Environmental assessment of an Indian municipal wastewater treatment plant in Rajasthan

Figures & data

Table 1. Removal efficiency of Central Park WWTP

	Influent Wastewater	Effluent treated water	Percentage Removal
Units	mg/L	mg/L	%
BOD	230	4.5	98
SS	605	7	98.8
Total N	45	7.6	83
Total P	8.9	0.9	89.9

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Figure 1. Treatment steps in Central Park WWTP)

Figure 2. System Boundary of Central Park WWTP

Table 2. Summary of Life Cycle Inventory for inputs and outputs of Central Park WWTP (Values are according to functional unit- average wastewater inflow per month (m³/month))

Pre Treatment Process
Process Input	Unit	Amount
The oil used in hand-operated Valve	kg/month	0.4539
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Waste Water (Outflow)	m^3/month	7697.37
Grit Chamber Process
Process- Input	Unit	Amount
Waste Water (Pretreatment Outflow)	m^3/month	7697.37
Electricity	kWh/month	540
Oil used in pump	kg/month	0.9078
Grease	kg/month	0.51
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Waste Water (Grit Outflow)	m^3/month	7693.68
Sludge -GC	m^3/month	3.69
Sequencing Batch Reactor-1 &2 Process
Process- Input	Unit	Amount
Waste Water (Grit outflow)	m^3/month	7693.68
Waste Water recovered	m^3/month	12.7131
Electricity	kWh/month	16,353
Oil	kg/month	2.9904
Grease	kg/month	4.02
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Partially Treated Water (SBR effluent)	m^3/month	7659.2631
Sludge-SBR	m^3/month	47.13
Nitrogen	kg/month	270.18
Phosphorous	kg/month	60.81
Sulphur	kg/month	4541.46
Sludge Handling Process
Process Input	Unit	Amount
Sludge-GC	m^3/month	3.69
Sludge-SBR	m^3/month	47.13
Wastewater (effluent of centrifuge)	m^3/month	11.79
Electricity	kWh/month	5.55
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Dried Sludge	kg/month	105
Wastewater (Inflow to SBR)	m^3/month	12.7131
Sludge for further Treatment	m^3/month	47.13
Centrifuge Process
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Sludge for further Treatment	m^3/month	47.13
Electricity	kWh/month	87.3
Polyelectrolyte	kg/month	15
freshwater for process	lit/month	2010
Oil	kg/month	0.4539
Grease	kg/month	1.02
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Dried Sludge	kg/month	450
Waste Water (Inflow to sludge handling)	m^3/month	11.79
Chemical Treatment Process
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Partially Treated Water (SBR effluent)	m^3/month	7659.2631
Bleaching Powder	kg/month	30
freshwater for process	L/month	30,000
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Treated Water	m^3/month	7689.2631
Water Storage and Supply
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Treated Water	m^3/month	7689.2631
Electricity	kWh/month	2250
Process Output	Unit	Amount
Treated Water	m^3/month	7689.2631

Table 3. Description of impact categories and their reference in previous literature

Impact Category	Unit	Definition	References
Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil)	MJ	ADP fossil implies a reduction of the amount of fossil energy such as metal-containing ores, crude oil, and mineral raw materials	Suh and Rousseaux 2002;Hospido et al. 2004; Lundin et al. 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Renou et al. 2008; Gallego et al. 2008;Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Garfi, Flores, and Ferrer 2017; Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Polruang, Sirivithayapakorn, and Talang 2018; Cartes et al., 2018; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Acidification Potential (AP)	kg SO2 equivalent	The emissions that lower the PH value, i.e. increase the acidity of water and soils.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002;Hospido et al. 2004; Lundin et al. 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Renou et al. 2008; Gallego et al. 2008;Wenzel et al. 2008; Hong et al. 2009;Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Garfi, Flores, and Ferrer 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Polruang, Sirivithayapakorn, and Talang 2018;Crates et al., 2018; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Eutrophication Potential (EP)	kg Phosphate equivalent	Eutrophication implies the enrichment of nutrients in aquatic or terrestrial bodies.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002;Hospido et al. 2004; Lundin et al. 2004; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Renou et al. 2008; Gallego et al. 2008;Wenzel et al. 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009; Rodriguez-Garcia et al. 2011; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2012; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Garfi, Flores, and Ferrer 2017;Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Polruang, Sirivithayapakorn, and Talang 2018;Crates et al., 2018; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP)	kg DCB equivalent	FAETP refers to the impact on freshwater ecosystems, due to emissions of toxic substances to air, water, and soil.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Wenzel et al. 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009;Lopsik 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Global Warming Potential (GWP)	kg CO2 equivalent	Global warming is caused due to an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the air leading to an increase in average surface temperature.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002;Hospido et al. 2004; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Lundin et al. 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Gallego et al. 2008; Wenzel et al. 2008; Hong et al. 2009; Pasqualino et al. 2009;Rodriguez-Garcia et al. 2011; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2012; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Garfi, Flores, and Ferrer 2017;Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Crates et al., 2018; Polruang, Sirivithayapakorn, and Talang 2018; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Human Toxicity Potential (HTP)	kg DCB equivalent	HTP calculates the negative impact of toxic substances on human health.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002;Hospido et al. 2004; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Renou et al. 2008; Hong et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential (MAETP)	kg DCB equivalent	MAETP refers to the impact on marine ecosystems due to the emission of toxic substances.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP)	kg CFC11 equivalent	ODP refers to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer due to the emission of fluorine-chlorine-hydrocarbons (CFCs) and the nitrogen oxides (NOX)	Hospido et al. 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Gallego et al. 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Garfi, Flores, and Ferrer 2017; Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)	kg Ethane equivalent	POCP refers to the formation of ozone in the troposphere (Summer smog)	Suh and Rousseaux 2002; Hospido et al. 2004; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Gallego et al. 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Shiu, Lee, and Chiueh 2017; Polruang, Sirivithayapakorn, and Talang 2018; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP)	kg DCB equivalent	TETP refers to the impact on marine ecosystems due to the emission of toxic substances.	Suh and Rousseaux 2002; Hospido et al. 2004; Lundie, Peters, and Beavis 2004; Hospido et al. 2005; Hospido, Moreira, and Feijoo 2008; Gallego et al. 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009; Lopsik 2013; Li et al. 2013; Kalbar, Karmakar, and Asolekar 2014; Raghuvanshi et al. 2017; Kamble, Singh, and Kharat 2018.

Figure 3. Environmental impacts of different processes in central park WWTP. Values are corresponding to the functional unit: 7697.37 m³of wastewater; ADP fossil: Abiotic Depletion of fossil, AP: Acidification Potential, EP: Eutrophication Potential, FAETP: Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, GWP: Global Warming Potential, HTP: Human Toxicity Potential, MAETP: Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential, ODP: Ozone Layer Depletion Potential, POCP: Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential, TETP: TerrestrialEcotoxicity Potential

Figure 3. (countinued)

Table 4. LCIA result of central park WWTP

Impact Category	Unit	Central Park WWTP	Centrifuge Process	Chemical Treatment process	Grit Chamber Process	Pre-Treatment Process	Sequencing Batch Reactor Process −1 & 2	Sludge Handling Process	Water Storage & Supply Tank
Abiotic Depletion (ADP fossil)	MJ	2.42E+05	1.40E+03	147	6.83E+03	15.2	2.06E+05	69.7	2.82E+04
Acidification Potential (AP)	kg SO2 equivalent	297	1.4	0.019	8.34	0.000776	252	0.0856	34.7
Eutrophication Potential (EP)	kg Phosphate equivalent	249	0.066	0.00743	0.353	0.000142	197	0.00362	51.9
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential(FAETP)	kg DCB equivalent	56.9	0.307	0.0542	1.61	0.00475	48.3	0.0164	6.63
Global Warming Potential (GWP)	kg CO2 equivalent	2.39E+04	132	39.9	670	0.473	2.03E+04	6.87	2.79E+03
Human Toxicity Potential (HTP)	kg DCB equivalent	7.85E+03	36.9	0.784	221	0.0364	6.68E+03	2.27	918
Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential(MAETP)	kg DCB equivalent	3.40E+07	1.56E+05	1.62E+03	9.55E+05	28.5	2.89E+07	9.82E+03	3.98E+06
Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP)	kg CFC11 equivalent	4.24E-09	3.89E-11	3.78E-12	1.19E-10	2.43E-13	3.59E-09	1.22E-12	4.93E-10
Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)	kg Ethane equivalent	13.8	0.0672	0.00129	0.388	0.000269	11.7	0.00398	1.61
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP)	kg DCB equivalent	64.9	0.31	0.0921	1.82	0.000225	55.1	0.0187	7.58

Suh, Y. J., and P. Rousseaux. 2002. “An LCA of Alternative Wastewater Sludge Treatment Scenarios.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 35 (3): 191–200. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00120-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hospido, A., M. T. Moreira, M. Fernández-Couto, and G. Feijoo. 2004. “Environmental Performance of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9 (4): 261. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978602.

 Google Scholar

Lundin, M., M. Olofsson, G. J. Pettersson, and H. Zetterlund. 2004. “Environmental and Economic Assessment of Sewage Sludge Handling Options.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41 (4): 255–278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.10.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hospido, A., T. Moreira, M. Martín, M. Rigola, and G. Feijoo. 2005. “Environmental Evaluation of Different Treatment Processes for Sludge from Urban Wastewater Treatments: Anaerobic Digestion versus Thermal Processes (10 Pp).” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10 (5): 336–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.05.210.

 Google Scholar

Hospido, A., M. T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2008. “A Comparison of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants for Big Centers of Population in Galicia (Spain).” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (1): 57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.03.314.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Renou, S., J. S. Thomas, E. Aoustin, and M. N. Pons. 2008. “Influence of Impact Assessment Methods in Wastewater Treatment LCA.” Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (10): 1098–1105. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gallego, A., A. Hospido, M. T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2008. “Environmental Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Small Populations.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (6): 931–940. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.02.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pasqualino, J. C., M. Meneses, M. Abella, and F. Castells. 2009. “LCA as a Decision Support Tool for the Environmental Improvement of the Operation of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant.” Environmental Science & Technology 43 (9): 3300–3307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1021/es802056r.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lopsik, K. 2013. “Life Cycle Assessment of Small-scale Constructed Wetland and Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment System.” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 10 (6): 1295–1308. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-012-0159-y.

 Google Scholar

Li, Y., X. Luo, X. Huang, D. Wang, and W. Zhang. 2013. “Life Cycle Assessment of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant: A case Study in Suzhou, China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 57: 221–227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.035.

 Google Scholar

Kalbar, P. P., S. Karmakar, and S. R. Asolekar. 2014. “Life Cycle-based Environmental Assessment of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant in India.” International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 14 (1): 84–98. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2014.062984.

 Google Scholar

Garfi, M., L. Flores, and I. Ferrer. 2017. “Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Communities: Activated Sludge, Constructed Wetlands and High Rate Algal Ponds.” Journal of Cleaner Production 161: 211–219. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.116.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raghuvanshi, S., V. Bhakar, C. Sowmya, and K. S. Sangwan. 2017. “Wastewater Treatment Plant Life Cycle Assessment: Treatment Process to the Reuse of Water.” Procedia CIRP 61: 761–766. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.170.

 Google Scholar

Shiu, H. Y., M. Lee, and P. T. Chiueh. 2017. “Water Reclamation and Sludge Recycling Scenarios for Sustainable Resource Management in a Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Kinmen Islands, Taiwan.” Journal of Cleaner Production 152: 369–378. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.110.

 Google Scholar

Polruang, S., S. Sirivithayapakorn, and R. P. N. Talang. 2018. “A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Thailand under Variable Power Schemes and Effluent Management Programs.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 635–648. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.183.

 Google Scholar

Cartes, J., P. Neumann, A. Hospido, and G. Vidal. 2018. “Life Cycle Assessment of Management Alternatives for Sludge from Sewage Treatment Plants in Chile: Does Advanced Anaerobic Digestion Improve Environmental Performance Compared to Current Practices?.” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 20 (3): 1–11.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kamble, S. J., A. Singh, and M. G. Kharat. 2018. “Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability Assessment of Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technologies.” World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 15 (2): 169–185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2016-0034.

 Google Scholar

Wenzel, H., H. F. Larsen, J. Clauson-Kaas, L. Høibye, and B. N. Jacobsen. 2008. “Weighing Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages of Advanced Wastewater Treatment of Micro-pollutants Using Environmental Life Cycle Assessment.” Water Science and Technology 57 (1): 27–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.819.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hong, J., J. Hong, M. Otaki, and O. Jolliet. 2009. “Environmental and Economic Life Cycle Assessment for Sewage Sludge Treatment Processes in Japan.” Waste Management 29 (2): 696–703. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.026.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lundie, S., G. M. Peters, and P. C. Beavis (2004). Life Cycle Assessment for Sustainable Metropolitan Water Systems Planning.

 Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Garcia, G., M. Molinos-Senante, A. Hospido, F. Hernández-Sancho, M. T. Moreira, and G. Feijoo. 2011. “Environmental and Economic Profile of Six Typologies of Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Water Research 45 (18): 5997–6010. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.053.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kalbar, P. P., S. Karmakar, and S. R. Asolekar. 2012. “Selection of an Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technology: A Scenario-based Multiple-attribute Decision-making Approach.” Journal of Environmental Management 113: 158–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.025.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar