. LCA is instrumental to evaluate the environmental sustainability of water-related technologies services and by capturing tradeoffs across various categories of environmental concern []. Studies that assess the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment and reuse for irrigation through LCA are becoming more common in the literature. Nevertheless, a summary and review of such LCA studies have been partially reported in scientific literature. LCA studies related to municipal wastewater management and wastewater treatment were previously reviewed by other authors [,,,]. In this work, we explored how LCA has been applied in the context of wastewater treatment and reuse when irrigation is included as a process or as a scenario. The findings contribute to the identification of trends and opportunities in the field, as well as exchange of data and lessons for the next generation of LCA studies in the field of irrigation with treated wastewater.

2. Review of International Literature

This study used bibliographic databases such as “ScienceDirect” and “Web of Science” and “Google Scholar” for publications relating to the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment and reuse for irrigation published in the last 12 years (2010–2022). The review was performed using the search strings of “wastewater”, “irrigation”, “agricultural reuse”, “LCA”, “life cycle assessment” and “environmental impact” in title, abstract, and keywords. After searching the databases, a total of fifty-nine (59) studies were selected and reviewed. Only studies including an impact assessment phase were selected.

2.1. Type of Research

Most LCA articles were published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production [,,,,,,,,,,], Science for Total Environment [,,,,,,], Journal of Environmental Management [,,], and other environmental/ecological [,,,,,,,,,] and water-related journals [,,,,,,,,]. Conference papers and report account for only a very small percentage of LCA studies [,,,,].

2.2. Study Objective and Processes

The majority of LCA studies take a process-oriented approach, focusing on the design and operation of a wastewater treatment plant and its recovery processes. Most published research is case-study-specific. The study objective, as can be seen in Table 1, is divided into wastewater treatment designated for reuse [,,,,,,,], reuse of effluent for crop irrigation [,,,,,,,,,] or to elaborate LCA-related tools and framework for the evaluation of wastewater reuse environmental efficiency [,,]. Filtration with or without UV disinfection [,,,,,,,,,,,], ozonation [,,,,], coagulation–flocculation [,,,,], and constructed wetlands [,,,] are some of the common processes studied.
Table 1. List of LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation.

2.3. Geographical and Temporal Scope

Geographical coverage of the reviewed studies varied (Figure 1), with the majority of the studies mainly carried out in the EU context (n = 26 or 46%). The European LCA analyses were mainly applied in Italy [,,,,,,,,,,] and Spain [,,,,,,,,,] with eleven and ten studies, respectively. Two studies were conducted in France [,] and one in Germany []. Kraus et al. [] presented the LCA results of different wastewater reuse schemes in Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain and Israel. About eight studies [,,,,,,] were from Middle East, eight [,,,,,,,] from Asia, seven [,,,,,,] in North America, five [,,,,] in South America, two in Australia/Oceania [,], and three in Africa [,,]. The literature has gradually been enriched over the years. The number of publications increased after 2016. This surge likely reflects the growing importance of wastewater due to water scarcity and drought events. Moreover, LCA has become one of the main pillars driving European policy concerning sustainable use of resources, sustainable consumption and production, and prevention of waste.
Figure 1. Geographical scope (a) and year of publication (b) of LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation as a process or scenario.

2.4. System Boundaries, Multifunctionality, and Functional Units

A meaningful definition of system boundaries and functional units and equivalent scenarios for comparative studies are a prerequisite for an LCA, which should compare different technological options or processes in their environmental impacts []. System boundaries set the criteria and specify which unit processes are part of the product system. The most comprehensive definition of system boundaries reaches from the cradle (e.g., extraction of raw materials) to the grave (e.g., end-of-life treatment). For water treatment processes, a typical LCA framework includes the water flow to be treated (as input or “reference flow”), the treatment process itself, and all direct emissions into the environment (effluent water quality that is discharged or used in the environment, direct emissions to atmosphere), and all indirect processes that are required to build and operate this treatment process []. Since they vary widely, one of the challenges of LCA is delineating the system boundary. Most studies used a process perspective and have been established from a cradle-to-gate perspective and included only the construction of the infrastructure and the operation phase of the tertiary treatment, thus excluding the end-of-life for the constructed systems. Around 40% of the studies focused only on the operation phase of wastewater treatment system (See Table 1). The reason for excluding infrastructure was stated as a minor contribution to total impacts is negligible when compared to the operation phase or low contribution to impacts in previous studies [,,,,], or because the wastewater treatment plant is operated no matter if its discharge is used or not for irrigation []. The end-of-life or disposal of spent consumables (e.g., membranes) and infrastructure were included to a limited extent [,,,,]. Limited system boundaries that may not capture the full impacts of the processes and leave out certain life cycle stages in an LCA could lead to an incomparability of results [].
Many LCAs [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,] are of a comparative nature. More than 90% of studies cited that they based their analysis on international standards for LCA (ISO 14040/44:2006). The majority of LCAs did not explicitly state whether they used an attributional or consequential modeling approach.
Allocation is one common strategy for solving multi-functionality problems. In LCA there are two principal approaches to addressing secondary functions of a system, such as the production of reclaimed water as a secondary product of wastewater treatment: the “system expansion” approach and the “avoided burden” approach []. A first option to reach this functional equivalency is to expand the systems with alternative processes supplying the same function (“system expansion”). An example would be to expand the model of a reference wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) without water reuse with another process for water production (e.g., a drinking-water plant) so that this expanded system fulfills both functions of wastewater treatment and production of water for other uses. Another option follows the “avoided burden” approach: the impacts of supplying secondary products are directly subtracted from the bifunctional scenario, crediting the avoided burden of the process, which would supply the secondary product in a reference system. System expansion was considered by ten studies [,,,,,,,,,] while substitution by eleven studies [,,,,,,,,,,]. Multi-functionality is generally not considered or clearly stated in the remaining LCA studies.
The functional unit represents the quantification of the functions of the systems under investigation. It is of great importance in any LCA because it serves as the basis for comparison between different systems and further methodological choices such as the definition of system boundaries. Table 1 shows the most common functional units used in previous studies. The common functional unit analyzed (n = 34 studies) is volume-based, i.e., the volume of water treated or reused, which is correct from a methodological point of view and coherent with the goal of the LCA. Some studies [,,,,,,,,] are concerned with the overall operation of a system over a given period. When the analysis is extended to crop production, functional units refers to area [,,,,,] or 1 kg or a ton of product [,,]. The difference in the functional units complicates the cross-comparison of studies and their effective discussion. In wastewater-related LCA studies, establishing a suitable functional unit can be difficult because (i) wastewater treatment plants are becoming multifunctional (function of a wastewater treatment plant or a resource recovery facility) and (ii) the LCA focus is not only on the potential role of treated wastewater reuse as an alternative source of water supply, but also to assess the impacts of producing wastewater-derived products.

2.5. Impact Assessment Methodologies and Environmental Mechanism

An important point of LCAs is the selection of impact assessment methods in the cycle impact assessment (LCIA) stage. The potential environmental impacts from emissions and resource use that can be attributed to specific products in LCAs can be performed by using different impact assessment methods. The method selected and the particulars thereof may influence the results obtained. ReCiPe (n = 24) and the Center of Environmental Science at Leiden University (CML, n = 9) are the most widely used LCIA methodologies to assess environmental impacts, having been selected in thirty-two studies (Figure 2). The ReCiPe method is mainly applied in European context [,,,,,,,,,,,]. The CML method was used in research carried out in the Middle East [], Asia [,,,], and Europe [,,,]. ReCiPe has 18 midpoint environmental impact categories while CML 2000 has 10 environmental impact categories, and both can be applied on a global scale. TRACI is mainly applied in the American context [,,,]. Six studies [,,,,,] selected Eco-indicator 95/99, five studies [,,,,] IPCC, five studies [,,,,] Impact 2002+/World+, three studies ILCD [,,] and two environmental footprint method [,]. The Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) was applied in five studies [,,,,] to estimate the total primary energy consumption. AWARE (Available Water Remaining), a consensus-based method development to assess water use in LCA, is applied in three studies [,,]. It is recommended that an LCA study should apply at least two LCIA methods to check the importance of their choice on the results, such as through the use of sensitivity analysis. Very few studies [,,,,,] applied more than one LCIA method to understand if the use of different LCIA methods may lead to different conclusions.
Figure 2. Frequency and type of LCIA method used in LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation as a process or scenario.
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are typically calculated through two main approaches: midpoint and/or endpoint. Midpoints are considered to be links in the cause–effect chain (an environmental mechanism) of an impact category, before the endpoints, at which characterization factors or indicators can be derived to reflect the relative importance of emissions or extractions. Common examples of midpoint characterization factors include acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, global warming, and photochemical ozone (smog) creation potentials. The endpoint indicators, on the other hand, are further down the chain and relate to the actual damage that those substances, emitted or consumed, can cause (e.g., damage to human health, natural environment and damage to resources). A midpoint assessment was performed in 49 studies (70%), while an endpoint assessment was performed in 21 studies (30%), either separately or in combination with midpoint (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Frequency and type of the environmental mechanism used in LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation as a process or scenario.
The greater the number of impact categories analyzed, the more comprehensive the description of the environmental profile of products. In the studies reviewed, the number of indicators ranged from a minimum of 1 presented as a single score to a maximum of 21. Azeb et al. [], Canaj et al. [], Lane et al. [], Carre et al. [], Arzate et al. [], Roman and Brennan. [], and Estevez et al. [] are examples of multi-indicator assessment studies. Global warming potential, also referred to as carbon footprint or impact on climate change, was the most commonly studied impact assessment category (Figure 4), reported in 80% of studies (n = 47). Other common impact categories in LCA studies are eutrophication potential (35 studies or 60%) and acidification (34 studies or 58%). Water-related indicators (water consumption, water depletion, or water footprint) were included only in 34% of the studies (Figure 4). Human toxicity was reported in 26 studies (44%), while eco-toxicities were reported in 28 studies (47%). Energy was reported in nine studies, while land occupation was reported in 7 studies (13%). LCA of water systems must consider carefully the choice of impact assessment models [], and LCA indicators need to be adapted to the specific local context in which the wastewater treatment plant is embedded [].
Figure 4. Frequency and type of environmental indicators used in LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation as a process or scenario.

2.6. LCA Tools and Databases

To model the analyzed systems and technologies, different software tools were used by practitioners. Analyzing the distribution of the software used in the reviewed studies (Figure 5), it is observed that several studies used generic LCA software such as SimaPro (47%), GaBi (14%) and OpenLCA (12%). In 22% (n = 14) of the studies (see Table 1), the LCA software was not specified. Forty-seven (80%) studies used Ecoinvent as a background database, three used GaBi, while nine studies did not specify which database was used.
Figure 5. Frequency and type of software considered in LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation as a process or scenario.

2.7. Uncertainty Consideration

The inclusion of sensitivity analyses in the LCA was also noted (Figure 6). Several authors address uncertainty with sensitivity analyses to account for parameter variation. Around 30 studies (51%) utilized sensitivity analyses to test the impact of changing variables and conditions. The most used approach in the studies is one at a time (moving one input variable, keeping others at their baseline nominal values). This sensitivity analysis is applied in twenty studies [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. The Monte Carlo method is applied only in ten studies [,,,,,,,,,].
Figure 6. Frequency of uncertainty consideration and their type in LCA studies on wastewater treatment and reuse including irrigation.

3. Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Worldwide wastewater reuse for irrigation is increasingly more practiced. Water reuse strategies are intended as a sustainable way of addressing water scarcity and preventing water pollution []. Irrigating crops with reclaimed water is in principle an environmentally friendly practice, as it saves freshwater resources [,,] and promotes the quality of freshwater resources [,,]. Nevertheless, reuse is not always beneficial to the environment as it may involve a relevant contribution to terrestrial ecotoxicity, as compared to a crop using desalinated water and groundwater []. The environmental impact of irrigation using reclaimed water can be greater than using groundwater mainly due to excessive fertilization [] or affected by the wastewater treatment phase []. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely used to quantify environmental impacts associated with urban water infrastructure, including wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and reuse for irrigation. The main goal of this study was to systematically review the LCA literature to identify the current state of research studies and aid as a starting point for any future research. Our review finds that:
  • The environmental impacts of WWTP and reuse for irrigation have been increasingly assessed since 2016, with Europe as the most examined continent and Africa mostly neglected. The importance of LCA as a method for analyzing the environmental performance of products and services from a holistic standpoint is widely recognized in Europe. It is found that the number of LCA researchers based in Africa is still limited, and it appears important for the continent to prioritize education and training regarding life cycle concepts [].
  • The application of LCA research is mainly based on a process perspective, mainly accounting for the design and operation of a wastewater treatment plant for irrigation. Yet, the life cycle environmental impacts of applying these recovered products (water, nutrients, energy, etc.) to irrigated agriculture and examining associated benefits and tradeoffs are generally lacking.
  • The boundaries of the systems have not been comprehensively evaluated as the infrastructure and end-of-life have often been neglected. LCA studies [,,,,,,] have highlighted that energy consumption remains the main contributor to environmental impacts; thus, the type of energy supplied to the product’s life cycle will determine the environmental efficiency of reclaimed water []. The use of fossil-based electricity contributes to the increase in overall impacts [] while increasing renewable energies in the electric mix can help to reduce environmental impacts [,,]. Environmental impact from treated effluent and heavy metal emissions as well as manufacturing of systems can be important depending on the water quality and nature of the materials used. It should be noted that the construction phase is expected to increase in significance as the electricity grid moves to a more renewable energy supply through time []. Therefore, the integration of multiple environmental impacts is needed to avoid burden shifting and to explore potential tradeoffs between different processes, stages, and indicators.
  • Adopted functional units are highly heterogeneous across the revised studies, with volume-based units predominating. Conducting an LCA using multiple functional units can enable a more holistic understanding of the environmental impacts of resource recovery and application.
  • The LCA research on irrigation has relied on a limited number of indicators, mainly focusing on global warming, acidification, and eutrophication, while in some emerging studies arrays of environmental indicators have been used. Special attention should be given to the evaluation of other environmental impacts (e.g., water consumption, toxicity, particulate matter, ionizing radiation, photochemical ozone formation, etc.) in addition to the traditional ones. By applying a multi-indicator priorities and trade-offs can be identified.
  • Comparison among impact assessment results is a challenge as different methods were used to address the impact assessment. The results showed that ReCiPe and CML are widely used. The inconsistency caused by different LCIA methods is a long-term challenge for the LCA community. Most of the research applied a midpoint perspective to identify environmental “hotspots” and possible opportunities for improvement across its life cycle. Nevertheless, communication of these LCA results remains a challenge beyond the LCA practitioners as midpoints require at least some knowledge of the multitude of environmental effects to properly interpret the results. The inclusion of both midpoint and endpoint methodologies could provide useful information for different stakeholders. Since sensitivity analysis in combination with uncertainty analysis is insufficient in the current studies, more frequent and comprehensive reporting of uncertainty analysis is recommended.
  • Wastewater reuse is an area expected to experience considerable growth in the forthcoming years. Consequently, this would lead to a surge in the demand for LCA in the context of strategic planning and decision-making. The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) is already well developed in the water and wastewater industry [], but further research is required to ascertain the environmental consequences and to provide scientific guidance for the sustainable utilization of reclaimed water at the farm-level []. Our findings highlight that more holistic studies that take into account the expansion of system boundaries, multiple functional units, and the use of a broad set of environmental impact categories, supported by uncertainty and/or sensitivity analysis, are required. Other tools such as risk assessment, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment should be evaluated simultaneously when exploring life cycle sustainability of wastewater treatment and reuse.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.; methodology, A.M.; software, A.M.; formal analysis, A.M. and K.C.; investigation, K.C.; resources, A.M.; data curation, K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, K.C.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; ISBN 9789251099773. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mancuso, G.; Lavrnić, S.; Toscano, A. Reclaimed water to face agricultural water scarcity in the Mediterranean area: An overview using Sustainable Development Goals preliminary data. Adv. Chem. Pollut. Environ. Manag. Prot. 2020, 5, 113–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tripathi, M.P.; Bisen, Y.; Tiwari, P. Reuse of Wastewater in Agriculture. In Water Conservation, Recycling and Reuse: Issues and Challenges; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 231–258. ISBN 9789811331794. [Google Scholar]
  4. Zhang, Y.; Shen, Y. Wastewater irrigation: Past, present, and future. WIREs Water 2019, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ungureanu, N.; Vlăduț, V.; Voicu, G. Water Scarcity and Wastewater Reuse in Crop Irrigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hashem, M.S.; Qi, X. Treated Wastewater Irrigation—A Review. Water 2021, 13, 1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jaramillo, M.; Restrepo, I. Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture: A Review about Its Limitations and Benefits. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Romeiko, X.X. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Crop Systems Irrigated with the Groundwater and Reclaimed Water in Northern China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Corominas, L.; Byrne, D.M.; Guest, J.S.; Hospido, A.; Roux, P.; Shaw, A.; Short, M.D. The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: A best practice guide and critical review. Water Res. 2020, 184, 116058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Corominas, L.; Foley, J.; Guest, J.S.; Hospido, A.; Larsen, H.F.; Morera, S.; Shaw, A. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State of the art. Water Res. 2013, 47, 5480–5492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gallego-Schmid, A.; Tarpani, R.R.Z. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment in developing countries: A review. Water Res. 2019, 153, 63–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maeseele, C.; Roux, P. An LCA framework to assess environmental efficiency of water reuse: Application to contrasted locations for wastewater reuse in agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 316, 128151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Canaj, K.; Mehmeti, A.; Morrone, D.; Toma, P.; Todorović, M. Life cycle-based evaluation of environmental impacts and external costs of treated wastewater reuse for irrigation: A case study in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Foglia, A.; Andreola, C.; Cipolletta, G.; Radini, S.; Akyol, Ç.; Eusebi, A.L.; Stanchev, P.; Katsou, E.; Fatone, F. Comparative life cycle environmental and economic assessment of anaerobic membrane bioreactor and disinfection for reclaimed water reuse in agricultural irrigation: A case study in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Akhoundi, A.; Nazif, S. Sustainability assessment of wastewater reuse alternatives using the evidential reasoning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1350–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Amores, M.J.; Meneses, M.; Pasqualino, J.; Antón, A.; Castells, F. Environmental assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 43, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Polruang, S.; Sirivithayapakorn, S.; Prateep Na Talang, R. A comparative life cycle assessment of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Thailand under variable power schemes and effluent management programs. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lam, L.; Kurisu, K.; Hanaki, K. Comparative environmental impacts of source-separation systems for domestic wastewater management in rural China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 104, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jeong, H.; Broesicke, O.A.; Drew, B.; Crittenden, J.C. Life cycle assessment of small-scale greywater reclamation systems combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shiu, H.-Y.; Lee, M.; Chiueh, P.-T. Water reclamation and sludge recycling scenarios for sustainable resource management in a wastewater treatment plant in Kinmen islands, Taiwan. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Uche, J.; Martínez-Gracia, A.; Círez, F.; Carmona, U. Environmental impact of water supply and water use in a Mediterranean water stressed region. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 88, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Santana, M.V.E.; Cornejo, P.K.; Rodríguez-Roda, I.; Buttiglieri, G.; Corominas, L. Holistic life cycle assessment of water reuse in a tourist-based community. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lima, P.d.M.; Lopes, T.A.d.S.; Queiroz, L.M.; McConville, J.R. Resource-oriented sanitation: Identifying appropriate technologies and environmental gains by coupling Santiago software and life cycle assessment in a Brazilian case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 837, 155777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kalboussi, N.; Biard, Y.; Pradeleix, L.; Rapaport, A.; Sinfort, C.; Ait-mouheb, N. Life cycle assessment as decision support tool for water reuse in agriculture irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Arzate, S.; Pfister, S.; Oberschelp, C.; Sánchez-Pérez, J.A. Environmental impacts of an advanced oxidation process as tertiary treatment in a wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Moretti, M.; Van Passel, S.; Camposeo, S.; Pedrero, F.; Dogot, T.; Lebailly, P.; Vivaldi, G.A. Modelling environmental impacts of treated municipal wastewater reuse for tree crops irrigation in the Mediterranean coastal region. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1513–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Munoz, I.; Rodriguez, A.; Rosal, R.; Fernandez-Alba, A.R. Life Cycle Assessment of urban wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 1245–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bonilla-Gámez, N.; Toboso-Chavero, S.; Parada, F.; Civit, B.; Arena, A.P.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell Durany, X. Environmental impact assessment of agro-services symbiosis in semiarid urban frontier territories. Case study of Mendoza (Argentina). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 774, 145682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rodríguez, C.; Sánchez, R.; Rebolledo, N.; Schneider, N.; Serrano, J.; Leiva, E. Life cycle assessment of greywater treatment systems for water-reuse management in rural areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roman, B.; Brennan, R.A. Coupling ecological wastewater treatment with the production of livestock feed and irrigation water provides net benefits to human health and the environment: A life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Opher, T.; Friedler, E. Comparative LCA of decentralized wastewater treatment alternatives for non-potable urban reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cornejo, P.K.; Zhang, Q.; Mihelcic, J.R. Quantifying benefits of resource recovery from sanitation provision in a developing world setting. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Carré, E.; Beigbeder, J.; Jauzein, V.; Junqua, G.; Lopez-Ferber, M. Life cycle assessment case study: Tertiary treatment process options for wastewater reuse. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017, 13, 1113–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Akhoundi, A.; Nazif, S. Life-Cycle Assessment of Tertiary Treatment Technologies to Treat Secondary Municipal Wastewater for Reuse in Agricultural Irrigation, Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, and Industrial Usages. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kamble, S.J.; Chakravarthy, Y.; Singh, A.; Chubilleau, C.; Starkl, M.; Bawa, I. A soil biotechnology system for wastewater treatment: Technical, hygiene, environmental LCA and economic aspects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 13315–13334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Miller-Robbie, L.; Ramaswami, A.; Amerasinghe, P. Wastewater treatment and reuse in urban agriculture: Exploring the food, energy, water, and health nexus in Hyderabad, India. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 075005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Singh, A.; Kamble, S.J.; Sawant, M.; Chakravarthy, Y.; Kazmi, A.; Aymerich, E.; Starkl, M.; Ghangrekar, M.; Philip, L. Technical, hygiene, economic, and life cycle assessment of full-scale moving bed biofilm reactors for wastewater treatment in India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 2552–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dong, S.; Li, J.; Kim, M.H.; Park, S.J.; Eden, J.G.; Guest, J.S.; Nguyen, T.H. Human health trade-offs in the disinfection of wastewater for landscape irrigation: Microplasma ozonation: Vs. chlorination. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kobayashi, Y.; Ashbolt, N.J.; Davies, E.G.R.; Liu, Y. Life cycle assessment of decentralized greywater treatment systems with reuse at different scales in cold regions. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Çetinkaya, A.; Bilgili, L. Treatment of Slaughterhouse Industry Wastewater with Ultrafiltration Membrane and Evaluation with Life Cycle Analysis. Environ. Res. Technol. 2022, 5, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Laitinen, J.; Moliis, K.; Surakka, M. Resource efficient wastewater treatment in a developing area—Climate change impacts and economic feasibility. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 103, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Buonocore, E.; Mellino, S.; De Angelis, G.; Liu, G.; Ulgiati, S. Life cycle assessment indicators of urban wastewater and sewage sludge treatment. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arias, A.; Rama, M.; González-García, S.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Environmental analysis of servicing centralised and decentralised wastewater treatment for population living in neighbourhoods. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 37, 101469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thompson, M.; Moussavi, S.; Li, S.; Barutha, P.; Dvorak, B. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of small water resource recovery facilities: Comparison of mechanical and lagoon systems. Water Res. 2022, 215, 118234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Azeb, L.; Hartani, T.; Aitmouheb, N.; Pradeleix, L.; Hajjaji, N.; Aribi, S. Life cycle assessment of cucumber irrigation: Unplanned water reuse versus groundwater resources in Tipaza (Algeria). J. Water Reuse Desalin. 2020, 10, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Canaj, K.; Morrone, D.; Roma, R.; Boari, F.; Cantore, V.; Todorovic, M. Reclaimed Water for Vineyard Irrigation in a Mediterranean Context: Life Cycle Environmental Impacts, Life Cycle Costs. Water 2021, 13, 2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Büyükkamaci, N.; Karaca, G. Life cycle assessment study on polishing units for use of treated wastewater in agricultural reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 3205–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lane, J.L.; de Haas, D.W.; Lant, P.A. The diverse environmental burden of city-scale urban water systems. Water Res. 2015, 81, 398–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fang, L.L.; Valverde-Pérez, B.; Damgaard, A.; Plósz, B.G.; Rygaard, M. Life cycle assessment as development and decision support tool for wastewater resource recovery technology. Water Res. 2016, 88, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Uche, J.; Martínez-Gracia, A.; Carmona, U. Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of water in the Segura Basin. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 688–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Giungato, P.; Guinée, J.B. LCA of an urban wastewater tertiary treatment plant. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2010), Bari, Italy, 22–24 September 2010; pp. 384–389. [Google Scholar]
  52. Raghuvanshi, S.; Bhakar, V.; Sowmya, C.; Sangwan, K.S. Waste Water Treatment Plant Life Cycle Assessment: Treatment Process to Reuse of Water. Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kraus, F.; Wolfgang, S.; Remy, C.; Rustler, M.; Güell, I.J.i.; Viladés, M.; Espí, J.J.; Clarens, F. Deliverable 3.2 Show Case of the Environmental Benefits and Risk Assessment of Reuse Schemes; 2013; Volume 1. Available online: http://demoware.eu/en/results/deliverables/deliverable-d3-2-show-case-of-the-environmental-benefits-and-risk-assessment-of-reuse-schemes.pdf/view (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  54. Vergine, P.; Russo, C.; Nicoletti, G.M.; Pollice, A. Life cycle assessment of a full scale case study on agricultural reuse of treated agro-industrial wastewater. In Wastewater and Biosolids Treatment and Reuse: Bridging Modeling and Experimental Studies; Santoro, D., Ed.; ECI Symposium Series; 2014; Available online: https://dc.engconfintl.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=wbtr_i (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  55. Remy, C.; Siemers, C.; Lesjean, B. Assessing the environmental sustainability of agricultural reuse of WWTP effluent and biosolids in Braunschweig/Germany with Life Cycle Assessment. In IWA World Congress on Water, Climate and Energy; 2012; pp. 1–11. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.1643&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  56. Meneses, M.; Pasqualino, J.C.; Castells, F. Environmental assessment of urban wastewater reuse: Treatment alternatives and applications. Chemosphere 2010, 81, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Frascari, D.; Molina Bacca, A.E.; Wardenaar, T.; Oertlé, E.; Pinelli, D. Continuous flow adsorption of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater with resin XAD16N: Life cycle assessment, cost–benefit analysis and process optimization. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 1968–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Messaoud-Boureghda, M.Z.; Fegas, R.; Louhab, K. Study of the environmental impacts of urban wastewater recycling (case of boumerdes-Algeria) by the life cycle assessment method. Asian J. Chem. 2012, 24, 339–344. [Google Scholar]
  59. Canaj, K.; Mehmeti, A.; Berbel, J. The Economics of Fruit and Vegetable Production Irrigated with Reclaimed Water Incorporating the Hidden Costs of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts. Resources 2021, 10, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Arcidiacono, C.; Porto, S.M.C. Life cycle assessment of Arundodonax biomass production in a Mediterranean experimental field using treated wastewater. J. Agric. Eng. 2012, 42, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Thibodeau, C.; Monette, F.; Glaus, M. Comparison of development scenarios of a black water source-separation sanitation system using life cycle assessment and environmental life cycle costing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 92, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pergola, M.; Favia, M.; Palese, A.M.; Perretti, B.; Xiloyannis, C.; Celano, G. Alternative management for olive orchards grown in semi-arid environments: An energy, economic and environmental analysis. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 162, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rezaei, N.; Diaz-Elsayed, N.; Mohebbi, S.; Xie, X.; Zhang, Q. A multi-criteria sustainability assessment of water reuse applications: A case study in Lakeland, Florida. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2019, 5, 102–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Opher, T.; Shapira, A.; Friedler, E. A comparative social life cycle assessment of urban domestic water reuse alternatives. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1315–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tabesh, M.; Feizee Masooleh, M.; Roghani, B.; Motevallian, S.S. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 17, 1155–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Muñoz, I.; del Mar Gómez, M.; Fernández-Alba, A.R. Life Cycle Assessment of biomass production in a Mediterranean greenhouse using different water sources: Groundwater, treated wastewater and desalinated seawater. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. O’Connor, M.; Garnier, G.; Batchelor, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Advanced Industrial Wastewater Treatment Within an Urban Environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 17, 712–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Estévez, S.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Environmental synergies in decentralized wastewater treatment at a hotel resort. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 317, 115392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morsy, K.M.; Mostafa, M.K.; Abdalla, K.Z.; Galal, M.M. Life Cycle Assessment of Upgrading Primary Wastewater Treatment Plants to Secondary Treatment Including a Circular Economy Approach. Air Soil Water Res. 2020, 13, 117862212093585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Seis, W.; Remy, C. Deliverable 3.1 Appropriate and User Friendly Methodologies for Risk Sssessment, Life Cycle Assessment, and Water Footprinting; 2013; Volume 1, p. 49. Available online: http://demoware.ctm.com.es/en/results/deliverables/deliverable-d3-1-appropiate-and-user-friendly-methodologies-for-ra_lca_wfp.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  71. Hetherington, A.C.; Borrion, A.L.; Griffiths, O.G.; McManus, M.C. Use of LCA as a development tool within early research: Challenges and issues across different sectors. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Joseph, S.D.; Anh, M.L.; Clare, A. Socio-economic feasibility, implementation and evaluation of small-scale biochar projects. In Biochar for Environmental Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 885–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Karkour, S.; Rachid, S.; Maaoui, M.; Lin, C.-C.; Itsubo, N. Status of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Africa. Environments 2021, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Canaj, K.; Mehmeti, A.; Morrone, D. A small-scale exploratory study of CSR and sustainability reporting in the water and wastewater industry. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Natural Resources Management, Virtual, 20 July 2020; pp. 187–194. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Co-Generating Knowledge in Nexus Research for Sustainable Wastewater Treatment
Previous
Modelling Hazard for Tailings Dam Failures at Copper Mines in Global Supply Chains
Next