R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Life Cycle Assessment

of Urban Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse
Alternatives
Jorgelina C. Pasqualino, Montse Meneses, and Francesc Castells

Keywords:
Summary
environmental impact
industrial ecology Continuous population growth is causing increased water con-
life cycle assessment (LCA) tamination. Uneven distribution of water resources and peri-
tertiary treatment odic droughts have forced governments to seek new water
water reclamation sources: reclaimed and desalinated water. Wastewater recov-
water scarcity
ery is a tool for better management of the water resources
that are diverted from the natural water cycle to the anthropic
one.
The main objective of this work is to assess the stages of
operation of a Spanish Mediterranean wastewater treatment
plant to identify the stages with the highest environmental
impact, to establish the environmental loads associated with
wastewater reuse, and to evaluate alternative final destina-
tions for wastewater. Tertiary treatment does not represent
a significant increment in the impact of the total treatment
at the plant. The impact of reclaiming 1 cubic meter (m3 ) of
wastewater represents 0.16 kilograms of carbon dioxide per
cubic meter (kg CO2 /m3 ), compared to 0.83 kg CO2 /m3 asso-
ciated with basic wastewater treatment (primary, secondary,
and sludge treatment). From a comparison of the alternatives
for wastewater final destination, we observe that replacing
potable water means a freshwater savings of 1.1 m3 , whereas
replacing desalinated water means important energy savings,
Address correspondence to: reflected in all of the indicators. To ensure the availability of
Francesc Castells potable water to all of the population—especially in areas
AGA Research Group, Departament
where water is scarce—governments should promote reusing
d’Enginyeria Quı́mica
Universitat Rovira i Virgili wastewater under safe conditions as much as possible.
Avinguda dels Paı̈sos Catalans 26
43007 Tarragona, Spain
francesc.castells@urv.cat
www.etseq.urv.es/aga/


c 2010 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00293.x

Volume 15, Number 1

www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 49

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Introduction
Water is a precious and increasingly scarce re-
source, essential for both ecosystems and humans.
We face a global water crisis due to several factors:
population growth in areas with low freshwater
resources and the resulting increase in water con-
sumption; pollution of surface water and ground-
water; and long-term changes in the hydrological
cycle due to climate change.
According to the European Environment
Agency (EEA, 1999, 155), "water stress occurs
when the demand for water exceeds the avail-
able amount during a certain period or when poor
quality restricts its use. Water stress causes deteri-
oration of freshwater resources in terms of quan-
tity (aquifer over-exploitation, dry rivers, etc.)
and quality (eutrophication, organic matter pol-
lution, saline intrusion, etc.)." Water stress leads
to intersectoral competition and thus means that
new or alternative water sources have to be found
as the conventional resources become exhausted.
Wastewater reuse can help mitigate regional or
seasonal water scarcity.
There is, furthermore, an increasingly press-
ing need for the more efficient use of water re-
sources. The reuse of water is often viewed posi-
tively because it can save large volumes of water
that would otherwise be discharged into the en-
vironment. Recycled water has the advantage of
being a constant, reliable water resource and re-
duces the amount of water extracted from the
environment.
Although wastewater reuse is frequently men-
tioned as one of the main solutions for water
scarcity, it is not widely applied in coun-
tries where water is a scarce resource—for ex-
ample, in the Mediterranean. All around the
Mediterranean, however, several countries—
such as Italy, Spain, and Greece—are experienc-
ing droughts and, at the same time, difficulties in
implementing water reuse systems.
The major areas in which water is currently
being reused are irrigation (agriculture), industry,
urban cleaning, firefighting, recreation, surface
water replenishment, and groundwater recharge.
It should be taken into account that reclaimed
water reduces the consumption of potable water
(and thus the consumption of freshwater required
to produce potable water; Sala and Serra 2004).
50 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Although the immediate drivers behind water
reuse may differ in each case, the overall goal is
to close the hydrological cycle to a much smaller,
local scale. In this way, used water (wastewater)
becomes a valuable resource.
Although reclaimed water can become an al-
ternative source of water, social opposition to it
is significant. This is because many end users and
customers are unwilling to accept reclaimed wa-
ter because of the risks that may be involved in
using it. These fears are partly based on the po-
tential effects of contaminants on human health
and the environment (pollutants, e.g., pharma-
ceuticals, personal care products). To guarantee
that wastewater is safely reused, effective tertiary
treatment processes must be applied to the wa-
ter lines of conventional wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs).
These issues mean that more knowledge is
needed regarding the benefits of reclaimed water.
One should also remember that although water
reuse strategies are intended to address the prob-
lem of water scarcity, this should not come at
the price of increasing other environmental im-
pacts. Because of this need for balance, an envi-
ronmental evaluation of water reuse alternatives
is needed that uses an objective methodology,
such as life cycle assessment (LCA).
Researchers can apply LCA to the water cycle
sector to evaluate the environmental profile
of existing wastewater treatment plants and to
propose alternative and environmentally sound
practices (Owens 2001; Arpke and Hutzler
2006; Ortiz et al. 2007; Muñoz and Rodrı́guez
Fernández-Alba 2008; Pasqualino et al. 2009).
Several LCA studies focus on the treatment
of residual water and the technology this
requires, comparing different treatment stages
and techniques or exploring specific case studies
(Lundin et al. 2000; Beavis and Lundie 2003;
Dixon et al. 2003; Hospido et al. 2004; Palme
et al. 2005; Ortiz et al. 2007; Lim et al. 2008;
Pasqualino et al. 2009). Few studies, however,
have specifically investigated water reclamation
(Muñoz et al. 2009; Meneses et al. 2010b) and
reclaimed water applications.
Objective
The main aims of this study are to assess the
environmental profile of a WWTP with tertiary
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

No-reuse

Wastewater Primary Secondary Treated Disposed to

treatment treatment water sea

WWTP

Direct reuse: Brine dilution

Wastewater Primary Secondary Treated Disposed to

treatment treatment water sea

WWTP

Seawater Desalination Brine

plant
Potable Potable
water uses

Direct reuse: potable water replacement

Wastewater Primary Secondary Tertiary Reclaimed Non-potable

treatment treatment treatment water uses

WWTP

Freshwater Water treatment Potable Potable

plant water uses

Direct reuse: desalinated water replacement

Wastewater Primary Secondary Tertiary Reclaimed Non-potable

treatment treatment treatment water uses

WWTP

Seawater Desalination Brine Disposed to

plant sea
Potable Potable
water uses

Figure 1 Flow diagram for wastewater reuse alternatives studied. WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

treatment and to compare four urban wastewater • Desalinated water replacement scenario:
reuse alternatives, evaluating their corresponding After tertiary treatment, wastewater is used
advantages and disadvantages (figure 1). To do so, instead of desalinated water.
we have included the following scenarios:

• No-reuse scenario: Treated wastewater is Methodology

discharged into a natural water stream after
the secondary treatment.
• Brine dilution scenario: Brine (residue from
desalination plants) is diluted with water
from a WWTP after a secondary treatment
and discharged into the sea.
• Potable water replacement scenario: After
tertiary treatment, wastewater is used in-
stead of potable water.
Life Cycle Assessment
The environmental assessment method ap-
plied in this study is life cycle assessment (LCA).
We followed the methodology indicated by the
international standards (ISO 14040 2006; ISO
14044 2006).
The system boundaries should cover all the
alternatives, and in this case we have chosen the
wastewater input as the functional unit. The first

Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse 51

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
two scenarios evaluated (no reuse and brine dilu-
tion) do not include a tertiary treatment, and all
the wastewater entering the plant is disposed to
the sea. In this way, the functional unit has to be
related with the wastewater flow, so it is 1 cubic
meter (m3 ) of wastewater entering the WWTP.1
The system boundaries considered include all the
processes involved—from wastewater collection
to final disposal or reuse—and exclude the con-
struction and dismantling of the plant.
The environmental impact was assessed with
SiSOSTAQUA, an environmental management
tool adapted from the LCAmanager tool (SIMP-
PLE SL, www.simpple.com). In this study, we
used the CML 2000 method (CML 2001). This
methodology is based on the ISO standards for
LCA (ISO 14040 2006; ISO 14044 2006) and
presents the different ISO elements and require-
ments for each step. CML 2000 is a well-known
methodology for impact analysis and is widely
used for environmental assessment.
The impact categories considered are acidi-
fication potential (AP; kilograms sulfur dioxide
equivalent [kg SO2 eq]), global warming poten-
tial (GWP; kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent
[kg CO2 eq]), eutrophication potential (EP; kilo-
grams phosphate eq [kg PO4 eq]), photochemical
oxidation (PHO; kilograms ozone equivalent [kg
ozone eq]), depletion of abiotic resources (DAR;
kilograms of antimony equivalent [kg antimony
eq]), depletion of stratospheric ozone (ODP; kilo-
grams of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent [kg
CFC-11 eq]), and ecotoxicity potential (ETP;
1,4-dichlorobenzene [kg 1,4-DCB] eq; this is con-
sidered as the addition of freshwater aquatic and
sediment ecotoxicity, marine aquatic and sedi-
ment ecotoxicity, human toxicity, and terrestrial
ecotoxicity). Table 1 presents a more detailed de-
scription of the impact categories from CML 2000
studied and also two additional environmental
indicators: freshwater use (FWU; m3 ) and cumu-
lative energy demand (CED; megajoules [MJ]).
In recent years a lot of methodological work
has been done around the inclusion of water
use in impact assessment. Some of these meth-
ods are already operative: Milà i Canals and col-
leagues (2009) have proposed indicators that ad-
dress the potential effects on aquatic ecosystems
caused by changes in freshwater availability and
the depletion of freshwater resources, and Pfister
52 Journal of Industrial Ecology
and colleagues (2009) have developed a method
for assessing the environmental impacts of fresh-
water consumption, considering damages to hu-
man health, ecosystem quality, and resources.
According to our objective of evaluating the en-
vironmental implications in regions with water
availability problems, such as Spain, we have
studied the freshwater use indicator that reflects
the water consumed from different sources (fresh-
water, surface water, groundwater, etc.) through-
out the whole life cycle. The cumulative energy
demand indicator is a direct and easily under-
standable indicator of the environmental impli-
cations of energy consumption, especially fossil
fuel consumption.
When performing LCA in the WWTP, we
looked at all the energy and mass input and output
flows. We therefore considered all of the reagents
used at the different treatment stages as well as
their transport to the WWTP. We also took into
account the treatment or final disposal of the
waste generated and its transport to the treatment
plants. Table 2 details the inventory fluxes.
We made the LCA inventory and calculated
the environmental loads by adapting the data
from the Ecoinvent v2.1 database (SCLCI 2009)
to the Spanish 2007 energy mix (MITyC 2008)
and the European model for transport and water.
The European models correspond to standard Eu-
ropean methodologies or technologies according
to the Ecoinvent v2.1 database.
Case Study: Wastewater Treatment Plant
With Tertiary Treatment Stage Located
on the Mediterranean Coast
There are currently 346 WWTPs operating in
Catalonia (Spain), which treat a total of nearly
3,000,000 m3 /day. This environmental evalua-
tion looks at a WWTP with tertiary treatment ca-
pacity located in a tourist resort on the Mediter-
ranean coast. The plant serves a population of
about 5,700 inhabitants, which almost triples
in summer due to tourism. In 2008, this plant
treated about 2,347 m3 /day (856,655 m3 /year)
wastewater from urban collectors and rain
water.
This plant consists of two main lines: water
and sludge. The water line includes a primary
treatment (water collection, sieving, and sand
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 1 Environmental impact categories used in this case study

Impact category/indicator Units Description
Acidification potential kg SO2 eq Contribution from substances that produce sulfuric acid
(AP) when they are in contact with water. When these
substances are present in the environment they
produce acid rain, causing terrestrial and aquatic
species to degrade.
Global warming potential kg CO2 eq Contribution of the various emissions to the increase in
(GWP) global warming. The most important substances are
CO2 , CH4 , N2 O, and the halogenated hydrocarbons.
Eutrophication (EP) kg PO4 eq Contribution of the various emissions to the
accumulation of nutrients in the environment. When
nutrients accumulate in aquatic ecosystems, plant
growth increases and depletes oxygen levels.
Photochemical oxidation kg formed ozone Contribution of the various emissions to the formation
(PHO) of photo-oxidant substances (particularly ozone and
peroxyacetyl nitrate) through the photochemical
oxidation of volatile organic substances and carbon
monoxide.
Depletion of abiotic kg antimony eq Contribution of the various emissions to the extraction
resources (DAR) of resources, including their availability, energy
content, concentration, and rate of use.
Ozone depletion potential kg CFC-11 eq Contribution of substances that deplete the ozone
(ODP) stratospheric layer. The most important substances
are chlorated and bromated halocarbons, particularly
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11, also known as
freon-11).
Ecotoxicity potential kg 1,4-DCB eq Combined result of freshwater aquatic and sediment
(ETP) ecotoxicity, marine aquatic and sediment ecotoxicity,
human toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity. These
substances affect the health of humans, flora, and
fauna in the different environments. The most
important substances are heavy metals, persistent
organic pollutants, and volatile organic compounds.
Freshwater use (FWU) m3 Reflects the consumption of freshwater from different
sources (surface water, groundwater, etc.) throughout
the whole life cycle.
Cumulative energy MJ Expresses the accumulated renewable and nonrenewable
demand (CED) energy consumption throughout the whole life cycle.
Note: SO2 eq = sulfur dioxide equivalent; CO2 eq = carbon dioxide equivalent; PO4 eq = phosphate equivalent; anti-
mony eq = antimony equivalent; CFC-11 eq = trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; 1,4-DCB eq = 1,4-dichlorobenzene
equivalent; CH4 = methane; N2 O = nitrous oxide. One kilogram (kg, SI) ≈ 2.204 pounds (lb). One cubic meter
(m3 , SI) = 103 liters (L) ≈ 264.2 gallons (gal). One megajoule (MJ) = 106 joules (J, SI) ≈ 239 kilocalories (kcal) ≈
948 British Thermal Units (BTU).

removal), a secondary treatment (aerobic diges-
tion, secondary settlement, and chlorination),
and a tertiary treatment (coagulation, floccula-
tion, sand filters, and disinfection with chlo-
rine and ultraviolet [UV] treatment; tertiary
treatment is detailed in figure 2). The sludge
line includes the thickening and dehydrating
stages before the sludge is sent to a composting
plant.
About 87.8% of the treated water is dis-
charged into the sea after secondary treat-
ment. The remaining 12.2% undergoes tertiary

Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse 53

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 2 Inventory fluxes for the treatment of 1 cubic meter (m3 ) of wastewater (data from 2008)
Energy
consumption
Treatment stage (kWh/m3 ) Inputs Outputs
Water line—primary treatment
Collection 0.24 856,582 m3 /year wastewater
Bar screen 0.0008 72 m3 /year solid waste
(transported 15.7 km)
Sand chamber 0.00154 14 m3 /year solid waste
(transported 15.7 km)
Water line—secondary treatment
Biological reactor 0.665 194,672 kg/year liquid O2
(transported 97.7 km)
Secondary settler
Chlorination 3,000 kg/year NaClO, 15% 752,109 m3 /year treated
(transported 67.4 km) water discharged to the sea
Water line—tertiary treatment
Coagulation 0.00315 5,180 kg/year aluminum
polychloride, 10%a (transported
82.3 km)
Flocculation 0.00315 2 kg/year anionic polyelectrolyte,
pureb (transported 109 km)
Prechlorination 0.00152 6,117 kg/year NaClO, 15%
(transported 67.4 km)
Sand filters 0.00358 2 m3 /year sand (transported 20 km) 2 m3 /year sand disposed of in
landfill (transported 15.7
km)
UV disinfection 0.00467 1.26 units/year UV lamps 1.26 units /year UV lamps
(transported 100 km) (transported 15.7 km)
Postchlorination 0.00502 2,964 kg/year NaClO, 15%
(transported 67.4 km)
Sludge line
Thickening 0.00379
Dehydration 0.035 800 kg/year cationic solid 1,333 tonnes/year (1.5
polyelectrolyte, pureb kg/m3 ) dehydrated sludge
(transported 109 km); transported to compost
4,987 kg/year cationic liquid plant (19.6 km)
polyelectrolyte, 45%b
(transported 109 km)
Note: O2 = oxygen; NaClO = sodium hypochlorite; UV = ultraviolet; kg = kilograms; m3 = cubic meters; kWh/m3 =
kilowatt-hours per cubic meter; km = kilometers. One kilometer (km, SI) ≈ 0.621 miles (mi).
a Modeled as aluminium hydroxide.
b Modeled as acrylonitrile.

treatment, where it reaches the standard of qual-
ity required for reuse in nonpotable applications
(irrigation, agriculture, urban cleaning, firefight-
ing, etc.), although the fraction of this that does
not comply with specifications (10.5% of the re-
claimed water) is discharged into the sea. Thus,
about 256 m3 /day (93,618 m3 /year) of reclaimed
water is produced in this plant and used for non-
potable purposes, thus replacing other sources of
potable water and saving a valuable resource.

54 Journal of Industrial Ecology


Tertiary Treatment
From
Secondary PAX10 Polyelectrolyte
treatment
Intermediate
Pumping Coagulation - Flocculation
Sea
Recycled
water
Non-potable
Uses
Final pumping
Figure 2 Flow diagram for the operation of the tertiary treatment of a wastewater treatment plant.
NaClO = sodium hypochlorite; PAX 10 = aluminium polychlorosulphate, with 10% of Al2 O3 ;
UV = ultraviolet.
Water Reuse Alternatives
This article considers several water reuse alter-
natives (see figure 1), as outlined in the following
subsections.
No Reuse
Collected wastewater is given a primary and
a secondary treatment in a traditional WWTP.
The secondary effluent is discharged into a nat-
ural water stream. We have used data on the
composition of the plant’s secondary effluent to
estimate the effect of discharging the secondary
effluent into the environment (seawater). This
scenario represents the situation in most of the
Spanish WWTPs located in the coastal regions.
Brine Dilution
The secondary effluent of the WWTP is used
to dilute brine, the main residue from a desali-
nation plant. The seawater desalination process
produces brine as a residue with a salinity of
about 64 grams of sodium chloride (g/l NaCl)
per liter. This brine is usually discharged directly
to the sea; however, the presence of species sen-
sitive to salinity changes, such as Posidonia ocean-
ica, has led to increased efforts to dilute brine
Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
NaClO
Pre-chlorination Sand filter
NaClO
UV treatment
Post-chlorination
(Torres, 2004). Diluting brine with water treated
at a WWTP also has a bactericide effect on the
treated water and reduces its salinity to concen-
trations close to those of seawater (Fernández
et al. 2006).
Brine must be pumped to the WWTP un-
derwater outlet, so additional pumping energy is
needed. Therefore, this alternative is only use-
ful when the WWTP and the seawater reverse
osmosis (SWRO) desalination plants are close
enough to take advantage of the existing in-
frastructure without too much extra energy con-
sumption caused by pumping. The WWTP out-
flow salinity is about 2.3 g/l NaCl; accordingly, a
1:1 dilution gives a brine dilution outflow salin-
ity similar to that of seawater. The infrastruc-
ture materials needed for the underwater outlet
have been allocated to the WWTP impact, un-
der the assumption that the WWTP was oper-
ating before the construction of the desalination
plant, as occurred in the existing cases (Fernández
et al. 2006). However, as the infrastructure of the
WWTP was considered as negligible, there was
no inclusion of additional infrastructure.
If the dilution with the secondary effluent
is not possible, but the Posidonia oceanica is to
be protected, the desalination plant has two
options:
55
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
1. Dilute the brine with seawater: This means
collecting more seawater to the desali-
nation plant (which requires energy for
pumping) and returning the mixture to the
sea. If our dilution scenario replaces this
option, we are saving the energy used to
collect the seawater, which we can assume
would be the same amount of pumping en-
ergy as required to pump the brine to the
WWTP.
2. Throw the brine directly to the sea, but
with some dispersion system that should
ensure the salinity dilution in the place of
discharge. In this case, the process requires
energy for increasing the turbulence at the
outflow or the construction of a longer dis-
posal pipe that will throw the brine far
from the coast. If our dilution scenario re-
places this option, we are saving the en-
ergy used to increase the outflow turbu-
lence, which we can assume is similar to
the energy needed to pump the brine to
the WWTP.
Given that the pumping energy requirement
of this scenario would be similar to Scenarios A
and B, we can assume that both energy require-
ments would be compensated.
Potable Water Replacement
After tertiary treatment, wastewater is used
instead of potable water for nonpotable uses. To
estimate this alternative we have counted the
whole treatment at the WWTP as an environ-
mental load (including tertiary treatment applied
to 100% of the secondary effluent, with 100% of
the reclaimed water reaching the required spec-
ifications), and we have counted the environ-
mental impact of producing potable water as an
avoided load. We evaluated the production of
potable water as an average of different raw water
qualities, production capacities, and treatment
technologies using data obtained from previous
studies (Meneses et al. 2009) and other sources
(SCLCI 2009).
Desalinated Water Replacement
After tertiary treatment, wastewater is used
instead of desalinated water for nonpotable uses.
We have estimated this alternative by consid-
56 Journal of Industrial Ecology
ering the whole treatment at the WWTP as an
environmental load (including tertiary treatment
applied to 100% of the secondary effluent, with
100% of the reclaimed water reaching specifi-
cations), whereas the environmental impact of
producing desalinated water was considered as
an avoided load. The production of desalinated
water in an SWRO desalination plant was eval-
uated with data obtained from previous studies
(Meneses et al. 2010a).
Results and Discussion
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Environmental Profile
Table 3 and figure 3 compare the environ-
mental profiles of the main treatment stages in
the plant. The stage with the largest environ-
mental impact is the secondary treatment, with
a contribution of between 30.5% and 84.2% for
all the categories studied.
The environmental impact of the secondary
treatment is mainly caused by the aerobic re-
actor, which is responsible for 68.75% of the
electricity consumed at the plant and uses high
amounts of liquid oxygen (table 2). The sec-
ondary treatment has the highest environmen-
tal impacts for most of the indicators, except for
eutrophication and photochemical oxidation, for
which the highest impact is caused by the sludge
line.
It is important to notice that primary and sec-
ondary treatments are mandatory for compliance
with current legislation on the final disposal of
treated water in accordance with environmental
and public health protection. These results agree
with those obtained in previous studies of larger
WWTPs (Pasqualino et al. 2009).
It can be seen that the tertiary treatment
makes about a 1.1% to 3.2% contribution to
the total impact (remember, however, that only
12.2% of the wastewater currently receives this
treatment). This means that the addition of a
tertiary treatment to a WWTP does not signifi-
cantly increase the environmental impact of the
whole plant for the amount of wastewater treated.
Moreover, any increase is compensated for by the
fact that the reclaimed water can replace potable
water for nonpotable uses.
 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 3 Environmental profile of final destinations of reclaimed water

Mandatory treatment
Environmental impact category Primary Secondary Sludge line Subtotal a Tertiary b Total
Acidification potential (AP), 1.32E-03 4.48E-03 1.36E-03 7.16E-03 1.35E-04 7.29E-03
kg SO2 -eq
Global warming potential 1.55E-01 5.04E-01 1.70E-01 8.29E-01 1.74E-02 8.47E-01
(GWP), kg CO2 -eq
Eutrophication potential 1.07E-04 3.25E-04 6.23E-04 1.05E-03 1.14E-05 1.07E-03
(EP), kg PO4 -eq
Photochemical oxidation 9.80E-06 2.63E-05 3.97E-05 7.58E-05 1.32E-06 7.71E-05
(PHO), kg formed O3 -eq
Depletion of abiotic resources 1.07E-03 3.65E-03 4.61E-05 4.77E-03 1.28E-04 4.90E-03
(DAR), kg antimony-eq
Depletion of stratospheric 8.81E-09 3.05E-08 −4.25E-09 3.50E-08 1.15E-09 3.62E-08
ozone (ODP), kg
CFC-11-eq
Ecotoxicity potential (ETP), 5.28E-01 7.64E-01 6.48E-02 1.36E+00 3.47E-02 1.39E+00
kg 1,4-DCB-eq
Freshwater use (FWU), m3 1.38E-03 4.63E-03 1.71E-04 6.19E-03 1.79E-04 6.37E-03
Cumulative energy demand 2.98E+00 1.01E+01 2.19E-01 1.33E+01 3.50E-01 1.37E+01
(CED), MJ
Note: The functional unit is 1 cubic meter (m3 ) of wastewater entering the plant. kg SO2 -eq = kilograms of sulfur dioxide
equivalent; kg CO2 -eq = kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent; kg PO4 -eq = kilograms of phosphate equivalent; kg
formed O3 -eq = kilograms of formed ozone equivalent; kg antimony-eq = kilograms of antimony equivalent; kg CFC-11-
eq = kilograms of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; kg 1,4-DCB-eq = kilograms of 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalent;
MJ = megajoule.
a Includes the sum of the primary, secondary, and sludge line treatments as mandatory stages in any wastewater treatment

plant (WWTP).
b Tertiary treatment currently treats 12% of the wastewater entering the plant

The high amounts of sludge generated in the
water line can have a significant effect on the en-
vironmental impact of the sludge line, depending
on the final destination of sludge (in this case, to a
composting plant). According to Pasqualino and
colleagues (2009), the environmental impact of
the sludge line can be reduced if part of the sludge
is used as a fuel in cement plants, as a fertilizer in
agriculture, or as a combination of these different
uses. This means that the impact of the sludge
line (figure 4 and table 3), could be reduced if
sludge is dispossed of in agriculture or cement
plants instead of a compost plant (the current
sludge final destination).
Tertiary Treatment Environmental Profile
When one studies tertiary treatment in more
detail (figure 4), one can see that all the ter-
tiary treatment stages make a similar contribu-
tion to the final environmental profile. Some mi-
nor differences can be observed, however, due
to the dosage of some reagents (aluminium poly-
chlorosulphate, with 10% of Al2 O3 [PAX10] and
sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] in the coagulation
and chlorination steps, respectively; table 4).
The local energy requirement for pumping
wastewater from secondary to tertiary treatment
and from tertiary treatment to the final destina-
tion has not been considered because it depends
on the location of the plant and the nature of the
landscape. Therefore, optimal plant location is a
priority when the aim is to reduce the impact of
the WWTP. In our case study, 0.0333 kilowatt-
hours per cubic meter (kWh/m3 ) was needed
to pump the wastewater from secondary to ter-
tiary treatment, and 0.0195 kWh/m3 was needed
to pump it from tertiary treatment to its final

Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse 57

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Figure 3 Environmental profile of the wastewater treatment plant. AP = acidification potential;

GWP = global warming potential; EP = eutrophication potential; PHO = photochemical oxidation;
DAR = depletion of abiotic resources; ODP = depletion of stratospheric ozone; ETP = ecotoxicity
potential; FWU = freshwater use; CED = cumulative energy demand.

Figure 4 Environmental profile for tertiary treatment of the wastewater treatment plant. AP = acidification
potential; GWP = global warming potential; EP = eutrophication potential; PHO = photochemical
oxidation; DAR = depletion of abiotic resources; ODP = depletion of stratospheric ozone;
ETP = ecotoxicity potential; FWU = freshwater use; CED = cumulative energy demand.

58 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

destination.2 We should take into account that

Note: The functional unit is 1 cubic meter (m3 ) of wastewater entering the tertiary treatment. UV treatment = ultraviolet treatment. kg SO2 -eq = kilograms of sulfur dioxide equivalent; kg
CO2 -eq = kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent; kg PO4 -eq = kilograms of phosphate equivalent; kg formed O3 -eq = kilograms of formed ozone equivalent; kg antimony-eq = kilograms
3.20E+00
1.17E-03
1.24E-03
1.60E-01
1.04E-04
1.21E-05

1.05E-08
3.18E-01
1.64E-03
Total
in this plant, the tertiary treatment was added
to the process after the plant had been in op-
eration several years. This is why the pumping

of antimony equivalent; kg CFC-11-eq = kilograms of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; kg 1,4-DCB-eq = kilograms of 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalent; MJ = megajoule.
energy required for the tertiary treatment is quite

Postchlorination
significant in this case. In the case of a newly

2.81E-04
2.98E-04
3.88E-02
2.47E-05
2.65E-06

2.54E-09
6.53E-02
3.94E-04
7.75E-01
designed plant, its significance can be reduced
through minimization of the pumping energy
needs.

1.87E-04
2.31E-04
2.58E-02
1.72E-05
1.29E-06

1.52E-09
4.19E-02
2.39E-04
5.21E-01
treatment
Comparison of Reuse Alternatives

UV
The addition of a tertiary treatment to a tradi-
tional WWTP slightly increases its environmen-
tal impact (table 3). This is still, however, con-

1.75E-04
1.97E-04
2.40E-02
1.68E-05
2.68E-06

1.81E-09
3.90E-02
2.88E-04
4.78E-01
Sand
filter
siderably smaller than the environmental impact
of other water production methods (producing
potable water or desalinated water).

Prechlorination
In table 5, we compare the environmental im-

2.24E-04
1.75E-04
3.10E-02
1.84E-05
3.00E-06

2.35E-09
5.51E-02
3.59E-04
6.08E-01
pacts of alternative residual water treatments and
uses. One can see that the first three options (no
reuse, brine dilution, and potable water replace-
ment) have similar environmental profiles and
that replacement of desalinated water has the
Flocculation

1.63E-04
1.67E-04
2.04E-02
1.29E-05
1.40E-06

1.03E-09
2.84E-02
1.70E-04
4.32E-01
greatest environmental benefits. This is due to
the large amount of energy required for desalina-
tion. It is also important to mention, however,
that both potable and desalinated water replace-
ment have more advantages than the first two
Coagulation

1.40E-04
1.68E-04
1.95E-02
1.43E-05
1.06E-06

1.28E-09
8.78E-02
1.89E-04
3.84E-01
options.
In table 6, we summarize the main advantages
Table 4 Environmental profile of the tertiary treatment stages

and disadvantages of the different options. The

no-reuse alternative results reflect the impact of
Depletion of stratospheric ozone (ODP), kg CFC-11-eq

the primary, secondary, and sludge treatments

Depletion of abiotic resources (DAR), kg antimony-eq

and the disposal of all of the treated water to the

Photochemical oxidation (PHO), kg formed O3 -eq

sea. Although this is the simplest alternative, it

Global warming potential (GWP), kg CO2 -eq

means losing a valuable resource: water that can

Ecotoxicity potential (ETP), kg 1,4-DCB-eq
Eutrophication potential (EP), kg PO4 -eq

be used for nonpotable uses in areas that suffer

Acidification potential (AP), kg SO2 -eq

Cumulative energy demand (CED), MJ

from water scarcity.

The brine dilution alternative results reflect
the impact of the primary, secondary, and sludge
Environmental impact category

treatments and disposal of the brine dilution

Freshwater use (FWU), m3

with treated water into the sea. Thus, the brine di-
lution alternative provides a solution for manag-
ing waste in desalination plants, especially when
the brine is disposed in areas where salinity-
sensitive species are present. It also has a bacteri-
cide effect on the treated water. This option has a
significant limitation, however, in that the plants
need to be located close enough to each other

Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse 59

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 5 Environmental profile of final destinations of reclaimed water

Brine Potable water Desalinated water
Environmental impact category No reusea dilutiona replacementb replacementb
Acidification potential (AP), 7.16E-03 7.20E-03 6.48E-03 −2.06E-02
kg SO2 -eq
Global warming potential 8.29E-01 8.34E-01 7.11E-01 −2.12E+00
(GWP), kg CO2 -eq
Eutrophication potential 1.05E-03 1.06E-03 9.99E-04 −6.19E-04
(EP), kg PO4 -eq
Photochemical oxidation 7.58E-05 7.60E-05 3.21E-05 −5.74E-05
(PHO), kg formed O3 -eq
Depletion of abiotic resources 4.77E-03 4.80E-03 3.96E-03 −1.66E-02
(DAR), kg antimony-eq
Depletion of stratospheric 3.50E-08 3.53E-08 1.58E-08 −1.45E-07
ozone (ODP), kg
CFC-11-eq
Ecotoxicity potential (ETP), 1.36E+00 1.36E+00 7.01E-01 −1.81E+00
kg 1,4-DCB-eq
Freshwater use (FWU), m3 6.19E-03 6.23E-03 −1.07E+00 −1.44E-02
Cumulative energy demand 1.33E+01 1.34E+01 1.10E+01 −4.57E+01
(CED), MJ
Note: The functional unit is 1 cubic meter (m3 ) of wastewater entering the plant. kg SO2 -eq = kilograms of sulfur dioxide
equivalent; kg CO2 -eq = kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent; kg PO4 -eq = kilograms of phosphate equivalent; kg
formed O3 -eq = kilograms of formed ozone equivalent; kg antimony-eq = kilograms of antimony equivalent; kg CFC-11-
eq = kilograms of trichlorofluoromethane equivalent; kg 1,4-DCB-eq = kilograms of 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalent;
MJ = megajoule.
a Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) with no tertiary treatment.
b WWTP with tertiary treatment.

to reduce pumping energy and infrastructure
requirements.
The replacement of potable water has a lower
environmental impact than the no-reuse option
for all of the categories studied. Although this op-
tion includes the tertiary treatment and its related
environmental impacts, these impacts are com-
pensated for by the fact that potable water does
not need to be produced. As we can observe in
table 5, the impacts of both options have the same
order of magnitude. We should not forget that
there are different technologies available for both
tertiary treatment of wastewater and potable wa-
ter production. Different technologies will lead
to different levels of energy consumption, which
could make the environmental profile of the two
options similar or different. Thus, we cannot gen-
eralize the conclusion that the tertiary treatment
has a lower impact than potable water produc-
tion. Instead, we should say that their impacts are
similar with the studied technology. In this way,
the most important benefit of replacing potable
water is the freshwater savings, as is reflected in
the freshwater use indicator. The negative value
in this case equates to an environmental benefit.
This is especially important in areas with water
availability problems, where freshwater should be
used only for potable applications. This replace-
ment option should be implemented in these
areas.
The replacement of desalinated water has the
lowest environmental impact of all the alterna-
tives and of all the categories studied. Although
this option also includes the tertiary treatment
and its related environmental impacts, these im-
pacts are mitigated by the fact that desalinated
water does not need to be produced. Due to the
high energy consumption of the water desalina-
tion process, the impacts avoided are higher than
the impacts generated, which thus gives nega-
tive impacts for all the environmental categories
studied.
It should be highlighted that the chosen appli-
cation of reclaimed water is also important in the

60 Journal of Industrial Ecology

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S

Table 6 Advantages and disadvantages of alternatives for the final destinations of reclaimed water
Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages
No reuse Simplest option Loss of a possible valuable resource
(WWTP outflow should be better
reused)
Brine dilution with Used for waste management WWTP and desalination plant must be
WWTP outflow Reduces the impact of brine disposal close to each other
Bactericide effect on WWTP water Specific disposal infrastructure required
Loss of a potentially valuable resource
(WWTP outflow should be better
reused)
Potable water Potable water is not used for Tertiary treatment and the
replacement nonpotable uses conventional water treatment plant
The process for obtaining potable water treatment have similar energy
is not required consumption
Specific infrastructure required
Desalinated water Desalinated water is not used for Specific infrastructure required
replacement nonpotable uses
Tertiary treatment uses less energy
consumption than a desalination
plant
The desalination process is not required
Note: WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

environmental assessment. For example, if the
water is used for urban cleaning or firefighting, the
environmental benefit is due to the water saving.
When reclaimed water is used in agricultural irri-
gation, the nutrients contained in the water avoid
the use of chemical fertilizers, thus providing an
environmental benefit in addition to the water
savings.
Conclusions
The addition of the tertiary treatment to the
traditional WWTP studied slightly increases the
environmental impact of the plant, but the re-
sulting reclaimed water can be beneficially put
to nonpotable uses. In water-stress areas, the
no-reuse option should be avoided as much as
possible, because it means the loss of a valuable
resource. Brine dilution with the secondary out-
flow of a WWTP is a good option in nonwater-
stress situations that meet certain location re-
quirements (i.e., the plants should be located near
to each other and in a coastal area).
The use of reclaimed water to replace potable
water from a water treatment plant helps to pre-
serve a valuable resource (freshwater). Substitut-
ing potable water with treated wastewater that
has had a tertiary treatment does not lead to a
substantial environmental improvement in most
of the indicators. It is recommended for water-
stressed situations, however.
The replacement of desalinated water with
treated wastewater avoids the high energy costs
associated with desalination and preserves a valu-
able resource. Due to the high environmental im-
pact of water desalination processes, desalinated
water should not be used for nonpotable applica-
tions; in this case we always recommend the use
of reclaimed water. Replacing both potable and
desalinated water has significant advantages due
to the savings of valuable resources (water and
energy, respectively).
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the SOSTAQUA Project,
led by Aguas de Barcelona (AGBAR) and funded
by the Centre for Technological and Indus-
trial Development (CDTI) in the framework of
the Ingenio 2010 Program under the CENIT

Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse 61

 R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
call. We gratefully acknowledge the data pro-
vided by the wastewater treatment team, espe-
cially Maribel Marı́n, process manager of the
Southern Area for Empresa Mixta d’Aigües de
la Costa Brava.
Notes
1. One cubic meter (m3 , SI) = 103 liters (L) ≈ 264.2
gallons (gal).
2. One kilowatt-hour (kWh) ≈ 3.6 x 106 joules (J, SI)
≈ 3.412 x 103 British Thermal Units (BTU).
References
Arpke, A. and N. Hutzler. 2006. Domestic water use in
the United States: A life-cycle approach. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 10(1–2): 169–184.
Beavis, P. and Lundie, S. 2003. Integrated environmen-
tal assessment of tertiary and residuals treatment:
LCA in the wastewater industry. Water Science
and Technology 47(7–8): 109–116.
CML (Institute of Environmental Studies). 2001. CML
2 baseline method 2000. Leiden, the Netherlands:
University of Leiden.
Dixon, A., M. Simon, and T. Burkitt. 2003. Assess-
ing the environmental impact of two options for
smallscale wastewater treatment: Comparing a
reedbed and an aerated biological filter using a
life cycle approach. Ecological Engineering 20(4):
297–308.
EEA (Environmental European Agency). 1999. Envi-
ronment in the European Union at the turn of the
century. Environmental assessment report No 2.
Copenhagen, Denmark: EEA.
Fernández, J., L. Garcı́a, and R. Hernández. 2006. Par-
ticularidades de la ampliación de una IDAM ur-
bana: El caso de la I.D.A.M. de Adeje-Arona
en Tenerife Special features for the enlargement
of an urban desalination plant: The case of Adeje-
Arona desalination plant in Tenerife (in Spanish).
Paper presented at the Third Congress of Civil,
Territory and Environmental Engineering: Wa-
ter, Biodiversity and Engineering, 25–27 October,
Zaragoza, Spain.
Hospido, A., M. T. Moreira, M. Fernández-Couto, and
G. Feijoo. 2004. Environmental performance of
a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Interna-
tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9(4): 261–
271.
ISO 14040. 2006. Environmental management—Life cy-
cle assessment principles and framework. Geneva,
62 Journal of Industrial Ecology
Switzerland: International Organisation for Stan-
dardisation (ISO).
ISO 14044. 2006. Environmental management—Life
cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation
for Standardisation (ISO).
Lim, S. R., D. Park and J. M. Park. 2008. Environ-
mental and economic feasibility study of a total
wastewater treatment network system. Journal of
Environmental Management 88(3): 564–575.
Lundin, M., M. Bengtsson, and S. Molander. 2000.
Life cycle assessment of wastewater systems: In-
fluence of system boundaries and scale on calcu-
lated environmental loads. Environmental Science
and Technology 34(1): 180–186.
Meneses, M., J. C. Pasqualino, and F. Castells. 2009.
Poster MO237: Environmental assessment of water
supply technologies. Paper presented at the 19th
annual meeting of SETAC Europe, 31 May to 4
June, Göteborg, Sweden.
Meneses, M., J. Pasqualino, R. Céspedes, and F.
Castells. 2010a. Alternatives for reducing the en-
vironmental impact of the main residue from a
desalination plant. Journal of Industrial Ecology
14(3): 512–527.
Meneses, M., J. C. Pasqualino, and F. Castells.
2010b. Environmental assessment of urban waste-
water reuse: Treatment alternatives and applica-
tions Chemosphere. 81: 266–272.
Milà i Canals, L., J. Chenoweth, A. Chapagain, S. Orr,
A. Antón, and R. Clift. 2009. Assessing freshwa-
ter use impacts in LCA: Part I—Inventory model-
ing and characterization factors for the main im-
pact pathways. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 14(1): 28–42.
MITyC (Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comer-
cio) 2007. La energı́a en España. [Energy in Spain.]
Madrid, Spain: MITyC.
Muñoz, I. and A. R. Fernández-Alba. 2008. Reduc-
ing the environmental impacts of reverse osmosis
desalination by using brackish groundwater re-
sources. Water Research 42(3): 801–811.
Muñoz, I., A. Rodrı́guez, R. Rosal, and A. R. Fernández-
Alba. 2009. Life cycle assessment of urban
wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treat-
ment: A focus on toxicity related impacts. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment 407(4): 1245–
1256.
Ortiz, M., R. G. Raluy, L. Serra, and J. Uche. 2007. Life
cycle assessment of water treatment technologies:
Wastewater and water-reuse in a small town. De-
salination 204(1–3): 121–131.
Owens, J. W. 2001. Water resources in life-cycle impact
assessment: Considerations in choosing category

indicators. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(2): 37–
54.
Palme, U., M. Lundin, A. M. Tillman, and S. Molan-
der. 2005. Sustainable development indicators
for wastewater systems: Researchers and indi-
cator users in a co-operative case study. Re-
sources, Conservation and Recycling 43(3): 293–
311.
Pasqualino, J., 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. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 43(9): 3300–
3307.
Pfister, S., A. Koehler, and S. Hellweg. 2009. As-
sessing the environmental impacts of freshwater
consumption in LCA. Environmental Science and
Technology 43(11): 4098–4104.
Sala, L. and M. Serra. 2004. Towards sustainability
in water recycling. Water Science and Technology
50(2): 1–7.
SCLCI (Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories).
2009. Ecoinvent V2.1. database. www.ecoinvent.
Pasqualino et al., LCA of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
org, Dübendorf, Switzerland: SCLCI. Accessed
2009.
Torres, M. 2004. La Desalación de Agua de mar y
el vertido de la Salmuera Seawater desalination
and brine disposal (in Spanish). Ambienta July-
August: 27–31.
About the Authors
Jorgelina Pasqualino is a postdoctoral re-
searcher in the Department of Chemical Engi-
neering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,
Spain. Montse Meneses was a postdoctoral re-
searcher in the Department of Chemical Engi-
neering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,
Spain at the time this article was written. She
is currently an assistant professor at the Univer-
sitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain. Francesc
Castells is head of the AGA Research Group and
professor in the Department of Chemical Engi-
neering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona,
Spain.
63