Life cycle assessment in wastewater treatment: influence of site-oriented normalization factors, life cycle impact assessment methods, and weighting methods

This present study aims to analyze the differences in results of different site-directional life cycle assessment (LCA) methods applied in the field of wastewater treatment. Site-generic methods were employed and compared with China-specific methods on a full-scale wastewater treatment case. A set of Chinese normalized factors were developed and employed to compare with world normalization factors. No substantial discrepancies in results were obtained from the two different sets of normalization factors. In the phase of life cycle impact assessment, the e-Balance showed substantial discrepancies in results, compared with the CML method that is widely applied in LCA. The discrepancies were mainly attributed to the cause that in e-Balance more emphasis is on regional water pollution potential (that is: chemical oxygen demand (COD) as an independent impact category). Moreover, discrepancies in the results were also investigated by applying different site-directional weighting methods. Besides the specific locations where the weighting methods were designed for, this study showed that employing different environmental indicators in impact categories was another important factor that resulted in differences in the LCA results of the different weighting methods.

[1]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  ISO 14041: Environmental management — life cycle assessment — goal and scope definition — inventory analysis , 1998 .

[2]  S. Ryding.  ISO 14042 Environmental management • Life cycle assessment • life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .

[3]  Henri Lecouls,et al.  ISO 14043: Environmental management · life cycle assessment · life cycle interpretation , 1999 .

[4]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[5]  Tom C. J. Feijtel,et al.  Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment , 2004 .

[6]  M. Ortiz,et al.  Life cycle assessment of water treatment technologies: wastewater and water-reuse in a small town , 2007 .

[7]  Albert Germain,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Water: From the pumping station to the wastewater treatment plant (9 pp) , 2007 .

[8]  M. Pons,et al.  Influence of impact assessment methods in wastewater treatment LCA , 2008 .

[9]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[10]  Francesc Castells,et al.  LCA as a decision support tool for the environmental improvement of the operation of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Almudena Hospido,et al.  Development of regional characterization factors for aquatic eutrophication , 2009 .

[12]  A. W. Sleeswijk.  Regional LCA in a global perspective. A basis for spatially differentiated environmental life cycle assessment , 2011 .

[13]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 , 2011 .

[14]  A. Boulay,et al.  Regional characterization of freshwater Use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  M. Sarrà,et al.  A comparative life cycle assessment of two treatment technologies for the Grey Lanaset G textile dye: biodegradation by Trametes versicolor and granular activated carbon adsorption , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[17]  Tzahi Y Cath,et al.  A comparative life cycle assessment of hybrid osmotic dilution desalination and established seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation processes. , 2012, Water research.

[18]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[19]  Barbara C. Lippiatt,et al.  Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) database , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[20]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in Europe. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  Yi Li,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant: a case study in Suzhou, China. , 2013 .

[22]  Ll Corominas,et al.  Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. , 2013, Water research.

[23]  S. Hellweg,et al.  Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment , 2014, Science.

[24]  Gumersindo Feijoo,et al.  Selection of odour removal technologies in wastewater treatment plants: a guideline based on Life Cycle Assessment. , 2015, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Environmental implications of increasingly stringent sewage discharge standards in municipal wastewater treatment plants: case study of a cool area of China , 2015 .

[26]  J. Guest,et al.  Performance and life cycle environmental benefits of recycling spent ion exchange brines by catalytic treatment of nitrate. , 2015, Water research.

[27]  Ramon Vilanova,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment as an environmental evaluation tool for control strategies in wastewater treatment plants , 2015 .

[28]  Juan J. Espada,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study of heterogeneous and homogenous Fenton processes for the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater , 2016 .

[29]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Using site-specific life cycle assessment methodology to evaluate Chinese wastewater treatment scenarios: A comparative study of site-generic and site-specific methods , 2017 .