926 Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932

Adalberto Noyola
Alejandro Padilla-Rivera
Juan Manuel Morgan-Sagastume
Leonor Patricia Güereca
Flor Hernández-Padilla
Instituto de Ingenierı́a, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México,
Coyoacán, Mexico City, Mexico
Research Article
Typology of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Technologies in Latin America
This paper presents an analysis of the wastewater treatment plants in six Latin
American and Caribbean countries. Based on a sample of 2734 municipal treatment
facilities, the applied processes are classified by sizes (influent flow) and type of
technologies. The distribution of the technologies is also presented for each of the
six countries. In addition, a representative municipal wastewater characterization,
based on influent data from 174 treatment plants, is proposed. Results show that
stabilization ponds, activated sludge, and the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors
represent 80% of the treatment facilities of the sample, providing treatment to 81% of
the total flow considered. Moreover, 67% of the plants in the sample are small (flow
<25 L/s) and the very small facilities (influent flow <5 L/s) are extensively applied in the
region (34% of the sample), especially in Mexico and Brazil. The use of very small
treatment plants may result in low energy efficiency systems and on possible incom-
pliance of the discharge standards. This common practice in several countries in Latin
America should be revised in order to improve the environmental performance of such
facilities.
Keywords: Energy consumption; Operational costs; Small wastewater treatment plants; Wastewater
characterization; Wastewater infrastructure
Received: December 15, 2011; revised: April 17, 2012; accepted: May 22, 2012
DOI: 10.1002/clen.201100707

1 Introduction the limitations and conditions of the region, offering innovating,

and adaptative options to existing conventional solutions [1].
Population growth in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has
Water systems were initially designed for hygiene and sanitation
surpassed the capacity of national and local governments in order to
reasons; however, given the need to achieve long-term sustainability,
meet the demand for water supply and sewerage. With the historical
the objectives of urban water systems need to go beyond the pro-
economic resources allocated to the sector in the last decade, many
tection of public health and environmental quality. It is necessary to
LAC countries have been able to provide water and sanitation ser-
reduce the impacts to natural resources, to optimize the use of
vices to millions but not enough to achieve universal access to this
energy and water, to reduce waste generation and to allow nutrients
highly important determinant of public health [1]. Moreover,
recycling for crops [3]. Selection of a particular wastewater treat-
unplanned urban growth has given priority to water services and
ment technology (WWTT) should not be based primarily on technical
sewerage, resulting in an imbalance between available water resour-
or economical issues but should also be the result of the integration
ces and water quality protection, so treatment of wastewater and
of technological, economic, social, and environmental activities
solid waste disposal has lagged [2]. This is confirmed with data from
that surround it, seeking wastewater reuse opportunities as far as
the Water and Sanitation Program that established that LAC
possible [4].
countries reached 91 and 79% coverage of water supply and sewer-
It is necessary to emphasize that the wastewater treatment sector
age, respectively, but provided treatment to just 15% of municipal
has a responsibility to contribute to reduction of greenhouse gas
wastewater (www.wsp.org/wsp/sites/wsp.org/files/11142007111614_
(GHG) emissions and overall energy consumption. To achieve this
Latinosan_Final.pdf).
goal, accurate diagnosis and new analysis tools are necessary so that
Based on the foregoing context, it is imperative for LAC region to
government agencies, water utilities, and regulatory agencies can
develop and implement new solutions in order to fill the gap of
better meet the challenge of reducing the carbon footprint of the
existing infrastructure for wastewater management, with new
sector while improving its environmental and economic sustainabil-
administrative and technological systems that should consider
ity [5].
In this paper, the most adopted WWTT for LAC region are iden-
tified and classified according to their treatment capacity, together
Correspondence: Dr. A. Noyola, Instituto de Ingenierı́a, Universidad with a representative wastewater characterization. Also, significant
Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, 04510 Mexico City, Mexico differences of national regulations for water discharge are pointed
E-mail: noyola@pumas.ii.unam.mx out based on a comparative analysis. Finally, a comparison of oper-
Abbreviations: BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; GHG, greenhouse gas; ational cost and energy consumption of the three more representa-
UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket tive WWTT is presented.

ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932
2 Materials and methods
A representative sample of LAC countries was established in order to
adjust to the time frame and economic resources of the study. Data
collection was carried out by means of two types of questionnaires
(general and specific) designed in order to characterize each munici-
pal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) identified in the sample of
each country, considering technical, environmental, and economic
aspects. The information from the general survey was focused on the
design and operational flow as well as on the type of treatment
process, including sludge handling and odor control. The specific
survey, applied to a fraction of the general sample, gathered data on
capital and operational costs, electricity consumption, and achieved
water quality. The information was obtained and verified with the
help of a group of experts in each selected country.
The sample considered 2734 WWTP divided as follows: 702 facili-
ties in Brazil (estimated total facilities: 2985), 177 in Chile (estimated
total facilities: 263), 139 in Colombia (unknown estimated total
facilities), 32 in Guatemala (estimated total facilities: 87), 1653
in Mexico (estimated total facilities: 1833), and 31 in Dominican
Republic (estimated total facilities: 56). An important decision for
the sample integration was that 204 septic tanks reported were not
taken into account, as they are considered as preliminary treatment
(142 of such facilities in Mexico, 64 in Brazil, and 3 in Dominican
Republic). The sample and the estimated total facilities did not
consider very small private plants (hotels, shopping malls, residen-
tial buildings, etc.).
2.1 Selected countries in LAC
The selection of countries representing LAC region was mainly based
on a comparative analysis according to the sanitation coverage,
population, and gross domestic product. A sample of six countries
was selected to represent a general status of wastewater treatment in
LAC. Brazil and Mexico are by themselves representative of the
region, as they count for half the population of LAC, also for being
part of the so-called emerging economies. For the Andean Countries
(Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) Colombia was
selected to represent this area, due to its important sanitation cover-
age (83%) and the strength of their water institutions and utilities.
For Southern Cone region (Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay),
Chile was selected because of its leadership on water services, with the
highest wastewater treatment coverage in the area (93%).
Finally, for the Central America and the Caribbean sub-region,
Guatemala, and Dominican Republic were chosen. Those countries
have medium to high sanitation coverage compared to other
countries in the area, the latter representing the insular countries.
Additionally, Guatemala was selected for its high vulnerability to
climate change (http://maplecroft.com/themes/cc/).
2.2 Technologies commonly used in LAC
The information of the WWTP obtained in the six countries con-
sidered location (city and county or state, according to the country’s
political division), name if any, population served, design treatment
capacity, actual influent flow, integration of treatment process,
sludge management, odor and emissions control, and final disposal
of treated water. From that information, the three most representa-
tive treatment technologies were identified based on four flow
ranges (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) according to the size of the population
ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Latin America 927
served: small (0–25 L/s), medium (25.1–250 L/s), big (250.1–2500 L/s),
and huge (>2500 L/s) as reported by CEPIS (www.bvsde.paho.org/
bvsaar/e/proyecto/instrucciones.html). To relate the size of the popu-
lation served (or city) with the design treatment capacity of the
WWTP, a per capita water allocation of 235 L/day was assumed, with
a corresponding 85% wastewater generation [6].
The three most representative treatment technologies were
selected according to their respective number of facilities and to their
accumulated flow, taken from the sample of 2734 WWTP. The sample
included 199 facilities with two biological processes in series (pre- and
post-treatment). In such dual processes, two WWTT were counted,
each with the influent flow reported for that specific WWTP.
Energy requirements were determined based on preliminary siz-
ing of electrical equipment. With this data, operating costs were
calculated. Mass balances, energy requirements, materials, and
equipment as well as cost estimations were determined by a process
simulator and its associated database developed for this study. This
information is the basis for the inventory of a life cycle assessment,
now under way as part of this project.
2.3 Regulations for wastewater treatment in LAC
A review of the different environmental regulations for wastewater
discharge in LAC was carried out for the six selected countries.
This is a complex topic, since there are countries in LAC with lax
regulations and others with very strict standards.
General parameters were selected for comparison purposes
according to severity of the standards (lax and strict regulations) as
shown in Tab. 1. Minimum and maximum values established
for each country regulation were used in order to identify their
characteristic intervals. Based on this, a regional discharge standard
can be proposed for this work, in order to define a common treatment
target for the energy and operational cost comparison: biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) 30 mg/L, total suspended solids (TSS) 30 mg/L,
and fecal coliforms (FC) 1000 MPN/100 mL). These values are con-
sidered realistic for the present sanitation situation of developing
countries, even if more stringent standards are applied in developed
countries, where nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) removal is
considered.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Most representative treatment technologies
in LAC
The sample of 2734 WWTP led to a distribution of the type
of technologies used in the six LAC countries, according to their
Table 1. Parameters considered for comparison of discharge standard in
LAC
Lax legislation Strict legislation
Oil and grease (mg/L) Oil and grease (mg/L)
Settleable solids (mL/L) Biochemical oxygen demand BOD5 (mg/L)
Floating matter (mg/L) Total suspended solids TSS (mg/L)
Biochemical oxygen Nitrogen (mg/L)
demand BOD5 (mg/L) Phosphorus (mg/L)
Fecal coliform (MPN/ 100 mL)
Helminth eggs (eggs/L)
www.clean-journal.com
928 A. Noyola et al.
Figure 1. Distribution of treatment technologies in LAC according to their
type.
number and to their accumulated flow (Figs. 1 and 2, respectively).
Generic names for each technology were adopted according to cur-
rent engineering practice. The number of technologies is higher
than the number of WWTP (2933 vs. 2734) due to the existence of
199 facilities using two processes (two types of treatment technol-
ogies in series, as pre- and post-treatment). Also, it is worth mention-
ing that under the item ‘‘activated sludge’’ all process variants are
included, mostly conventional and extended aeration.
Data from Fig. 1 show that the three more adopted technologies in
LAC are stabilization ponds (1106 facilities, 38% of the sample)
followed by activated sludge (760, 26%) and the upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor, known as UASB (493, 17%). These three
technologies correspond to 2359 facilities (80% of the sample). The
first two technologies turn out to be the more representative in
terms of flow treated (Fig. 2), with a clear contribution of activated
sludge (104.1 m3/s, 58%) followed by stabilization ponds (27.1 m3/s,
15%). With this typology, the enhanced primary treatment appears
in the third place with an accumulated flow of 16.1 m3/s, 9%) fol-
lowed by the UASB reactor (14.2 m3/s, 8%) corresponding all together
to 90% (81% not considering enhanced primary treatment) of the
total flow treated by the facilities of the sample.
Figure 2. Accumulated flow treated per each type of technology applied in
LAC.
ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932
Even if stabilization ponds have the higher number of installa-
tions, they are designed for medium to small flows, in agreement
with the limitations of this technology (high flat land requirement)
resulting in an average size of 24.5 L/s. On the other hand, activated
sludge provides treatment to almost two thirds of the flow with a
quarter of the facilities in the sample, with an average size of 137.0 L/s.
The UASB reactor is situated at the third place in terms of the
number of facilities, with an average size of 28.8 L/s. This anaerobic
technology has gained a major position for municipal sewage treat-
ment in LAC in relatively short time (around 20 years) considering
that most of the technologies used in LAC, excepting enhanced
primary treatment, wetlands and aerobic submerged filters have
been available for several decades. Another important ‘‘newcomer’’
is the enhanced primary treatment, referring to a primary settling
improved with the addition o chemicals (usually ferric chloride). For
the sample considered in this work, the average size of this type of
treatment plant is 894.4 L/s.
The three more used technologies in LAC have significant differ-
ences. Stabilization ponds and UASB have low energy needs, result-
ing in reduced operational costs. Moreover, UASB is a compact
technology, requiring a very small foot print, an important
advantage for urban areas. However, a limitation of UASB is the
lower effluent quality that may be achieved with this process, need-
ing a post-treatment step in most of the cases [7]. On the other hand,
activated sludge needs a high energy input and produces excess
sludge that should be treated and managed, but it is a compact
installation and reaches a high effluent quality when properly oper-
ated. A simpler process variant of activated sludge, known as
extended aeration, is mainly applied for small flows, having the
advantage of producing less sludge already digested, but with a
higher energy need per cubic meter treated if compared with the
conventional activated sludge process. Regarding the accumulated
flow, the third technology is the enhanced primary treatment, with
the biggest average facilities in terms of treated flow (894.4 L/s vs.
137.0 L/s of activated sludge). This technology has been adopted in
few, but large, facilities, when the needed effluent quality is not
strict; its main drawbacks are an important consumption of coagu-
lant reagent and an increased production of primary sludge.
The percentage distribution of the number of treatment technol-
ogies in each selected country is presented in Fig. 3, with clear
differences among them. First of all, Chile has a particular pattern,
with only two technologies, mostly activated sludge (64%), followed
Figure 3. Distribution of treatment technologies per type and per selected
country.
www.clean-journal.com
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932 Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Latin America 929

Figure 4. Size distribution according to the influent flow. (a) All WWTP in the sample, (b) smallest WWTP in the sample.

by aerated ponds; trickling filters are used only in 1% of the sample.
This country also has the higher treatment coverage (93%) of the six
considered countries, a service that will reach 100% in 2012. Chile
has a strong regulation institution and a fully privatized water
sector, with high efficiency (commercial and technical) water util-
ities [8]. On the other hand, more diverse patterns characterize the
rest of the countries, being worth noting Brazil, with UASB as the
second most used technology (30%) after stabilization ponds (43%);
Mexico, with facilities for every technology considered in the figure
and the only reported constructed wetlands (7%); and Dominican
Republic, with high presence or aerated ponds (40%) followed by
UASB (18%). The aerated ponds in this country, however, are inter-
mittently aerated due to electric energy shortage. The low oper-
ational costs associated to stabilization ponds and UASB reactors
seem to be the reason for the predominance of these two techno-
logies in Brazil, a country that improved and established the use of
the UASB concept for municipal wastewater treatment [7].
Based on the previous data, the three most representative treat-
ment technologies for the selected countries are stabilization ponds,
activated sludge and UASB reactors. As mentioned, this group
accounts for 80% of the treatment facilities and 81% of the treated
wastewater flow of the studied sample.
3.2 Size distribution of WWTP
The distribution of the facilities by size (flow) obtained for the
already defined flow intervals (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4) is presented in
Fig. 4a. Furthermore, the size distribution was obtained for the
interval with the smallest flow values (Q1) by using 5 subintervals
(0.1–5 L/s; 5.1–10 L/s; 10.1–15 L/s; 15.1–20 L/s; and 20.1–25 L/s) taking
into consideration that most of the WWTP were included in such
flow range (1842 facilities). The results are shown in Fig. 4b.
It is clear that the use of small WWTP is a very common practice in
LAC, even in big cities, representing 67% of the sample. In addition,
the very small facilities with an influent flow <5 L/s (2160 population
equivalent) are extensively applied in the region (34% of the sampled
facilities).
In order to better describe the 1842 small size treatment plants, a
distribution was obtained for each country in the sample, consid-
ering the mentioned five subdivisions of the smallest flow interval
(Q1). The results are summarized in Tab. 2.
Mexico and Brazil have installed most of the small WWTP in the
region (61% of those <25 L/s) and have used them extensively (75 and
59% of the country sample, respectively), this not being the case in
the other countries studied. Moreover, the smallest WWTP (flow
<5 L/s) represents 60% of the small WWTP in Mexico and 35% in
Brazil. These very small facilities may have operational problems
considering the limited technical and financial resources of many
small and medium size water utilities. In a sample of 166 WWTP in
the southeast of Brazil, Oliveira and von Sperling [9] found that many
treatment facilities did not comply with the designed effluent stan-
dards. Data obtained in Mexico also supports those findings, mostly
for small WWTP. Such being the case, the effectiveness of the treat-
ment infrastructure in the Latin American region may not be as
expected, with the exception of the large WWTP that have proper
administrative and operation organizations.
As a result, the environmental impacts generated by many small
WWTP could be greater than building a flow-equivalent properly
operated big wastewater treatment plant [3]. The higher energy
consumption per treated cubic meter found for the smaller facilities,

Table 2. Distribution of the smallest WWTP in the sample, according to their country.

Country Flow range, % (number) Total %

(number)
0–5 L/s 5.1–10 L/s 10.1–15 L/s 15.1–20 L/s 20.1–25 L/s

Brazil 35 (143) 27 (110) 16 (67) 13 (55) 9 (38) 100 (413)

Chile 10 (8) 22 (18) 33 (27) 17 (14) 18 (15) 100 (82)
Colombia 8 (5) 24 (16) 27 (18) 27 (18) 14 (9) 100 (66)
Guatemala 25 (7) 11 (3) 39 (11) (0) 25 (7) 100 (28)
Mexico 60 (752) 18 (221) 10 (127) 8 (97) 4 (49) 100 (1246)
Dominican Republic 57 (4) (0) (0) 14 (1) 29 (2) 100 (7)
Total (919) (368) (250) (185) (120) (1842)

ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

930 A. Noyola et al. Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932

Table 3. Comparison of the regulations for discharge into water bodies from different countries of LAC considering selected parameters

Country Brazil Chile Colombia Guatemala Mexico Dominican Republic

d)
Regulation [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
a)
BOD5 (mg/L) 35–60 Load removal >80% 100c)–200 30–150 35–100
Oil and grease (mg/L) NA 20 Load removal >80% 10b) 15 NA
Settleable solids (mL/L) NA NA-5 NA NA 1 NA
Floating matter NA NA Absent Absentc) Absent NA

NA, not applicable.

a)
Receiving water body should maintain a 3–10 mg/L concentration.
b)
Compliance goal by 2024.
c)
To be met by new wastewater discharges.
d)
Values are for average daily limits.

as mentioned in Section 3.4, is an additional argument on this The raw wastewater characterization was obtained for 158 WWTP
concern. However, the different impacts can only be assessed in a of the sample and a statistic analysis was performed in order to
case by case basis, considering the whole system, from the collecting determine an average characterization of raw municipal sewage for
sewer to the site and type of final disposal. LAC. Table 4 shows the average values for the selected parameters,
together with a reference default value commonly used.
The characterization shown in Tab. 4 has slightly higher values
3.3 Wastewater quality parameters than the reference, excepting total phosphorous. Oliveira et al. [18]
An analysis of the discharge regulations of the six countries studied also found higher influent values than those reported in inter-
suggests a classification into three types: the regulations that set national literature, based on a sample of 166 WWTP in Brazil. The
maximum limits to be met by wastewater discharged into receiving data in Tab. 4 may be used as a more representative characterization
bodies (applicable to Mexico, Guatemala, and Chile), the regulations for municipal sewage in the Latin American region.
which are focused on the receiving body in order to preserve its
water quality (Brazil), and those that require a removal percentage
3.4 Operational costs and energy consumption
of the organic load rate discharged (Colombia and Dominican
Republic). Table 3 shows water quality standards for each country Concerning the operational costs (US $/m3), as expected, these are
considering selected parameters for discharge into water bodies. higher for very small facilities (Fig. 5) mainly due to the relative high
In this comparison, nitrogen and phosphorus are not considered, weight of staff wages and the electromechanical equipment with
as municipal technologies in the sample are not designed to reduce over-specified power requirements, due to limitations of commer-
these parameters. It can be seen that the only parameter included cially available sizes at the low end of the product catalogue range.
in the regulations of all countries is BOD, which presents a wide However, no clear differences emerge when comparing the same
variation, between 30 and 200 mg/L. process with medium and big flow ranges. The well-known concept
It is important to note that Brazil has the more stringent discharge
standard in terms of BOD as it regulates the quality of receiving
waters, while other countries control the concentration of the efflu-
ent discharged into the receiving body. Therefore, it is not possible to
compare these regulations. The wide variation in the criteria for
standards may be due to the monitoring, control, and enforcing
capacity of each country. Also, internal political or economical
interests may play a role for not allowing adequate development
of the environmental regulations. Additional obstacles and oppor-
tunities associated with the implementation and enforcing of dis-
charge standards in developing countries are discussed by von
Sperling and Chernicharo [16].

Table 4. Mean characterization of municipal wastewater for LAC

Parameter Average value Standard Default value

proposed deviation (medium strength)
for LAC [17]

BOD5 (mg/L) 244 17.0 220

COD (mg/L) 557 40.3 500
TSS (mg/L) 264 31.1 220
Total N (mg/L) 42 1.4 40
Total P (mg/L) 7 0.7 8 Figure 5. Operation costs per volume of treated wastewater for three
FC (MPN 100 mL 1
) 1.2  107 1.4  106 1  107 different process arrangements (a: flow range 0–25 L/s; b: flow range
25–525 L/s).

ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.clean-journal.com

Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932
of economy of scale reduces normalized costs for larger facilities.
Similar findings have been reported [4, 19]. The comparison is made
considering similar effluent quality for the three processes, a con-
dition that the UASB reactor cannot accomplish unless associated
with a post-treatment step (activated sludge in this case).
Figure 6 shows the energy consumption per cubic meter of treated
wastewater (kWh/m3). Lower values are associated to stabilization
ponds, while higher values are found for activated sludge, as most of
the energy is consumed by the aeration equipment. The small
and medium plants were found to consume more energy per unit
volume than the larger ones. Stabilization ponds have a very low
consumption (<0.1 kWh/m3) followed by UASB with activated sludge
as post-treatment (<1 kWh/m3 for flows >5 L/s) and activated sludge
(<1 kWh/m3 for flows >10 L/s). The process simulator used to gen-
erate the data considered extended aeration and sludge drying beds
for flows <100 L/s, conventional activated sludge with aerobic
digester and centrifuge for the interval between 101 and 400 L/s
and conventional activated sludge with anaerobic digestion and
centrifuge for bigger flows. Average energy consumption of
0.821 kWh/m3 has been established for activated sludge [20].
The use of energy is directly linked to GHG emissions due to fossil
fuels burning for electricity generation. As a consequence, energy
intensive technologies for wastewater treatment contribute to GHG
emissions and to climate change. Based on sustainability concepts,
the selection of treatment technologies must take into account
direct and indirect environmental impacts under a broad perspec-
tive, not only effluent quality compliance and capital and operational
costs. In this sense, the water sector, and particularly the wastewater
industry, is facing the challenges posed by climate change, including
adoption of mitigation actions and adaptation strategies [5]. In this
new context, the lack of quantitative data evaluating the GHG
emissions from specific processes is crucial to propose mitigation
options. Wastewater treatment presents an opportunity to reduce
GHG emissions, mainly methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), two
gaseous compounds that are produced, under anaerobic or aerobic
conditions, during the treatment process [21]. The typology of the
Figure 6. Energy consumption per volume of treated wastewater for three
different process arrangements (a: flow range 0–25 L/s; b: flow range
25–525 L/s).
ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Wastewater Treatment Technologies in Latin America 931
wastewater infrastructure in Latin America is a base for developing
comprehensive mitigation strategies for the sector, as it allows
the identification of opportunities for the selection of technologies
and for improving the operation of the treatment plants. This
is particularly relevant considering the expected increase in treat-
ment facilities due to the important lack of this service in
Latin America.
4 Conclusions
The most representative technologies in LAC are: stabilization
ponds, activated sludge and UASB reactors, representing 80% of
WWTP in the sample and providing 81% of the treated municipal
wastewater. An important technology, due to its contribution to the
amount of treated wastewater, is the enhanced primary treatment,
which accounts for 9% of the treated effluents with <1% of the
WWTP. It should be noticed that the UASB technology has gained
a major position for municipal sewage treatment in LAC, mainly in
Brazil, in relatively short time (around 20 years).
Most of the facilities in LAC treat small flows (<25 L/s) representing
67% of the sample. In addition, the very small facilities (influent flow
<5 L/s) are extensively applied in the region (34% of the WWTP in the
sample), especially in Mexico and Brazil.
The common practice in LAC consisting in the use of very small
WWTP can be considered un-efficient in terms of energy use,
together with a certain risk of not complying with the discharge
standards. This practice should be revised in order to improve the
environmental performance of such facilities.
Brazil has the strictest regulations in comparison with the other
countries in the sample, since their maximum permissible limits are
set in order to maintain the water quality of the receiving bodies, in
contrast to countries that base their control on the discharge stan-
dards into the water body. Moreover, there is a broad diversity of
approaches and standards for water pollution control in Latin
America.
Energy consumption in the water sector of LAC is expected to grow
due to the increase in the number of treatment facilities needed
for improving the current treatment coverage. The typology of
the existing wastewater infrastructure in Latin America may help
for developing comprehensive mitigation strategies, allowing the
identification of opportunities for the selection of technologies with
better environmental performance.
Acknowledgments
This publication is one of the results of the Regional Network Latin
America of the global collaborative project ‘‘EXCEED – Excellence
Center for Development Cooperation – Sustainable Water
Management in Developing Countries’’ consisting of 35 universities
and research centres from 18 countries on 4 continents. The authors
highly acknowledge the support of German Academic Exchange
Service DAAD for taking part in this EXCEED project.
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
[1] A. Noyola, L. Heller, H. Otterstetter, Los desafı́os para la universal-
ización del saneamiento básico, in Determinantes Ambientales y
Sociales de la Salud (Eds.: L. A. Galvão, J. Finkelman, S. Henao),
www.clean-journal.com
932 A. Noyola et al.
PALTEX McGraw-Hill Interamericana, Washington, DC 2009,
pp. 367–381.
[2] J. Moscoso, L. Egocheaga, Sistemas integrados de tratamiento y uso
de aguas residuales en América Latina: Realidad y potencial, in
XXVIII Congreso Interamericano de Ingenierı´a Sanitaria y Ambiental
AIDIS, Cancún, México 2002.
[3] M. Lundin, M. Bengtsson, S. Molander, Life Cycle Assessment of
Wastewater Systems: Influence of System Boundaries and Scale
on Calculated Environmental Loads, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34
(1), 180–186.
[4] H. Muga, J. Mihelcic, Sustainability of Wastewater Treatment
Technologies, Environ. Manage. 2008, 88 (3), 437–447.
[5] D. Rosso, M. Stenstrom, The Carbon-sequestration Potential of
Municipal Wastewater Treatment, Chemosphere 2007, 70, 1468–1475.
[6] F. Spellman, Spellman’s Standard Handbook for Wastewater Operators,
Vol. 1, Technomic Publisher, Lancaster, PA 1999.
[7] M. von Sperling, C. A. L. Chernicharo, Biological Wastewater
Treatment in Warm Climate Regions, Vol. 1, IWA Publishing, London
2005.
[8] M. Rouse, The market-centred paradigm, in Water and Sanitation
Services: Public Policy and Management (Eds.: J. E. Castro, L. Heller),
Earthscan, London 2009, pp. 139–152.
[9] S. Oliveira, M. von Sperling, Performance Evaluation of Different
Wastewater Treatment Technologies Operating in a Developing
Country, J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2011, 01.1, 37–56.
[10] CONAMA 357, Dispõe sobre a classificação dos corpos de agua e diretrizes
ambientais para o seu enquadramento, bem como estabelece as condições e
padrões de lançamento de efluentes, e dá outras providências, Conselho
Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Resolução No. 357, Brasil 2005.
[11] Decreto 090, Norma de emisión para la regulación de contaminantes
asociados a las descargas de residuos lı´quidos a aguas marinas y conti-
ß 2012 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Clean – Soil, Air, Water 2012, 40 (9), 926–932
nentales superficiales, Ministerio Secretaria General de la Presidencia,
Chile 2001.
[12] Decreto 1594 de 1984, Uso del agua y residuos lı´quidos, Ministerio de
Agricultura, Colombia, Diario Oficial No. 36.700, Colombia 1984.
[13] Acuerdo Gubernativo Número 236, Reglamento de descargas y reúso de
aguas residuales y de la disposición de lodos, Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de Guatemala, Guatemala 2006.
[14] NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996, Norma que establece los lı´mites máximos
permisibles de contaminantes en las descargas de aguas residuales en aguas
y bienes nacionales, Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, México 1996.
[15] AG-CC-01, Norma de Calidad y Control de Descargas, Secretarı́a del
Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales, Santo Domingo, República
Dominicana 2001.
[16] M. von Sperling, C. A. L. Chernicharo, Urban Wastewater Treatment
Technologies and the Implementation of Discharge Standards in
Developing Countries, Urban Water 2002, 4, 105–114.
[17] Metcalf & Eddy Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and
Reuse, McGraw-Hill, New York 1991.
[18] S. M. A. Oliveira, C. M. I. O. Souki, M. von Sperling, Wastewater
characteristics in a developing country, based on a large survey (166
treatment plants), in Proceedings of the 5th IWA World Water Congress,
Beijing, China 2006.
[19] G. Rodriguez-Garcia, M. Molinos-Senante, A. Hospido, F. Hernandez-
Sancho, M. T. Moreira, G. Feijoo, Environmental and Economic
Profile of Six Typologies of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Water
Res. 2011, 45, 5997–6010.
[20] G. Venkatesh, H. Brattebo, Energy Consumption, Costs and
Environmental Impacts for Urban Water Cycle Services: Case
Study of Oslo (Norway), Energy 2011, 36 (2), 792–800.
[21] M. El-Fadel, M. Massoud, Methane Emissions from Wastewater
Management, Environ Pollut. 2001, 114, 177–185.
www.clean-journal.com