A model and tool to calculate life cycle inventories of chemicals discharged down the drain

  • Ivan MuñozEmail author
  • Nikolaj Otte
  • Gert Van Hoof
  • Giles Rigarlsford



The aim of this article is to present a new model and tool to calculate life cycle inventories (LCIs) of chemicals discharged down the drain. Exchanges with the technosphere and the environment are attributed for based on the predicted behaviour of individual chemicals in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and following discharge to the aquatic environment, either through the treated effluent or directly when there is no connection to WWTP. The described model is programmed in a stand-alone spreadsheet, WW LCI.


The model includes treatment in a modern WWTP and sludge disposal as well as the greenhouse gas (GHG) and nutrient emissions from degradation in the environment. The model fundamentals are described, and its application is shown with six industrial chemicals: sodium carbonate, ethanol, tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED), diethylenetriamine penta(methylene phosphonic acid) (DTPMP), zeolite A and sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP). This application considers two scenarios: Germany, with full connection to WWTP, and a generic direct discharge scenario. The scenario with WWTP connection is assessed with WW LCI as well as with the wastewater treatment model developed for ecoinvent. Results are presented for key LCI flows and for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), focusing on GHG emissions, freshwater ecotoxicity and marine and freshwater eutrophication.

Results and discussion

GHG emissions predicted by WW LCI differ to those predicted by the ecoinvent model, with the exception of sodium carbonate. For zeolite A and DTPMP, WW LCI predicts GHG emissions 330 higher and 12.5 times lower, respectively. Eutrophication scores are lower for WW LCI as the German scenario considers more optimistic nutrient removal rates than the default ones from the ecoinvent model. Freshwater ecotoxicity is mainly driven by the magnitude of the USEtox characterization factors; however, the ecoinvent model cannot accommodate chemical-specific toxicity assessments. When WW LCI is used to compare a direct discharge scenario with the German scenario, differences are found in all three impact categories.


WW LCI provides a comprehensive and chemical-specific inventory, constituting an advance over previous models using generic descriptors such as biological oxygen demand. This level of detail comes at the price of an increased effort for collecting input data as well as the need to identify individual chemicals in wastewater prior to the assessment. The LCIs generated through this model can then be applied in the context of LCA studies where each chemical contributes to the total life cycle impacts of a product or service.


Environmental fate model LCI Life cycle assessment Sewage Wastewater WW LCI 

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1189_MOESM1_ESM.docx (240 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 240 kb)


  1. Ahn JH, Kim S, Park H, Rahm B, Pagilla K, Chandran K (2010) N2O emissions from activated sludge processes, 2008-2009: results of a National Monitoring Survey in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 44:4505–4511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AISE (2015) PEF screening report in the context of the EU Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Pilots Household Heavy Duty Liquid Laundry Detergents (HDLLD) for machine wash. Report submitted on April 8, 2015 by AISE to the EU PEF stakeholders wikipage. (accessed 17 September 2015)
  3. Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R (2008) Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci 34(6):755–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkved M, Gallice A, Kech S, Hauschild MZ (2015) SewageLCI 1.0—a first generation inventory model for quantification of chemical emissions via sewage systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess, submittedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boldrin A, Andersen JK, Møller J, Christensen TH, Favoino E (2009) Composting and compost utilization: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manage Res 27:800–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chai C, Zhang D, Yu Y, Feng Y, Wong MS (2015) Carbon footprint analyses of mainstream wastewater treatment technologies under different sludge treatment scenarios in China. Water 7:918–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen TH, Gentil E, Boldrin A, Larsen AW, Weidema BP, Hauschild M (2009) C balance, carbon dioxide emissions and global warming potentials in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manage Res 27(8):707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corominas L, Foley J, Guest JS, Hospido A, Larsen HF, Morera S, Shaw A (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res 47:5480–5492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daigger GT (1998) Upgrading wastewater treatment plants, second edition. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalemo M (1997) The ORWARE simulation model. Anaerobic digestion and sewage plant sub-models. Licenthiate thesis. Swedish Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala. AFR-report 152, Swedish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalemo M, Sonesson U, Björklund A, Mingarini K, Frostell B, Jönsson H, Nybrant T, Sundqvist J-O, Thyselius L (1997) ORWARE—a simulation model for organic waste handling systems. Part 1: model description. Resour Conserv Recycl 21:17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doka G (2007) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Final report ecoinvent 2000 No. 13, EMPA St. Gallen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Droste RL (1997). Theory and practice of water and wastewater treatment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Ecoinvent Centre (2015) The ecoinvent Database.
  15. Eurostat (2015a) Population connected to wastewater treatment plants (env_ww_con). (Accessed 31 August 2015)
  16. Eurostat (2015b) Sewage sludge production and disposal (env_ww_spd). (Accessed 31 August 2015)
  17. FAO & IFA (2001) Global estimates of gaseous emissions of NH3, NO and N2O from agricultural land. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Foley J, de Haas D, Hartley K, Lant P (2010) Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res 44:1654–1666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franco A, Struijs J, Gouin T, Price OR (2013a) Evolution of the sewage treatment plant model SimpleTreat: applicability domain and data requirements. Integr Environ Assess Managem 9:560–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franco A, Struijs J, Gouin T, Price OR (2013b) Evolution of the sewage treatment plant model SimpleTreat: use of realistic biodegradability tests in probabilistic model simulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999(9999):1–11Google Scholar
  21. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008 a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition (version 1.08) Report I: Characterisation. Ministerie van VROM, Den Haag, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkowicz M (2000) Energy management at WWTP with biogas utilisation. In: Proceedings of a Polish-Swedish seminar, Cracow, May 29, 2000. Sustainable Municipal Sludge And Solid Waste Handling, E. Plaza, E. Levlin, B. Hultman, (Editors), TRITA-AMI REPORT 3073, ISSN 1400–1306, ISRN KTH/AMI/REPORT 3073-SE, ISBN 91–7170–584-8. 2000. (accessed 3 August 2015)
  23. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, volume 4—agriculture, forestry and other land use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, JapanGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiménez-González C, Overcash MR, Curzons A (2001) Waste treatment modules—a partial life cycle inventory. J Chem Technol Biot 76:707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kampschreur MJ, Temmink H, Kleerebezem R, Jetten MSM, van Loosdrecht MCM (2009) Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment. Water Res 43(17):4093–4103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Köhler A, Hellweg S, Recan E, Hungerbühler K (2007) Input-dependent life-cycle inventory model of industrial wastewater-treatment processes in the chemical sector. Environ Sci Technol 41:5515–5522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Law Y, Ye L, Pan Y, Yuan Z (2012) Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment processes. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:1265–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Jun-tilla V, Hanssen O-J, Rønning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995): Nordic guidelines for life cycle assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark, Nord 1995:20Google Scholar
  29. Muñoz I, Rigarlsford G, Milà i, Canals L, King H (2013) Accounting for greenhouse-gas emissions from the degradation of chemicals in the environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, Huang J, Koch D, Lamarque JF, Lee D, Mendoza B, Nakajima T, Robock A, Stephens G, Takemura T, Zhang H (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Nature (2014) The composition of a bacterial cell. (accessed26 February 2016)
  32. Paul E, Laval ML, Sperandio M (2001) Excess sludge production and costs due to phosphorus removal. Environ Technol 22(11):1363–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qasim SR (1999) Wastewater treatment plants: planning, design, and operation. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEPSETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saouter E, Van Hoof G (2002) A database for the life-cycle assessment of Procter & Gamble laundry detergents. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL (eds) (1991) Wastewater engineering. Treatment disposal reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. The Engineering Toolbox (2015) Fuels—higher calorific values. (accessed 3 August 2015)
  38. Van Haandel AC, Van der Lubbe JGM (2007) Handbook biological wastewater treatment. Design and optimisation of activated sludge systems. Quist Publishing, Lidschendam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Hoof G, Schowanek D, Franceschini H, Muñoz I (2011) Ecotoxicity impact assessment of laundry products: a comparison of USEtox and critical dilution volume approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:803–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, van de Meent D (2009) USES-LCA 2.0—a global nested multi-media fate, exposure, and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:282–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3 Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent CentreGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Muñoz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nikolaj Otte
    • 2
  • Gert Van Hoof
    • 3
  • Giles Rigarlsford
    • 4
  1. 1.2.-0 LCA consultantsAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Henkel AG & Co. KGaADuesseldorfGermany
  3. 3.Procter & Gamble, Environmental Stewardship Organisation, BICStrombeek-BeverBelgium
  4. 4.Safety and Environmental Assurance CentreUnileverSharnbrookUK

Personalised recommendations