Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Environmental impact assessment of advanced urban wastewater

treatment technologies for the removal of priority substances and
contaminants of emerging concern: A review

n M.T. Silva*
Joana F.J.R. Pesqueira, M. Fernando R. Pereira, Adria
Laboratory of Separation and Reaction Engineering - Laboratory of Catalysis and Materials (LSRE-LCM), Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Conventional urban wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove micropollutants, which
Received 20 November 2019 may have more long-term effects than previously thought. Advanced treatment technologies (such as
Received in revised form ozonation) are being employed at full scale to solve this issue. Nevertheless, one must consider the
10 March 2020
resources and energy additionally needed when implementing these systems and, as a consequence, the
Accepted 11 March 2020
Available online 14 March 2020
further environmental burdens. The negative contributions must be minimized so that the solution to
the initial problem does not result in other environmental impacts, and a tool suitable for this analysis is
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Klemes the life cycle assessment (LCA), taking into consideration the full life cycle of these processes. A literature
review on the status of LCA application for advanced treatment of wastewater was performed in this
Keywords: study, with focus on the removal of priority substances (PSs) and contaminants of emerging concern
Life cycle assessment (CECs) of the Directive, 2013/39/EU, and the Watch List on the Decision, 2015/495/EU of March of 2015
Advanced treatment technologies updated by the Decision, 2018/840/EU of June of 2018. In total, 65 substances were included in this
Micropollutants research. Only 18 papers were found considering the environmental benefits (in terms of avoided im-
Wastewater
pacts) of the removal of such compounds by specific advanced treatments (mainly ozonation, Fenton-
Directive 2013/39/EU
based and granular activated carbon processes) and only 33 of the mentioned substances were
Decision 2018/840/EU
included in these studies. The lack of information on the effects that these pollutants and their trans-
formation products can have on living beings, compromises the LCA application and leads to an un-
derestimation of avoided impacts. Generated impacts result mainly from the production of energy (and
the respective energy mix) and the use of some specific reagents such as hydrogen peroxide. Some
promising alternatives might be solar-based treatments and other reagents/materials (e.g. carbon-based
materials as catalysts); however, studies are scarce, especially in terms of alternative chemicals. Many
processes have yet to be assessed with this approach, including heterogeneous photocatalysis, along with
combinations of different treatment options. For example, no studies were found regarding the LCA of
electrochemical oxidation, hydrodynamic cavitation, among others, for the removal of PSs and CECs
considered in the present review.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. LCA of advanced treatments for PSs and CECs removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Results and overall analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Activated carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Membrane technologies and sand filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5. Ozonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adrian@fe.up.pt (A.M.T. Silva).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121078
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078

2.6. UV-based processes and heterogeneous photocatalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.7. Fenton and Photo-Fenton processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8. Other processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9. Results variability: analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Final remarks and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction in the environment. The update also led to the removal of four
substances as it was considered that enough monitoring data
Water is essential for life, yet, one of the most threatened re- exists for them (triallate, oxadiazon, 2,6-ditert-butyl-4-
sources. Even though the planet has a large abundance of water, methylphenol and diclofenac), as well as a fifth substance, 2-
drinkable freshwater is scarce, and its reservoirs have been pro- ethylhexyl 4-methoxycinnamate, which was eliminated from
foundly affected by pollution. In Europe, renewable water resources the list as its concentration in sediments is of higher importance
per capita were reduced in 24% between 1960 and 2010, with and monitoring data already exists for water (Decision, 2018).
several species and ecosystems being affected. According to the Many of these PSs and CECs have been found on water bodies
2018 European Waters Assessment (EEA, 2018a), the main at concentrations up to mg L
1 (known as micropollutants - MPs)
responsible for poor chemical quality of surface waters are atmo- and originate from effluents from industries, households and
spheric deposition and the discharge of effluents from urban hospitals, leachates from landfills or runoff from agriculture and
wastewater treatment plants (UWWTPs). UWWTPs are a main livestock (Barbosa et al., 2016; Jurado et al., 2012). Despite being
source of pollution to water since several chemicals from industry quantified at usually very low concentrations, often lower than
or household use will inevitably enter the sewage system and be those that cause direct toxicity, MPs may have more long-term
directed to UWWTPs where, if the treatment does not remove effects than previously thought. Some may be potentially toxic
them, they will be discharged to surface waters. Although their or carcinogenic, and very persistent, having a tendency to bio-
impact on waterbodies has decreased over time, due to the accumulate (Gago-Ferrero et al., 2012; Munz et al., 2018). When
improvement of treated wastewater quality, other challenges arise, they reach conventional UWWTPs, they are transformed or
as new pollutants are found (EEA, 2018b). remain the same and, in many cases, end up on surface waters
The Water Framework Directive launched by the European after the post-treatment discharge (Tijani et al., 2013). In this
Commission intends to improve and maintain a good chemical context, it is of the upmost importance to develop solutions for
status for water bodies (surface and groundwater) in Europe, by their removal. One option consists on the implementation of
establishing limits for certain chemical pollutants e priority advanced treatment technologies in UWWTPs, completely
substances (PSs) e which must not exceed the Environmental mineralizing the micropollutants or at least transforming them
Quality Standards (EQS) of the Directive, 2013/39/EU. These PSs into less harmful by-products. Advanced oxidation processes
can cause harm to the aquatic environment, either via acute or (AOPs) are conceptually based on the production of highly
chronic toxicity or accumulation in the ecosystem/food chain, reactive non-selective hydroxyl radicals (HO), the second
and consequently, to human health (Directive, 2013). Directive, strongest oxidizing species (Pera-Titus et al., 2004), which can
2013/39/EU also led to the creation of a watch list of sub- attack and destroy organic pollutants. Hydroxyl radicals are
stances e contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) e which are commonly generated by using hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), ozone
not currently routinely monitored but may pose a significant risk (O3) or oxygen (O2), among others. Ozonation, ultraviolet radia-
due to potential toxicological effects when present in water tion (UV) combined with O3 or H2O2, and the Fenton process are
bodies. The effects that these compounds may have on the some of the most studied processes. Other treatments such as
environment and humans is still vastly unknown (Pal et al., heterogeneous photocatalysis, electrochemical oxidation and
2010). However, the constant, long term exposure may result in photocatalytic membrane processes are emerging as possible
chronic effects as verified by some studies (Kidd et al., 2007; alternatives in this field (Gomes et al., 2017; Jimenez-Tototzintle
Santos et al., 2010). These substances have first been listed in a et al., 2018; Mirzaei et al., 2017; Moreira et al., 2016; Rizzo et al.,
Watch List on the Decision, 2015/495/EU of March of 2015 and 2019a; Wang et al., 2018). More conventional treatments, such as
can be of synthetic or natural origin. The original Watch List activated carbon (powdered e PAC or granular e GAC) adsorption
included two pharmaceuticals (diclofenac and the synthetic and membrane filtration, have also shown potential to remove
hormone 17a-ethinylestradiol (EE2)), natural hormones (17b- PSs and CECs. Exploring the details on application and efficiency
estradiol (E2) and estrone (E1)), three macrolide antibiotics of these processes for the removal of micropollutants is not the
(azithromycin, clarithromycin and erythromycin), pesticides aim of this study, and such information can be consulted else-
(methiocarb, oxadiazon, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiame- where (Ribeiro et al., 2015; Rizzo et al., 2019b).
thoxam, clothianidin, acetamiprid and triallate), a UV filter (2- Treatment processes must be assessed in order to determine
ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate) and an antioxidant (2,6-di- which are the best economically, environmentally and socially, so
tert-butyl-4-methylphenol) (Decision, 2015). The list was their selection and implementation can be adequate. When
reviewed and updated by the Decision, 2018/840/EU of June of developing processes for solving a certain environmental issue,
2018, and three substances were added, the insecticide meta- one must be aware that the use of resources and energy by these
flumizone and the antibiotics amoxicillin and ciprofloxacin. processes will result in additional environmental burdens. These
Including these antibiotics is also a strategy for the improvement must be minimized so that the solution to the initial problem
of the knowledge of antimicrobials and antimicrobial resistance does not result in other environmental problems. A tool suitable
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
for this purpose is the life cycle assessment (LCA), which allows
for the determination of potential environmental impacts of
these systems on humans and resources, and consequent emis-
sions throughout a life cycle (i.e. from all phases since resource
extraction, production, use, end of life, recycling and final
deposition). Its “cradle-to-grave” approach avoids transferral of
environmental impacts from one part of the life cycle to another.
Consequently, it can be used to improve environmental perfor-
mance and help decision makers define priorities and reformu-
late projects and policies (ISO, 2006a). LCA is a standardized and
widely accepted tool, a part of the ISO 14000 group on envi-
ronmental management. Details can be found on ISO
14044:2006, which defines the requirements and guidelines for
its execution.
LCA consists of four iterative stages (ISO, 2006a, b): (i) definition
of goal/scope; (ii) inventory assessment; (iii) impact assessment;
and (iv) interpretation. During the definition of the goal/scope (i),
the frontiers of the system (i.e. unit processes included in the study)
are defined. The goal constitutes the intended application, the
reasons to perform the study, the intended audience and to whom
the results will be disclosed. The scope includes the system to be
studied, its functions and boundaries, the functional unit, the
impact categories and methodologies that will be used, the
required data and its quality, assumptions, limitations and the final
review format. The functional unit is the reference flow for the
mathematical normalization of the data and is related to the benefit
that results from the system. In the following stage (ii), an in-
ventory is prepared which includes all incoming and outcoming
data to the system, for each process unit, from inputs (such as
materials, energy and secondary processes) to outputs (such as
products, co-products, waste, and emissions to environmental
compartments). Cut-off criteria are used to decide which data is
included and which is not, based on a mass or energy contribution,
environmental significance, or other adequately justified reasons.
At this point, the life cycle impact assessment can be performed
(LCIA), during which the life cycle inventory (LCI) results are clearly
classified and associated to different impact categories, which are
then calculated (characterization). The impact assessment stage
(iii) clarifies the environmental significance of the inventory.
Category results provide information on the environmental issues
associated with the inputs and outputs of the system. Finally,
during interpretation (iv), the results from the previous stages are
discussed so decisions and recommendations can be done (ISO,
2006a, b).
A fifth, optional stage of LCA corresponds to the scoring and
weighing. It is not mandatory as there is no scientific basis to
translate LCA results as a single score. Weighing requires value
choices and implies subjectivity. Choosing environmental impacts
and models for its determination also introduces some subjectivity
to the LCIA phase, and so transparency is critical throughout.
Overall, different products/services can be compared by LCA
studies only if their context and the assumptions are equivalent. In
order to compare different systems, they should have the same
function and be quantified in reference to the same functional
unit. Otherwise, differences must be explained and stated. Addi-
tionally, the cut-off criteria and other data limitations during LCI
may leave out considerable inputs and outputs. The development
level of the characterization model, the uncertainties and sensi-
tivity analysis may affect results. Also, if spatial and temporal
boundaries are too restrictive, there is the risk of problem transfer
(ISO, 2006a, b).
A literature review on the status of application of LCA for
advanced wastewater treatment, particularly taking into account
the removal of PSs and CECs, was performed in the present study.
3
2. LCA of advanced treatments for PSs and CECs removal
2.1. Methods
For the selection of literature for review, the SCOPUS database
was employed, in February, March and August of 2019, selecting as
keywords different combinations of:
(i) the names of the substances listed in Table SI1(all substances
on the Directive, 2013/39/EU and the Watch List on the
Decision, 2015/495/EU of March of 2015 and its update by the
Decision, 2018/840/EU of June of 2018);
(ii) the process designation or related words (i.e. ozonation,
activated carbon, membrane, filtration, photocatalysis, pho-
tocatalytic, UV, TiO2, electrochemical, sonolysis, hydrody-
namic cavitation, catalytic wet oxidation) according to the
technologies described for this purpose by Rizzo et al.
(2019b);
(iii) related expressions (e.g. catalyst, catalysis, advanced oxida-
tion, oxidation, adsorption, pharmaceutical and personal
care products (PPCPs), micropollutant, microcontaminant
pesticide, among others);
(iv) life cycle assessment, water or wastewater.
Even though the technologies described for micropollutant
removal by Rizzo et al. were taken as basis for the search, and the
focus is on PSs and CECs, all treatment processes that were analysed
by LCA for this purpose (as additional treatment for micro-
pollutants removal) were taken into account. Only papers submit-
ted after standardization were considered (i.e. from 1997 on) and
solely if they applied all four stages of LCA indicated on the ISO, as
described above. Papers considering the treatment of other types of
effluents (hospital wastewaters, laundry greywater, among others)
were not included in this study, even if these wastewaters are
typically sent for treatment in a UWWTP, because its composition is
very different from that actually being treated in a UWWTP. This
was done to ensure that the studies being compared are based
solely on real or a simulation of secondary-treated urban waste-
waters, reducing the differences between studies and allowing for
better comparability.
2.2. Results and overall analysis
A total of 178 papers were found within the scope of water/
wastewater treatment life cycle assessment. However, some of
these papers have studied the environmental impact of whole
water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants or both (the
whole water cycle) rather than specific advanced treatment tech-
nologies. Others assessed the advanced treatment of other effluents
instead of urban wastewater, such as: landfill percolation waste-
water or contaminated groundwater, dye removal/textile waste-
waters, industrial wastewaters, paper and pulp production
wastewaters, drinking water production, among others. Some
manuscripts focused on other purposes, such as: disinfection and/
or nutrient removal; the impact of micropollutants discharge on
water; or did not consider micropollutants when assessing the life
cycle of advanced treatment of urban wastewater. Table SI3 on
Supplementary Information lists all these references. Only 18 pa-
pers refer to the advantage of the removal of the abovementioned
compounds by the integration of advanced treatments into
UWWTPs. The 18 articles are summed up in Table 1 and additional
information can be found on the corresponding technology review
that follows section 2.2. Surprisingly, studies fully assessing the
environmental impacts of advanced treatments on UWWTPs for
PSs and CECs removal are still scarce, up to three studies being
4 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078

Table 1
Studies on the life cycle assessment of different environmental technologies for the treatment of micropollutants present in urban wastewaters after secondary treatment (real
or simulated).
d
Year Advanced Treatment Locationa Functional Unitb Data Originc LCIA Methods (and Ref.
Categories e)

2007 PF (followed or not by SBR) and Spain Removal of more than 80% total organic carbon (TOC) Lab-scale tests CML Farre et al.
SPF (sunlight), from a 1.25 L of diuron and linuron saturated effluent ARD, GWP, ODP, HTP, (2007)
Europe (TOC: 50 mg L
1) FETP, METP, POP, AP,
(energy) AEP
2008 SF, OZ, MBR Denmark 1 m3 of treated wastewater (Removal of heavy metals, e EDIP Hoibye
endocrine disruptors e e.g. E2, EE2 e and a detergent) GWP, AP, NE, FETP et al.
(2008)
2008 SF, OZ, MBR Denmark 1 m3 of treated wastewater (Removal of heavy metals, e EDIP Wenzel
endocrine disruptors and detergents) FETP, GWP, AP, NE et al.
(2008)
2009 OZ (with and without H2O2) Spain The supply of 1 m3 for irrigation in agriculture (Removal Lab-scale tests USES-LCA and EDIP Munoz
of 84 pollutants, including substances in the Water GWP, FETP, TETP, HTP et al.
Framework Directive and PPCPs) (2009)
2011 SPF (with and without SBR) Spain Removal of 93% of TOC present in 250 mL of water Lab-scale tests CML Serra et al.
(sunlight), polluted with 500 mg L
1 of a-methyl-phenylglycine GWP, ODP, AEP, AP, (2011a)
Europe HTP, FETP, METP, TETP,
(energy) POP, ARD
2011 SPF, EF, SPEF Spain 70% TOC removal (a) or 90% TOC removal (b) in a 250 mL Lab-scale tests CML Serra et al.
(sunlight), aqueous solution of 500 mg L
1 of a-methyl- GWP, ODP, AEP, AP, (2011b)
Europe phenylglycine; (a) is used for comparing all AOPs, (b) HTP, POP, FETP, METP,
(energy) compares those that can achieve such removals TETP, ARD
2012 OZ Spain 1 m3 of treated wastewater (Removal of diuron, Lab-scale tests IPCC, USES-LCA and Rodriguez
ibuprofen, diclofenac, sulfamethoxazole, erythromycin, EDIP et al.
bezafibrate, gemfibrozil, atenolol, carbamazepine, AETP, TETP, HTP, GWP (2012)
hydrochlorothiazide, caffeine and N-acetyl-4-amino-
antipiryne)
2012 OZ Luxembourg, Treatment of 1 m3 of wastewater (Removal of atenolol,
Pilot and full-scale EDIP, ReCiPe and Igos et al.
Germany, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, plants of the PILLS USEtox (2012b)
Netherlands, partners
cyclophosphamide, diclofenac, lidocaine, paracetamol, AP, GWP, FETP, METP,
Switzerland sulphametoxazole, trimethropim) TETP, AEP, HTP, ODP,
POP
3
2013 OZ Luxembourg, Treatment of 1 m of wastewater (Removal of atenolol, Pilot and full-scale EDIP, ReCiPe Igos et al.
Germany, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, plants of the PILLS AP, GWP, FETP, METP, (2012a)
Netherlands, cyclophosphamide, diclofenac, lidocaine, paracetamol, partners TETP, AEP, HTP, ODP,
Switzerland sulphametoxazole, trimethropim) POP, LU, IR, PMF, FD,
MD, WD
2015 OZ, GAC, UV þ H2O2, algae-based United States of Treatment of 10 million gallons per day of secondary e Unspecified. LU, EU Colosi et al.
tertiary treatment America effluent containing typical concentrations of pertinent (2015)
wastewater constituents including several relevant
estrogens: 17b-estradiol, 17a-ethynylestradiol and
estrone
2016 Biochar (wood, biosolids) and United States of 75% removal of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) from Lab-scale tests EPA’s TRACI Thompson
coal-derived PAC America 47 300 m3/day (12.5 mgd) of secondary wastewater ODP, GWP, POP, AP, et al.
effluent over 40 years AEP, FD, HHC, HHNC, (2016)
RESP, ECOT
3
2017 SPF Cyprus The treatment of 1 m of secondary-treated urban Pilot-scale tests IPCC and ReCiPe Ioannou-
wastewater, completely removing trimethoprim and GWP, ODP, AP, FEP, MEP, Ttofa et al.
ofloxacin and sufficiently reducing its organic load and HTP, POP, PMF, TETP, (2017)
toxicity, achieving an effluent quality that allows safe FETP, METP, IR, ALU, NLT,
discharge into the environment WD, MD, FD, HH, RES,
ECO
3
2018 OZ, UV þ H2O2, RO, GAC United States of 1 m of influent wastewater (Removal of 19 PPCPs, 2 e TRACI, USEtox and IPCC Rahman
America pesticides, 4 natural and/or synthetic hormones, and 11 AEP, AP, GWP, ODP, et al.
industrial and commercial chemicals) ECOT, HHC, HHNC (2018)
2018 Solar (natural and simulated), Greece The effective removal of 1 mg of 17a-ethynylestradiol Lab-scale tests ReCiPe Foteinis
UV-A, UV-A þ TiO2, UV-C, UV- per litre of treated wastewater HH, RES and ECO et al.
C þ H2O2, SPF (with and without (2018)
H2O2)
2018 GAC, NF, SPF, OZ United Treatment of 1000 m3 of effluent from conventional e ReCiPe and USEtox Tarpani
Kingdom wastewater treatment (Removal of diclofenac, GWP, FD, MD, WD, ODP, and
ibuprofen, erythromycin, trimethoprim, MEP, FEP, AP, IR, FETP, Azapagic
sulfamethoxazole, carbamazepine, estrone, 17b- METP, TETP, HTP, NLT, (2018)
estradiol and triclosan) ULU, ALU, PMF, POP
2019 Acidic and Neutral SPF (both Spain; France; Treatment of 1000 m3 of secondary effluent per day Pilot-scale tests ReCiPe and USES-LCA Gallego-
with and without NF) Morocco; (Removal of 35 micro-contaminants) GWP, FD, MD, ODP, FEP, Schmid
Algeria MEP, AP, FETP, METP, et al.
TETP, HTP, POP, WD, IR, (2019)
PMF
2019 OZ, GAC, RO e One cubic meter of secondary-treated wastewater, e TRACI and USEtox Li et al.
including the substances in the wastewater (Removal of ECOT, HH, GWP, ODP, AP, (2019)
126 PPCPs and toxicity reduction) FD, EUTRO, POP
2019 OZ, PF Spain
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078 5

Table 1 (continued )
d
Year Advanced Treatment Locationa Functional Unitb Data Originc LCIA Methods (and Ref.
Categories e)

The disposal of 1 m3 of secondary effluent (the Real WWTP ReCiPe and USEtox Arzate
equivalent of 0.9 m3 of reclaimed water to irrigate) plants (CPC, OZ), GWP, ODP, AP, FEP, MEP, et al.
(Removal of 25 micropollutants) Theoretical plant HTP, POP, PMF, TETP, (2019)
(RPR) FETP, METP, IR, ALU, ULU,
NLT, WD, MD, FD, HH,
RES, ECO
a
Considered for calculations.
b
And studied micropollutants, if not clear from the functional unit.
c
Other than literature, calculations and suppliers.
d
AC e Activated Carbon; CPC - solar compound parabolic collector; EF e Electro-Fenton; FBR e Fixed Bed Reactor; GAC e Granular Activated Carbon; MBR e Membrane
Bioreactor; MF e Microfiltration; NF e Nanofiltration; OZ e ozonation; PAC e Powdered Activated Carbon; PF e Photo-Fenton; RO e Reverse Osmosis; RPR - Raceway Pond
Reactor; SBR e Sequencing Bath Reactor; SF e Sand Filtration; SPEF e Solar Photoelectro-Fenton; SPF e Solar Photo-Fenton; VUV - vacuum-ultraviolet.
e
AEP - Aquatic Eutrophication potential; AETP e Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential; ALU e Agricultural Land Use; AOD e aquatic oxygen demand; AP e acidification potential;
ARD e Abiotic resource depletion; ECO e Ecosystem; ECOT e Ecotoxicity; EU e Energy Use; EUTRO e Eutrophication; FD e Fossil Depletion; FEP e Freshwater eutrophication
potential; FETP e Freshwater ecotoxicity potential; GWP e Global Warming Potential; HH eHuman Health; HHC e Human Health Carcinogenics; HHNC e human Health non-
carcinogenics; HTP e Human Toxicity Potential; IR e Ionising Radiation; LU e Land Use; MD e Metal Depletion; MEP e Marine Eutrophication potential; METP - Marine
ecotoxicity potential; MRD e Mineral resource Depletion; NE - Nutrient Enrichment; NLT - Natural Land Transformation; ODP e Ozone depletion potential; PMF e Particulate
Material formation; POP e photochemical oxidation potential; RES e Resources; RESP e Respiratory Effects; TEP e Terrestrial Eutrophication Potential; TETP e Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity Potential; ULU e Urban Land Use; WD e Water Depletion.

membranes, such as reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF).

Fig. 1. Number of papers published per year corresponding to the established criteria.
published per year so far (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 and Table 1 show that still much work must be done (only
18 papers assessed this topic within the total of 178 papers that
were found within the scope of water/wastewater treatment life
cycle assessment), especially when it comes to treatments based on
It must be also noted that only one report (Foteinis et al., 2018)
considered heterogeneous photocatalysis (using TiO2), despite
previous investigations showing its great potential for micro-
pollutants removal. In fact, the most analysed technologies (Fig. 2)
are ozonation (61% of the studies), followed by Fenton-based pro-
cesses (44%) and activated carbon adsorption (28%). Among
Fenton-based treatments, solar photo-Fenton (SPF) constitutes the
most assessed so far. The category “Other” includes solely 1 study,
that considers an algae-based treatment for estrogenicity reduction
(Colosi et al., 2015).
The most studied locations are in Europe, particularly Spain
(Table 1). It is often considered as representative of the Mediter-
ranean region, which suffers frequently from droughts and needs to
invest significantly in water reclamation, as other affected countries
(Cyprus, Greece, Morocco and Algeria). The Mediterranean region is
also very rich in sunlight, and it comes as no surprise that many
studies in these countries are focused on sunlight-based treat-
ments, such as solar photo-Fenton.
As for the functional unit considered as basis for the life cycle
inventory and impact assessment, it is typically defined as a certain

Fig. 2. Percentage of papers analysing each treatment process.

6 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
volume of wastewater to be treated (or treated wastewater) or a
certain percentage of removal, which suits the aim of the LCA. Most
papers do not include the assessed PSs and CECs (specific com-
pounds or parameters such as TOC or COD) in their functional unit;
however, these studies make clear that the “treatment of” or the
obtaining of “treated” wastewaters implies the removal of such
substances. The most studied substances are sulfamethoxazole,
carbamazepine, trimethoprim, diclofenac, atenolol, erythromycin,
ibuprofen, ciprofloxacin, E2, EE2, caffeine, gemfibrozil, diuron and
naproxen. Figure SI1, at supplementary information, can be con-
sulted for further information on all PSs and CECs. Only 8 out of the
18 reports refer to 10 or more micropollutants in their studies, and
many (7 publications) considered up to 3 MPs in their studies.
Studies are missing for dichloromethane, fluoranthene, among
many others from the Water Framework Directive (2013), and
methiocarb, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, among others from the
Watch List of the Decision, 2015/495/EU (updated by the Decision,
2018/840/EU) (Decision, 2015, 2018). Some reports mentioned that
studies are not more complete because data on characterization
factors is uncertain or unavailable (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019; Igos
et al., 2012a; Li et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2018; Tarpani and
Azapagic, 2018). Typically, LCA studies also did not consider
transformation products, only in a few being mentioned (Foteinis
et al., 2018; Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019; Igos et al., 2012a, 2012b;
Rahman et al., 2018). System boundaries were similar to all LCA
studies and a typical delimitation is shown in Fig. 3.
While the selected studies usually took into consideration all of
the operating stages of each treatment, the main differences in
terms of system boundaries resulted from the inclusion or not of
infrastructure, its construction and end of life, as well as the impact
of the treated effluent on the environment. As these differences
affect final results, and in order to facilitate the understanding of
the results to be presented in the following sections, Table 2 dis-
closes if these were or not included in each study.
Regarding the origin of collected data (Table 1), most LCA
studies recurred to data from lab-scale tests (7 out of 18) or cal-
culations from literature averages (6 out of 18). Solely five reports
employed data from pilot, semi-industrial or full-scale plants. The
most used LCIA method was ReCiPe (7 out of 18), followed by EDIP
(6 out of 18). Single-issue methods such as IPCC and USEtox were
often used to complement other methods. Results were mainly
shown as midpoint categories. The most analysed categories (in at
least a quarter of the publications) were: global warming potential
(GWP), acidification potential (AP), ozone depletion potential
(ODP), freshwater ecotoxicity potential (FETP), human toxicity po-
tential (HTP), photochemical oxidation potential (POP), terrestrial
ecotoxicity potential (TETP), marine ecotoxicity potential (METP),
fossil depletion (FD), aquatic eutrophication potential (AEP),
ionizing radiation (IR), metal depletion (MD), particulate matter
formation (PMF) and water depletion (WD).
Fig. 3. Typical system boundaries defined in the analysed LCA studies.
In sections 2.3 to 2.8, the results found (18 abovementioned LCA
studies) are discussed in terms of technology ranking by environ-
mental performance and main impacts at midpoint and endpoint
categories when available. Table SI2 provides an overview of the
operational details of the technologies applied and it can help to
clarify differences among the different studies. The main intention
of the following sections is to shed light on the main environmental
hotspots in each case, in order to show where the focus should be to
improve the environmental performance of these treatments. It
must be highlighted that LCA studies can only be compared if they
address an object that shares the same function. All analysed LCA
studies shared the same function e i.e. using an advanced tech-
nology in a UWWTP in order to treat a secondary treated urban
wastewater-type effluent for the removal of micropollutants e and
in general had similar functional units. Despite the fact that the
applied methodology resulted in a selection of papers with similar
boundaries, wastewater composition and functional units, these
are still different, based on different assumptions, affected by ge-
ography and time, and determine their impacts using distinct
methods (among other differences). Therefore, a direct comparison
might not be recommended and sometimes, not even possible.
However, comparisons can be made to some extent and always
with awareness regarding the differences and how they affect the
results. Thus, when comparing studies, we mention these when
relevant. Additionally, when presenting rankings, it was assured
that those resulted from the same study. This also led to opting for a
more qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis, as the reader
will find in the following sections.
2.3. Activated carbon
Activated carbon has similar, but usually lower impacts than
ozonation, and lower impacts than reverse osmosis and UV (with or
without H2O2 dosage), in most categories. It underperforms
nanofiltration (Colosi et al., 2015; Igos et al., 2012a, 2012b; Rahman
et al., 2018; Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018). The choice between
activated carbon and ozonation comes down to the electricity
source used for O3 production (Igos et al., 2012a). Granular acti-
vated carbon (GAC) has a lower removal efficiency than ozonation
and reverse osmosis; however, it is considered the best option at
long term as it consumes less electricity (Li et al., 2019). The impacts
are significantly reduced if its regeneration and reuse in the process
is considered (i.e. instead of always using fresh adsorbent), as
regeneration requires lower electricity and resources (coal) when
compared to the production of fresh activated carbon. Rahman et al.
(2018) verified that the reduction of total impacts can be of 50% and
over, and of about 75% for toxicity-related impacts (both ecotoxicity
and human toxicity) (Rahman et al., 2018).
When comparing ozonation, nanofiltration, solar photo-Fenton
and granular activated carbon Tarpani and Azapagic (2018)
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078 7

Table 2
Details on the system boundaries of each study (infrastructure construction, end of life and final effluent impact).

Reference Infrastructure - Construction & End of life Final Effluent Impact

Farre et al. (2007) Not included Not included

Hoibye et al. (2008) Included Included
Wenzel et al. (2008) Included Included
Munoz et al. (2009) Not included Included
Serra et al. (2011a) Not included Not included
Serra et al. (2011b) Not included Not included
Rodriguez et al. (2012) Not included Included
Igos et al. (2012b) Not included Included
Igos et al. (2012a) Not included Included
Colosi et al. (2015) Unspecified Unspecified
Thompson et al. (2016) Unspecified Not included
Ioannou-Ttofa et al. (2017) Included Not included
Rahman et al. (2018) Included Included
Foteinis et al. (2018) Included Not included
Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) Included Included
Gallego-Schmid et al. (2019) Included Included
Li et al. (2019) Only construction Included
Arzate et al. (2019) Included Included

Fig. 4. Characterization results for granular activated carbon (GAC), nanofiltration (NF), ozonation (OZ) and solar photo-Fenton (SPF) by Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) (ReCiPe and
USEtox). Results per 1 m3 of wastewater.

(Fig. 4), calculated that granular activated carbon has similar im-
pacts to solar photo-Fenton on the global warming potential (GWP)
category (both close to 250 kg CO2 equiv./1000 m3), which is 25%
lower than the impact determined for ozonation (316 kg CO2 equiv./
1000 m3), but higher than nanofiltration (191 kg CO2 equiv./
1000 m3) (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018).
The main responsible for the impact on global warming po-
tential (GWP) in the activated carbon treatment is the production of
fresh adsorbent, followed by energy for its regeneration. The same
tendency was found for the fossil resource depletion potential
category. As for water consumption, mainly a result of electricity
generation, granular activated carbon and nanofiltration have the
lowest impact on the water depletion potential (WD). On the other
hand, activated carbon has high impacts in terms of acidification
potential (AP) due to SO2 emissions from aluminium sulphate
production and hard coal burning, used during its production.
Despite, solar photo-Fenton is the most impactful in this category
(AP). Nanofiltration has lower impacts on the ozone depletion po-
tential (ODP), but activated carbon is the second best option (10.2
and 16.2 mg CFC-11 equiv./1000 m3, respectively). GAC also has the
lowest ionizing radiation potential (IRP), as it consumes the least
electricity, and the source of the ionizing radiation in this LCA study
is nuclear power in the electricity mix. In the eutrophication po-
tential category (freshwater and marine eutrophication potential,
FEP and MEP), while activated carbon has one of the lowest impacts
on freshwater (FEP), it is the most impactful for marine (MEP),
approximately 65% higher than any of the other treatment pro-
cesses evaluated by Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) (Fig. 4), mainly
8 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
due to its disposal and release of bound nitrogen. Activated carbon
has one of the lowest, or the lowest impacts in all toxicity categories
(freshwater - FETP, marine - METP, terrestrial - TETP, human - HTP),
and only nanofiltration performs better. Along with the latter,
activated carbon results in the least particulate matter formation
potential (PMF) and photochemical oxidants formation potential
(POP). But it is the worst option in terms of urban land use (ULU),
due to its operational requirements (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018).
Rahman et al. (2018) compared reverse osmosis, UV þ H2O2,
ozonation and granular activated carbon and also found that the
latter had low impacts on toxicity, and one of the lowest impacts on
the global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential
(ODP) and acidification potential (AP) categories as it uses low
amounts of energy (Rahman et al., 2018). Contrarily, when
comparing granular activated carbon with ozonation and reverse
osmosis, Li et al. (2019) found that granular activated carbon per-
formed the worst on the categories of ecotoxicity and human
toxicity cancer, since it has a low removal efficiency of micro-
pollutants. The difference is likely due to the number of micro-
pollutants considered in this study, which was superior to the cases
mentioned before. Li et al. (2019) took into consideration 126
micropollutants (i.e., including other substances than the 65
included in this review), while Rahman et al. (2018) considered
only 10 and Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) focused on 9. Granular
activated carbon was still the recommended technology by Li et al.
(2019) due to low long-term energy use (Li et al., 2019).
When compared to other adsorbents, Thompson et al. (2016)
verified a moderate capacity of wood biochar for 75% removal of
sulfamethoxazole in comparison with powder activated carbon
(PAC). Despite having a higher impact on eutrophication (EUTRO)
and human health carcinogenics (HHC), moderate capacity wood
biochar might be a better option environmentally allowing for a
significant reduction of the carbon footprint (Thompson et al.,
2016). Therefore, while granular activated carbon shows high
environmental potential in comparison with other technologies,
more studies are needed comprising adsorbents from different
sources and prepared by different, environmentally friendly tech-
nologies since they may result in an even lower footprint
(Thompson et al., 2016).
2.4. Membrane technologies and sand filtration
Membrane-based technologies in LCA studies included nano-
filtration, reverse osmosis and membrane bioreactors.
Membrane bioreactors have been pointed out to induce more
environmental impacts than they prevent due to high energy
consumption. They underperformed, with higher environmental
impacts than other processes, such as ozonation and sand filtration
as verified by Hoibye et al. (2008) (Table 3) for the categories of
global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and
nutrient enrichment (NE). Membrane bioreactors were able to
mitigate impacts in terms of reduced freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP).
It must be highlighted, however, that as in many other analysed
Table 3
Results found for studies assessing the life cycle impacts of sand filtration (SF), ozonation (OZ) and membrane bioreactors (MBR) using the EDIP method (Hoibye et al., 2008;
Wenzel et al., 2008).
Category Units
Global Warming Potential mPET.year/m3
Terrestrial Acidification
Nutrient Enrichment
Freshwater Ecotoxicity
studies, the impacts on freshwater ecotoxicity (FETP) of the
effluent, both before and after treatment, are underestimated, as
more substances than the evaluated are present (Hoibye et al.,
2008). Indeed, when Wenzel et al. (2008) (Table 3) included 5
additional heavy metals in the assessment, membrane bioreactors
did lead to higher avoided impacts than their operation generated
(Wenzel et al., 2008).
Nanofiltration was found to be one of the most environmentally
friendly technologies. For instance, Tarpani and Azapagic (2018)
(Fig. 4) compared ozonation, nanofiltration, solar photo-Fenton
and granular activated carbon and inferred that nanofiltration
had the lowest impact on 13 out of the 18 assessed categories,
namely global warming potential (GWP), fossil resource depletion
(FD), ozone depletion potential (ODP), toxicity categories, particu-
late matter formation (PMF), photochemical oxidants formation
(POP) and urban land use (ULU), and was one of the least impactful
in the remaining categories (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018).
Regarding reverse osmosis, the high energy associated to its
application results in it being quite impactful. Rahman et al. (2018)
compared reverse osmosis, UV þ H2O2, ozonation and granular
activated carbon and found that reverse osmosis has the highest
impacts in the global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion
potential (ODP) and acidification potential (AP) (Rahman et al.,
2018). The same was found by Li et al. (2019) (Fig. 5) when
comparing ozonation, granular activated carbon and reverse
osmosis. In this study, reverse osmosis was the worst option for
most analysed categories (global warming potential, acidification
potential, fossil depletion, smog) (Li et al., 2019).
Some studies (Hoibye et al., 2008; Wenzel et al., 2008) evaluated
sand filtration and it was considered an environmentally friendly
approach (low energy use, high efficiency), with less environmental
impacts (energy and resource use) than those it prevents (discharge
of micropollutants).Therefore, among the abovementioned mem-
brane/filtration options, nanofiltration and sand filtration appear as
the most environmentally appropriate technologies for the removal
of PSs and CECs.
2.5. Ozonation
Ozonation is one of the most assessed technologies by studies
focused on PSs and CECs. It was considered as a more environ-
mentally sound solution (i.e. contributes to less impacts) than
membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis and UV, but less appro-
priate than sand filtration or nanofiltration (Colosi et al., 2015;
Hoibye et al., 2008; Igos et al., 2012b; Rahman et al., 2018; Tarpani
and Azapagic, 2018). It shows similar impacts to activated carbon
(Colosi et al., 2015; Igos et al., 2012a, 2012b). Some studies indicate
that it produces higher environmental impacts than it prevents
(Hoibye et al., 2008; Li et al., 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2012). However,
Hoibye et al. (2008) (Table 3) concluded that the avoided impacts
are underestimated since these technologies remove more than
just the assessed pollutants (Hoibye et al., 2008). Thus, if additional
substances are included in the analysis, ozonation results in less
Hoibye et al. (2008) Wenzel et al. (2008)
SF MBR OZ SF MBR OZ
1.8 48 14 2.7 45 14
1.6 13 2.7 0.9 13 6.5
1.5 9.8 2.3 0.6 10 3.5

11
14
11
8.5
14
8.0
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078 9

Fig. 5. Characterization results for granular activated carbon (GAC), reverse osmosis (RO) and ozonation (OZ) by Li et al. (2019) (TRACI and USEtox). Results per 1 m3 of wastewater.

impacts generated than avoided, a conclusion supported by Munoz
et al. (2009). These authors confirmed that the application of
ozonation for the removal of micropollutants before discharge is
more environmentally beneficial than discharge without treatment
(or even direct reuse), and that employing H2O2 in ozonation did
not significantly alter its environmental impacts (Munoz et al.,
2009).
Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) (Fig. 4) compared ozonation with
granular activated carbon, solar photo-Fenton and nanofiltration. In
this comparative LCA study, ozonation was the worst performing in
out 4 of 9 midpoint categories (global warming potential, fossil
depletion, water depletion, and ionizing radiation), and the second
worst option in other 3 (metal depletion, ozone depletion and
freshwater eutrophication potential). The main reason behind its
impact on global warming (GWP), fossil depletion (FD), ozone
depletion (ODP) and ionizing radiation (IR) is the intense electricity
use (in this LCA study partially from nuclear power). Water
depletion yield a particularly interesting result, as ozonation was
estimated to consume 1230 m3 per 1000 m3 of water treated, i.e.
consuming more water during electricity generation and sodium
hydroxide production (used in this case to ensure alkalinity) than it
treats (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018). Since different locations have
different sources to produce energy, this is not always the case. For
instance, Arzate et al. (2019) concluded that ozonation had a low
contribution to water depletion (between 0.005 and 0.02 m3 water
consumed for each cubic meter of secondary effluent treated)
(Arzate et al., 2019; Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018). Contrarily to
warming potential (GWP), fossil depletion (FD), smog and eutro-
phication categories. However, it is an energy intensive treatment
and might not be considered the most favourable option for a long-
term perspective (Li et al., 2019).
In general, higher usage of O3 increases PSs and CECs removal;
however, it also requires higher energy, originating additional im-
pacts particularly in terms of global warming potential. In fact, all
the mentioned studies concluded that energy production is the
highest impacting stage in ozonation. For this reason, Rodriguez
et al. (2012) refers that it is better to opt for lower O3 inputs, if a
balance between toxicity reduction and greenhouse gas emissions
is aimed (Rodriguez et al., 2012). The main conclusion from this
section is that the energy mix of the location where the ozonation
process will be implemented is expected to have a significant effect
on the environmental impacts and, as consequence, in the final
decision in comparison with other technologies. Ozonation (in
combination with other processes) is considered as one of the most
efficient technologies for the removal of organic micropollutants
from secondary urban wastewater, actually being implemented at
full scale at UWWTPs in Switzerland (McArdell, 2015). Thus, the
“break even” point (i.e., when the environmental impacts of the
treatment process are compensated by the reduction of impacts
Table 4
Results by Foteinis et al. (2018) for the life cycle assessment of solar and UV-based
treatments using the EDIP method.

Tarpani and Azapagic (2018), Rahman et al. (2018) inferred that Treatment type Units Single Score
ozonation had less impacts on global warming (GWP) and ozone Solar, natural mPT 2.00Eþ00
depletion (ODP) than activated carbon. As chemical and energy Solar, artificial 1.10Eþ01
production contribute most to these categories, the difference may Solar, artificial þ 5 mg Fe2þ/L 4.77E-01
result from the different energy mixes (United States and United Solar, natural þ 5 mg Fe2þ/L 8.90E-02
Solar, natural þ 15 mg Fe2þ/L 4.70E-02
Kingdom/Germany) (Rahman et al., 2018).
Solar, natural þ 5 mg Fe2þ/L þ 10 mg H2O2/L 1.00E-02
The comparative LCA study on granular activated carbon, Solar, natural þ 5 mg Fe2þ/L þ 17.2 mg H2O2/L 3.56E-04
ozonation and reverse osmosis published by Li et al. (2019) (Fig. 5) Solar, artificial þ 5 mg Fe2þ/L þ 17.2 mg H2O2/L 1.87E-03
found that ozonation was never the most impactful process in any UV-A 3.09E-01
category. Ozonation had one of the lowest impacts on the acidifi- UV-A þ 10 mg TiO2/L 9.20E-03
UV-C 1.17E-01
cation potential (AP), human toxicity non-cancer (HHNC), global UV-C þ 10 mg H2O2/L 1.38E-02
10 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
generated by effluent discharge) will dictate which is the best so-
lution in each case.
2.6. UV-based processes and heterogeneous photocatalysis
When using light-based processes, the origin of photon gener-
ation is once again determinant for total environmental impacts
(Colosi et al., 2015; Foteinis et al., 2018; Igos et al., 2012b; Rahman
et al., 2018). Both natural and simulated solar light have low effi-
ciency, and as consequence, the treated effluent discharge has high
impacts.
In a comparison between UV-A and UV-C, without H2O2 or any
catalyst use, Foteinis et al. (2018) (Table 4) concluded that UV-C is
approximately 3 times less harmful than UV-A, as it is significantly
more efficient, removing micropollutants such as EE2 at a much
higher rate, despite also using more power. If H2O2 is added to the
UV-C treatment, its environmental footprint is reduced further, up
to 88%. In all cases in this study, UV light (both UV-A and UV-C) had
larger impacts on the endpoint category Human Health, followed
by Resources and only then on Ecosystems (Foteinis et al., 2018).
Rahman et al. (2018) compared reverse osmosis, UV þ H2O2,
ozonation and granular activated carbon. While reverse osmosis
resulted in the highest impacts on this study, the UV þ H2O2 pro-
cess was the second worst option, resulting in higher environ-
mental burdens in all categories compared to ozonation and
granular activated carbon (Rahman et al., 2018). The same was
found by Igos et al. (2012). Similarly to reverse osmosis, the
UV þ H2O2 process is quite energy intensive and such is reflected in
the impact categories, e.g. global warming (GWP), ozone depletion
(ODP) and acidification potential (AP). High energy needs imply the
generation of more electricity leading to high life cycle toxicity,
which can be up to two to four times higher than that of the
UWWTP without reverse osmosis or UV þ H2O2 (Igos et al., 2012a,
2012b; Rahman et al., 2018).
In the realm of heterogeneous photocatalysis, there is still a lot
to be done despite its potential to remove micropollutants. Solely
one study was found that applied LCA for this purpose. Foteinis
et al. (2018) (Table 4) compared UV-A and UV-C, as mentioned
previously in this section, but also tested the possibility of
enhancing the UV-A process using TiO2. While it was found that
UV-A was the worst option in comparison to UV-C, and that UV-
C þ H2O2 was an even more environmentally friendly option, if UV-
A is combined with TiO2 the environmental performance of the
process exceeds that of UV-C with or without H2O2 (even though
TiO2 has a slightly higher footprint than H2O2). A 97% reduction of
the total environmental burden of UV-A resulted from TiO2 addi-
tion, as the treatment required less time and consequently a lot less
energy, which is the cause behind most of the environmental
damages (approx. 88% of the environmental footprint of UV-driven
AOPs). Such conclusions show that there is an interest in analysing
and testing these options more deeply, for example coupling UV-C
with TiO2 (Foteinis et al., 2018).
2.7. Fenton and Photo-Fenton processes
Fenton reaction without light for the removal of micropollutants
has not yet been thoroughly submitted to LCA. Most studies in this
field applied LCA to the Fenton process using light (photo-Fenton).
For this reason, energy use is once again the main hotspot during
treatment (i.e. the main reason behind the generated environ-
mental impacts) (Farre et al., 2007; Ioannou-Ttofa et al., 2017; Serra
et al., 2011b). Solar photo-Fenton is more sustainable than photo-
Fenton with artificial/simulated light, as the solar process does
not require energy use (note that external electricity may be
necessary for the functioning of the equipment, such as pumps, but
not for the process itself) (Farre et al., 2007). For the same reason,
electro-Fenton results in higher impacts (for some categories, up to
one order of magnitude higher) than solar photo-Fenton and solar
photo-electro Fenton (Serra et al., 2011b).
After energy production, H2O2 production is generally consid-
ered the main responsible for the total environmental burden in
photo-Fenton processes (Farre et al., 2007; Foteinis et al., 2018;
Serra et al., 2011a, 2011b). However, Ioannou-Ttofa et al. (2017)
refers that the reagent that contributed most to overall impacts
was NaOH, which was used, along with H2SO4, to adjust the pH
before and after the treatment, and only then H2O2 (Ioannou-Ttofa
et al., 2017). H2SO4 and FeSO4 use is always negligible (Farre et al.,
2007; Foteinis et al., 2018; Ioannou-Ttofa et al., 2017; Serra et al.,
2011a, 2011b). Foteinis et al. (2018) concluded that not using
H2O2 (i.e. applying a light-based treatment and using Fe, but not
H2O2) results in even higher impacts overall (Table 4) (Foteinis
et al., 2018).
When choosing between solar photo-Fenton, electro-Fenton
and solar photo-electro Fenton, solar photo-Fenton at stoichio-
metric amount of H2O2 is the most environmentally sound option,
having the lowest footprint in all categories. Serra et al. (2011) also
analysed the possibility of applying solar photo-Fenton at twice the
stoichiometric amount, but benefits were not found, as the impacts
increased and were not compensated by the total removal of
micropollutants. Although solar photo-Fenton results in lower
burdens, as solar photo-electro Fenton takes less time to remove
the micropollutants, at larger scale the results may be influenced by
the lower reaction volume expected in this case (Serra et al., 2011b).
In the present study, the focus was on advanced treatments that
could be added to a UWWTP, in order to remove micropollutants, as
the final treatment step before effluent discharge. However, some
studies analysed advanced treatments not as the final treatment
process, but as an additional step before biological treatment, used
to improve the biodegradability of the effluent beforehand and
facilitate micropollutants removal. Coupling artificial/simulated
light photo-Fenton or solar photo-Fenton and sequencing batch
reactors (SBR), for example, led to lower electricity and H2O2 use,
arising as the best option (Farre et al., 2007; Serra et al., 2011a).
Farre et al. (2007) (Fig. 6) compared photo-Fenton, photo-Fenton
followed by a sequencing batch reactor and solar photo-Fenton and
found that for all categories, the best performing in environmental
terms was the coupling of photo-Fenton with the biological treat-
ment, which resulted in less or up to 50% less impacts than photo-
Fenton in all categories except for the aquatic eutrophication po-
tential (AEP). In the AEP category, the resulting impact is approxi-
mate for all cases as most of it results from the fact that while the
analysed herbicides (linuron and diuron) are oxidized the urea
group is removed and nitrogen is released as ammonia ion (Farre
et al., 2007). Serra et al. (2011) also concluded that solar photo-
Fenton followed by a biological treatment resulted in lower im-
pacts in most categories (7 out of 10), except for the aquatic
eutrophication potential (AEP), the global warming potential
(GWP) and the photochemical oxidation potential (POP) categories.
The combination resulted in higher global warming potential
(GWP) due to the additional CO2 emissions from the biological
treatment. As for photochemical oxidation potential (POP), the
combined treatment higher burden results from the excess sludge
management by landfilling. Landfilled sludge undergoes anaerobic
digestion, which results in emissions to air that are burned in
biogas flares. CH4 and NOx are then released to the atmosphere,
which impacts the photochemical oxidation potential (POP) cate-
gory and also contributes to global warming potential (GWP) (due
to CO2 and CH4 emissions). Landfilling of sludge also contributes to
the aquatic eutrophication potential (AEP) due to the leaching of
compounds with nitrogen. Despite the good results, Serra et al.
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078 11

Fig. 6. Characterization results for granular activated carbon (GAC), reverse osmosis (RO) and ozonation (OZ) by Farre et al. (2007) (CML). Results per 1.25 L of wastewater.

(2011) noted that as solar photo-Fenton takes less time than the
sequencing batch reactor and solar photo-Fenton combination to
remove micropollutants, the results may be different at larger scale
(Serra et al., 2011a).
In order to have an idea of the magnitude of the impact of solar
photo-Fenton, which emerges by many studies as the possible
preferable when it comes to Fenton-based processes, Ioannou-Ttofa
et al. (2017) calculated that the treatment of 1 m3 of wastewater by
solar photo-Fenton represents only 1.6% of total CO2 emissions
associated to the total treatment of the daily effluents of a Cyprus
resident (Ioannou-Ttofa et al., 2017).
Interestingly, solar photo-Fenton conducted at neutral pH per-
forms worse than at acidic pH in most categories, as found by
Gallego-Schmid et al. (2019) (Fig. 7). This study compared the solar

Fig. 7. Characterization results for solar photo-Fenton (SPF) and nanofiltration (NF) combinations e SPF at acid conditions (black), SPF at acidic conditions followed by nanofiltration
(grey), SPF at neutral conditions (striped) and SPF at neutral conditions followed by nanofiltration (dotted) - by Gallego-Schmid et al. (2019). Results per 1000 m3 of wastewater.
12 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
photo-Fenton process at acidic (acidic SPF) and neutral (neutral
SPF) conditions, and the possibility of combining each of those with
nanofiltration (NF). Neutral solar photo-Fenton (without nano-
filtration) performed worse in most categories, except for 3, in
which acidic solar photo-Fenton (without nanofiltration) under-
performed (on the metal depletion - MD, acidification potential -
AP and particulate matter formation e PMF categories) due to
requiring more CPC modules and consuming more H2SO4 and
NaOH (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019).
Energy use was the main reason behind the processes impacts,
both at neutral and acidic pH. The production of the chelating agent
used in the neutral process (ethylenediamine-N,N0 -disuccinic acid
e EDDS) consumed the highest amount of energy, particularly
during the fabrication of its chemical precursors. NaOH and H2SO4
production followed EDDS in energy consumption requirements,
and the operation of the treatment processes was the third highest
energy consumer. Since in this study the main energy source are
fossil fuels, impacts on the global warming potential (GWP) are
relevant, but also on several other categories, including those
toxicity-related, e.g., on the human toxicity potential (HTP) in
consequence of the emissions of manganese to water from the
mining of coal. Therefore, the process at neutral pH was the worst
option, followed by its acidic counterparts. While the coupling with
nanofiltration increases the operational energy use, it lowers
chemical use and, in both cases, the addition of nanofiltration
reduced total life cycle impacts. In consequence, the process at
acidic pH coupled with nanofiltration had the lowest environ-
mental burdens (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019).
Overall, solar photo-Fenton has low environmental impacts and
when compared to other treatments, only nanofiltration was less
impactful (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018). Foteinis et al. (2018)
compared UV-A (with and without TiO2) and UV-C (with and
without H2O2) to solar photo-Fenton, and while the UV-A þ TiO2
process had quite low impacts, solar photo-Fenton still had the
least significant environmental footprint, as a consequence of not
requiring electricity (in this study, fossil fuel-based), which is the
main environmental hotspot for the light-based technologies
(Foteinis et al., 2018). The exception was the LCA study by Tarpani
and Azapagic (2018) which compared solar photo-Fenton with
ozonation, nanofiltration, and granular activated carbon. It
concluded, that solar photo-Fenton resulted in the highest envi-
ronmental impacts (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018). The same was
found by Arzate et al. (2019) when comparing ozonation and solar
photo-Fenton (Arzate et al., 2019). For example, a global warming
potential of 5000 kg CO2 equiv./1000 m3 was found compared to
Mun ~ oz et al. (2007) that calculated a mean value of value of 248 kg
CO2 equiv./1000 m3 (Mun ~ oz et al., 2007). This difference results
from the fact that Tarpani and Azapagic (2018) considered higher
H2O2 and catalyst use, and such parameters affect solar photo-
Fenton’s impacts significantly (Tarpani and Azapagic, 2018).
Heterogeneous Fenton processes require more LCA studies. Solar
photo-Fenton has received more attention, and as energy use is the
bottleneck in terms of these processes’ environmental performance,
it arises as the most interesting option among Fenton-based pro-
cesses using light. It may, however, underperform ozonation, nano-
filtration and granular activated carbon, depending on chemical use.
Table 5
Results by Colosi et al. (2015) for the life cycle energy use of an algae-based system compared to granular activated carbon (GAC), ozonation (OZ) and UV for estrogenicity
removal.
Metric Units
Energy return on investment MJ energy produced/MJ energy used
Normalized energy use MJ/g estrogenicity removed
2.8. Other processes
In accordance with the aim of analysing technologies that can be
included in an already existing UWWTP, to minimize the discharge
of PSs and CECs to aquatic ecosystems, one study was found (Colosi
et al., 2015), considering an algae-based treatment (Table 5). This
system was compared to granular activated carbon adsorption,
ozonation and UV, and all were modelled to achieve the same limits
for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, total
phosphorus, total nitrogen and faecal coliform concentrations, but
not the same removal of estrogenicity. The proposed system has the
highest impact in terms of land use and required the longest
retention time to obtain the abovementioned limits. However, as
bulk algae biomass undergoes anaerobic digestion to produce
methane, used for electricity, it is the only among the tested in this
study that generates more energy than it uses, while reducing
estrogenicity substantially. Using this system also deems denitri-
fication and phosphorus precipitation in other stages of a UWWTP
unnecessary. Ozonation and granular activated carbon result in
significant energy consumption, and UV does not achieve signifi-
cant pollutant removal. The algae-based system appears as the
most environmentally sound option, followed by granular activated
carbon, ozonation and UV (Colosi et al., 2015).
It is thus important to better explore not only the more
accredited technologies, but also other less conventional alterna-
tives. In fact, no studies were found regarding the LCA of electro-
chemical oxidation, sonolysis, hydrodynamic cavitation or catalytic
wet oxidation processes for PSs and CECs removal, most probably
because these processes are not being widely considered for the
treatment of secondary wastewater in large scale UWWTPs.
2.9. Results variability: analysis
As mentioned in section 2.1., each study considered different
boundaries, impact assessment methods, energy mixes, among
other differences. Therefore, comparisons might not be direct. The
methodology for papers selection intended to minimize these dif-
ferences to ensure that studies could be reliably compared.
It was verified that the studies had comparable results, even if
they applied different impact assessment methods. The highest
variability actually resulted from the evaluation of avoided impacts,
in terms of avoided toxicity, removal efficiency of micropollutants
or TOC (which are all related). Different studies took into consid-
eration different substances and number of substances.
As many micropollutants do not yet have validated character-
ization factors included on the different impact assessment
methods, some studies chose not to evaluate them, while other
studies proposed values for these parameters. In this area, there is
yet no consensus and for this reason, we have not explored it into
much detail. It became clear that there are relevant toxicity im-
pacts, both for ecosystems and human health, that can be avoided
by eliminating micropollutants from wastewaters typically dis-
charged to water bodies, and so this is an area whose development
could be of great value.
Despite, all papers focused on a balance between avoided and
generated impacts and overall resulted in the same rankings.
Algae-based OZ UV GAC
6.50E-01 2.40E-01 4.70E-01 3.50E-01
6.05Eþ04 3.10Eþ05 2.30Eþ06 1.80Eþ05
 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
Granular activated carbon was found to perform best environ-
mentally than ozonation by all papers that compared their life cy-
cles (Colosi et al., 2015; Li et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2018; Tarpani
and Azapagic, 2018). Whereas, ozonation performed worse than
sand filtration (Hoibye et al., 2008; Wenzel et al., 2008) and better
than reverse osmosis (Li et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2018). Following
solar photo-Fenton by a biological treatment, namely SBR, is always
better than applying it by itself (Farre et al., 2007; Serra et al.,
2011a). As for the environmental hotspots of treatments,
consensus was also found, with all studies identifying electricity as
the major responsible, followed by chemical use.
3. Final remarks and conclusions
First and foremost, we must highlight that to minimize the
amount of chemicals by measures for reduction at source is more
important than to optimize the treatment of the pollutants once
they reach UWWTPs. Regardless of this requirement, advanced
treatments will unquestionably be necessary to avoid micro-
pollutants in the effluents of UWWTPs. As it was seen, these
treatment options will avoid the impacts caused by the pollutants
they remove, but not without also causing new impacts, due to
further resources consumption and energy use. The LCA tool has
proven its potential to become, in the future, an effective and
suitable way to help in the optimization of processes and identifi-
cation of the “break-even” point (that is, the point at which the
additional environmental impacts generated by the process are
surpassed by the reduction in environmental impacts generated by
effluent discharge), which depends on the applied treatment. This
potential can only be fulfilled if research effort is put into this aim,
such as the development, determination and standardization of
characterization factors for micropollutants which are not yet
addressed in the different environmental impact assessment
methods. Despite this not being possible at the moment, LCA has
proven its value to identify environmental hotspots and help
optimize advanced treatment technologies.
Thus far, not many published papers have taken into consider-
ation the environmental benefit estimated via LCIA of removing
micropollutants (by using advanced treatment technologies) from
secondary wastewaters that are typically discharged to water
bodies. One of the reasons why LCA has not yet been applied more
profoundly to this issue is the lack of information on the effects that
these pollutants can have on living species. The concern over
micropollutants is also still relatively recent and, therefore, there is
still a lot to be done in order to solve this problem, in a sustainable
way. Many additional processes and their impacts have yet to be
analysed, throughout their life cycle. Characterization factors for
the determination of the impacts of micropollutants need to be
calculated and validated, in order to improve the accuracy of LCIA
results considering these compounds.
From the already assessed treatment technologies, some con-
clusions can be drawn. Membrane bioreactors may constitute a
good option in this field as they avoid more impacts than they
generate. Reverse osmosis does not appear to constitute an envi-
ronmentally sound option under the analysed conditions as it is
very energy intensive. The potential of ozonation highly depends
on the energy source. If using activated carbon, it is always better to
regenerate and reuse it. In the case of adsorption-based methods,
other adsorbents (e.g., wood biochar) may be less impactful than
activated carbon. Adsorption is interesting as the removal efficiency
of micropollutants from water is overall good and transformation
products are avoided, but it must not be forgotten that the pollut-
ants are not mineralized in this case, they only change compart-
ment, and so treatment of the sorbent is necessary and will
determine how impactful the process actually is over its life cycle.
13
Materials which have better adsorptive capacity and catalytic ac-
tivity might be a solution, but have yet to be assessed via LCA, to the
best of our knowledge.
When opting for Fenton-based processes, using simulated light
may not be advised, as electricity production causes the major part
of its impacts. For this reason, solar photo-Fenton reveals signifi-
cantly diminished impacts, particularly in acidic conditions. In
neutral conditions, an iron complexing agent is needed, and the
production of iron complexing agents such as EDDS (ethylenedi-
amine-N,N0 -disuccinic acid) may be highly impactful, and so the
total life cycle environmental footprint of the treatment is higher
than at acidic conditions. It must be highlighted that other com-
plexing agents might be less impactful but studies are not yet
available. Solar photo-electro Fenton is less advisable but requires
less treatment time. Coupling sequencing batch reactor to solar
photo-Fenton is wise, still, using just solar photo-Fenton also re-
quires less time. Nanofiltration has shown even greater potential,
and coupling it with solar photo-Fenton yields interesting results
because despite the energy mix used for its operation, the addition
of nanofiltration implies less chemical use.
UV lamps have greater efficiency than simulated solar light but
cause significant impacts due to high energy use. As expected, UV-C
lamps appear as the best option compared to UV-A, especially with
H2O2 addition. Processes such as heterogeneous catalysis have
shown great potential for PSs and CECs removal, but their impacts
have yet to be analysed thoroughly.
Benefits from LCA application to this topic were previously
mentioned. However, some issues arise. Most papers mentioned
the fact that only a few pollutants were assessed, and that these
processes have also the potential to remove other pollutants, which
implies that avoided impacts might be underestimated. However,
on another hand, transformation products were not considered and
may be more harmful than the analysed parent compounds. A
remarkable part of the studies is based on calculations, average data
and lab-scale tests, but in some cases, results should ideally be
compared considering pilot-scale and full-scale data for clarifica-
tion of some issues.
Overall, energy and chemical production were the main stages
responsible for most environmental impacts. Hence, it is crucial to
find alternatives to the used reagents or to their production
methods, and to bet on cleaner energy sources. Such fact also
highlights the need to take into consideration that results are
highly affected by local conditions, such as the energy mix.
Finally, LCA is a robust tool to help with decision making,
providing a detailed overview of the environmental impacts.
However, decisions must result from a balance between environ-
mental sustainability, cost, time, available resources, social impacts
and other relevant variables.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by project NORTE-01-0145-
FEDER-031049 (InSpeCt PTDC/EAM-AMB/31049/2017) funded by
FEDER funds through NORTE 2020 - Programa Operacional
Regional do NORTE and by national funds (PIDDAC) through FCT/
MCTES. We would also like to thank the scientific collaboration
under Base Funding - UIDB/50020/2020 of the Associate Laboratory
LSRE-LCM - funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PID-
DAC). JP acknowledges the PhD research grant from FCT (Ref. SFRH/
14 J.F.J.R. Pesqueira et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 261 (2020) 121078
BD/129757/2017).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121078.
References
Arzate, S., Pfister, S., Oberschelp, C., Sa
nchez-Pe
rez, J.A., 2019. Environmental im-
pacts of an advanced oxidation process as tertiary treatment in a wastewater
treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 694.
Barbosa, M.O., Moreira, N.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R., Pereira, M.F.R., Silva, A.M.T., 2016.
Occurrence and removal of organic micropollutants: an overview of the watch
list of EU Decision 2015/495. Water Res. 94, 257e279.
Colosi, L.M., Resurreccion, E.P., Zhang, Y., 2015. Assessing the energy and environ-
mental performance of algae-mediated tertiary treatment of estrogenic com-
pounds. Environ. Sci. Process. Impact. 17 (2), 421e428.
Decision, 2015. Comission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/495 of 20 March 2015
establishing a watch list of substances for Union-wide monitoring in the field of
water policy pursuant to Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council off. J. Eur. Union. L78, 40e42.
Decision, 2018. Comission implementing decision (EU) 2018/840 of 5 June 2018
establishing a watch list of substances for union-wide monitoring in the field of
water policy pursuant to directive 2008/105/EC of the European parliament and
of the council and repealing commission implementing decision (EU) 2015/495
off. J. Eur. Commun. L141, 9e12.
Directive, 2013. Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards
priority substances in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Union. L226, 1e17.
EEA, 2018a. European Environment Agency. European Waters. Assessment of Status
and Pressures 2018. EEA Report Nº 7/2018.
EEA, 2018b. European Environment Agency. Water Use and Environmental Pres-
sures. Water and Marine environment.
Farre, M.J., Garcia-Montano, J., Ruiz, N., Munoz, I., Domenech, X., Peral, J., 2007. Life
cycle assessment of the removal of Diuron and Linuron herbicides from water
using three environmentally friendly technologies. Environ. Technol. 28 (7),
819e830.
Foteinis, S., Borthwick, A.G.L., Frontistis, Z., Mantzavinos, D., Chatzisymeon, E., 2018.
Environmental sustainability of light-driven processes for wastewater treat-
ment applications. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 8e15.
Gago-Ferrero, P., Diaz-Cruz, M.S., Barcelo, D., 2012. An overview of UV-absorbing
compounds (organic UV filters) in aquatic biota. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 404 (9),
2597e2610.
Gallego-Schmid, A., Tarpani, R.R.Z., Miralles-Cuevas, S., Cabrera-Reina, A., Malato, S.,
Azapagic, A., 2019. Environmental assessment of solar photo-Fenton processes
in combination with nanofiltration for the removal of micro-contaminants from
real wastewaters. Sci. Total Environ. 650 (Pt 2), 2210e2220.
Gomes, J., Costa, R., Quinta-Ferreira, R.M., Martins, R.C., 2017. Application of ozon-
ation for pharmaceuticals and personal care products removal from water. Sci.
Total Environ. 586, 265e283.
Hoibye, L., Clauson-Kaas, J., Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F., Jacobsen, B.N., Dalgaard, O.,
2008. Sustainability assessment of advanced wastewater treatment technolo-
gies. Water Sci. Technol. 58 (5), 963e968.
Igos, E., Benetto, E., Venditti, S., Kohler, C., Cornelissen, A., 2012a. Comparative and
integrative environmental assessment of advanced wastewater treatment
processes based on an average removal of pharmaceuticals. Water Sci. Technol.
67 (2), 387e394.
Igos, E., Benetto, E., Venditti, S., Kohler, C., Cornelissen, A., Moeller, R., Biwer, A.,
2012b. Is it better to remove pharmaceuticals in decentralized or conventional
wastewater treatment plants? A life cycle assessment comparison. Sci. Total
Environ. 438, 533e540.
Ioannou-Ttofa, L., Foteinis, S., Chatzisymeon, E., Michael-Kordatou, I., Fatta-
Kassinos, D., 2017. Life cycle assessment of solar-driven oxidation as a polishing
step of secondary-treated urban effluents. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 92 (6),
1315e1327.
ISO, 2006a. EN ISO 14040:2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assess-
ment - Principles and Framework.
ISO, 2006b. EN ISO 14044:2006. Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assess-
ment e Requirements and Guidelines.
Jimenez-Tototzintle, M., Ferreira, I.J., da Silva Duque, S., Guimaraes Barrocas, P.R.,
Saggioro, E.M., 2018. Removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and
antibiotic resistant bacteria in urban wastewater using UVA/TiO2/H2O2 pho-
tocatalysis. Chemosphere 210, 449e457.
Jurado, A., Vazquez-Sune, E., Carrera, J., Lopez de Alda, M., Pujades, E., Barcelo, D.,
2012. Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater in Spain: a review of
sources, recent occurrence and fate in a European context. Sci. Total Environ.
440, 82e94.
Kidd, K.A., Blanchfield, P.J., Mills, K.H., Palace, V.P., Evans, R.E., Lazorchak, J.M.,
Flick, R.W., 2007. Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic
estrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 (21), 8897e8901.
Li, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, W., Xiong, W., Ye, Q., Hou, X., Wang, C., Wang, P., 2019. Life
cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes: involving 126
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in life cycle inventory. J. Environ.
Manag. 238, 442e450.
McArdell, C., 2015. The first full-scale advanced ozonation plant in the Dübendorf
WWTP running; the new Swiss water protection act approved. Norman Bulletin
(4).
Mirzaei, A., Chen, Z., Haghighat, F., Yerushalmi, L., 2017. Removal of pharmaceuticals
from water by homo/heterogonous Fenton-type processes - a review. Chemo-
sphere 174, 665e688.
Moreira, N.F.F., Sousa, J.M., Macedo, G., Ribeiro, A.R., Barreiros, L., Pedrosa, M.,
Faria, J.L., Pereira, M.F.R., Castro-Silva, S., Segundo, M.A., Manaia, C.M.,
Nunes, O.C., Silva, A.M.T., 2016. Photocatalytic ozonation of urban wastewater
and surface water using immobilized TiO2 with LEDs: micropollutants, anti-
biotic resistance genes and estrogenic activity. Water Res. 94, 10e22.
~ oz, I., Peral, J., Antonio Ayllo
n, J., Malato, S., Jose

Martin, M., Yves Perrot, J.,
Mun
Vincent, M., Dome nech, X., 2007. Life-cycle assessment of a coupled advanced
oxidation-biological process for wastewater treatment: comparison with
granular activated carbon adsorption. Environ. Eng. Sci. 24 (5), 638e651.
Munoz, I., Rodriguez, A., Rosal, R., Fernandez-Alba, A.R., 2009. Life Cycle Assessment
of urban wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treatment: a focus on
toxicity-related impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 407 (4), 1245e1256.
Munz, N.A., Fu, Q., Stamm, C., Hollender, J., 2018. Internal concentrations in gam-
marids reveal increased risk of organic micropollutants in wastewater-
impacted streams. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (18), 10347e10358.
Pal, A., Gin, K.Y., Lin, A.Y., Reinhard, M., 2010. Impacts of emerging organic con-
taminants on freshwater resources: review of recent occurrences, sources, fate
and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (24), 6062e6069.
Pera-Titus, M., Garcıa-Molina, V., Ban ~ os, M.A., Gime
nez, J., Esplugas, S., 2004.
Degradation of chlorophenols by means of advanced oxidation processes: a
general review. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 47 (4), 219e256.
Rahman, S.M., Eckelman, M.J., Onnis-Hayden, A., Gu, A.Z., 2018. Comparative life
cycle assessment of advanced wastewater treatment processes for removal of
chemicals of emerging concern. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (19), 11346e11358.
Ribeiro, A.R., Nunes, O.C., Pereira, M.F., Silva, A.M., 2015. An overview on the
advanced oxidation processes applied for the treatment of water pollutants
defined in the recently launched Directive 2013/39/EU. Environ. Int. 75, 33e51.
Rizzo, L., Agovino, T., Nahim-Granados, S., Castro-Alferez, M., Fernandez-Ibanez, P.,
Polo-Lopez, M.I., 2019a. Tertiary treatment of urban wastewater by solar and
UV-C driven advanced oxidation with peracetic acid: effect on contaminants of
emerging concern and antibiotic resistance. Water Res. 149, 272e281.
Rizzo, L., Malato, S., Antakyali, D., Beretsou, V.G., Dolic, M.B., Gernjak, W., Heath, E.,
Ivancev-Tumbas, I., Karaolia, P., Lado Ribeiro, A.R., Mascolo, G., McArdell, C.S.,
Schaar, H., Silva, A.M.T., Fatta-Kassinos, D., 2019b. Consolidated vs new
advanced treatment methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging
concern from urban wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 986e1008.
Rodriguez, A., Munoz, I., Perdigon-Melon, J.A., Carbajo, J.B., Martinez, M.J., Fernan-
dez-Alba, A.R., Garcia-Calvo, E., Rosal, R., 2012. Environmental optimization of
continuous flow ozonation for urban wastewater reclamation. Sci. Total Envi-
ron. 437, 68e75.
Santos, L.H., Araujo, A.N., Fachini, A., Pena, A., Delerue-Matos, C., Montenegro, M.C.,
2010. Ecotoxicological aspects related to the presence of pharmaceuticals in the
aquatic environment. J. Hazard Mater. 175 (1e3), 45e95.
Serra, A., Brillas, E., Dome nech, X., Peral, J., 2011a. Treatment of biorecalcitrant a-
methylphenylglycine ́ aqueous solutions with a solar photo-Fenton-aerobic
biological coupling: biodegradability and environmental impact assessment.
Chem. Eng. J. 172 (2e3), 654e664.
Serra, A., Domenech, X., Brillas, E., Peral, J., 2011b. Life cycle assessment of solar
photo-Fenton and solar photoelectro-Fenton processes used for the degrada-
tion of aqueous alpha-methylphenylglycine. J. Environ. Monit. 13 (1), 167e174.
Tarpani, R.R.Z., Azapagic, A., 2018. Life cycle environmental impacts of advanced
wastewater treatment techniques for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs). J. Environ. Manag. 215, 258e272.
Thompson, K.A., Shimabuku, K.K., Kearns, J.P., Knappe, D.R.U., Summers, R.S.,
Cook, S.M., 2016. Environmental comparison of biochar and activated carbon for
tertiary wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (20), 11253e11262.
Tijani, J.O., Fatoba, O.O., Petrik, L.F., 2013. A review of pharmaceuticals and
endocrine-disrupting compounds: sources, effects, removal, and detections.
Water, air, Soil Pollut. 224 (11).
Wang, Y., Yu, G., Deng, S., Huang, J., Wang, B., 2018. The electro-peroxone process for
the abatement of emerging contaminants: mechanisms, recent advances, and
prospects. Chemosphere 208, 640e654.
Wenzel, H., Larsen, H.F., Clauson-Kaas, J., Høibye, L., Jacobsen, B.N., 2008. Weighing
environmental advantages and disadvantages of advanced wastewater treat-
ment of micro-pollutants using environmental life cycle assessment. Water Sci.
Technol. 57 (1), 27e32.