File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A comprehensive carbon footprint analysis of different wastewater treatment plant configurations

TitleA comprehensive carbon footprint analysis of different wastewater treatment plant configurations
Authors
KeywordsCarbon footprint
Carbon neutrality
Greenhouse gas emissions
Sludge management
Wastewater treatment process
Issue Date2022
Citation
Environmental Research, 2022, v. 214, article no. 113818 How to Cite?
AbstractWith the growing concern of global warming, many water utilities are pioneering in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with some water utilities aiming to achieve net-zero emissions operation in the next decade. However, for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the carbon footprint of different treatment technologies and its contribution among various units within each treatment configuration is still unclear. This study evaluates the impacts of process design on the carbon footprint of WWTPs through the analysis of scope 1 (direct emission), scope 2 (indirect emission), and scope 3 (value chain emission) emissions. The comprehensive configuration design in this work considered three nutrient removal processes including typical aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technologies. Emissions from the sludge management processes are also calculated, including aerobic and anaerobic sludge stabilization processes, short-term and long-term sludge storage, and three sludge disposal options. In total, 45 processes were analysed and the results were compared. The results showed the carbon footprints are highly dependent on the treatment configurations of WWTPs. Analysis suggested scope 2 & 3 emissions can be reduced by selecting suitable processes. In general, anaerobic wastewater and sludge stabilization technologies are more suitable than aerobic technologies to reduce scope 2 & 3 emissions, leading to a lower overall carbon footprint. In comparison, configuration design offers limited opportunities to reduce scope 1 emissions, which may be the future challenge for WWTP to achieve carbon neutrality.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/368700
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 7.7
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.679

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWu, Ziping-
dc.contributor.authorDuan, Haoran-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Kaili-
dc.contributor.authorYe, Liu-
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-16T02:37:39Z-
dc.date.available2026-01-16T02:37:39Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationEnvironmental Research, 2022, v. 214, article no. 113818-
dc.identifier.issn0013-9351-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/368700-
dc.description.abstractWith the growing concern of global warming, many water utilities are pioneering in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with some water utilities aiming to achieve net-zero emissions operation in the next decade. However, for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the carbon footprint of different treatment technologies and its contribution among various units within each treatment configuration is still unclear. This study evaluates the impacts of process design on the carbon footprint of WWTPs through the analysis of scope 1 (direct emission), scope 2 (indirect emission), and scope 3 (value chain emission) emissions. The comprehensive configuration design in this work considered three nutrient removal processes including typical aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technologies. Emissions from the sludge management processes are also calculated, including aerobic and anaerobic sludge stabilization processes, short-term and long-term sludge storage, and three sludge disposal options. In total, 45 processes were analysed and the results were compared. The results showed the carbon footprints are highly dependent on the treatment configurations of WWTPs. Analysis suggested scope 2 & 3 emissions can be reduced by selecting suitable processes. In general, anaerobic wastewater and sludge stabilization technologies are more suitable than aerobic technologies to reduce scope 2 & 3 emissions, leading to a lower overall carbon footprint. In comparison, configuration design offers limited opportunities to reduce scope 1 emissions, which may be the future challenge for WWTP to achieve carbon neutrality.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental Research-
dc.subjectCarbon footprint-
dc.subjectCarbon neutrality-
dc.subjectGreenhouse gas emissions-
dc.subjectSludge management-
dc.subjectWastewater treatment process-
dc.titleA comprehensive carbon footprint analysis of different wastewater treatment plant configurations-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.envres.2022.113818-
dc.identifier.pmid35843274-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85135724262-
dc.identifier.volume214-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 113818-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 113818-
dc.identifier.eissn1096-0953-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats