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

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is composed of 27 % actual agricultural reuse and 15 % composting, the latter being modelled as agricultural reuse.

References

  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 44:4505–4511

    CAS  Article  Google 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. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/Stakeholder+workspace%3A+PEFCR+pilot+Household+liquid+laundry+detergents (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):755–781

    CAS  Article  Google 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, submitted

  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 27:800–812

    CAS  Article  Google 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 7:918–938

    Article  Google 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):707–715

    CAS  Article  Google 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 47:5480–5492

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Daigger GT (1998) Upgrading wastewater treatment plants, second edition. CRC Press

  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 Agency

  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 21:17–37

    Article  Google 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, Switzerland

  13. Droste RL (1997). Theory and practice of water and wastewater treatment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

  14. Ecoinvent Centre (2015) The ecoinvent Database. http://www.ecoinvent.org

  15. Eurostat (2015a) Population connected to wastewater treatment plants (env_ww_con). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (Accessed 31 August 2015)

  16. Eurostat (2015b) Sewage sludge production and disposal (env_ww_spd). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (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). Rome

  18. Foley J, de Haas D, Hartley K, Lant P (2010) Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res 44:1654–1666

    CAS  Article  Google 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 9:560–568

    CAS  Article  Google 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):1–11

    Google 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 Netherlands

  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. http://www2.lwr.kth.se/forskningsprojekt/Polishproject/JPS7s43.pdf (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, Japan

  24. Jiménez-González C, Overcash MR, Curzons A (2001) Waste treatment modules—a partial life cycle inventory. J Chem Technol Biot 76:707–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kampschreur MJ, Temmink H, Kleerebezem R, Jetten MSM, van Loosdrecht MCM (2009) Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment. Water Res 43(17):4093–4103

    CAS  Article  Google 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 41:5515–5522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Law Y, Ye L, Pan Y, Yuan Z (2012) Nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment processes. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:1265–1277

    CAS  Article  Google 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 1995:20

  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):252–262

    Article  Google 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, USA

    Google Scholar 

  31. Nature (2014) The composition of a bacterial cell. http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-composition-of-a-bacterial-cell-14705043 (accessed26 February 2016)

  32. Paul E, Laval ML, Sperandio M (2001) Excess sludge production and costs due to phosphorus removal. Environ Technol 22(11):1363–1371

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Qasim SR (1999) Wastewater treatment plants: planning, design, and operation. CRC Press

  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):532–546

    CAS  Article  Google 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 2:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL (eds) (1991) Wastewater engineering. Treatment disposal reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. The Engineering Toolbox (2015) Fuels—higher calorific values. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html (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 Netherlands

    Google 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 16:803–818

    Article  Google 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 14:282–284

    Article  Google 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 Centre

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Muñoz.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Almudena Hospido

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 240 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muñoz, I., Otte, N., Van Hoof, G. et al. A model and tool to calculate life cycle inventories of chemicals discharged down the drain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 986–1004 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1189-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Environmental fate model
  • LCI
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Sewage
  • Wastewater
  • WW LCI