Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Removal of organic compounds from water: life cycle environmental

impacts and economic costs of the Arvia process compared to
granulated activated carbon
Harish K. Jeswani a, *, Haruna Gujba a, Nigel W. Brown b, Edward P.L. Roberts a, c,
Adisa Azapagic a
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, The Mill, Sackville Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
b
Arvia Technology Ltd., Daresbury Innovation Centre, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, Cheshire WA4 4FS, UK
c
The Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, NW Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

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

Article history: Water contamination by organic compounds is a ubiquitous problem, requiring their removal to meet
Received 24 June 2014 stringent water quality standards. This paper presents for the first time the life cycle environmental
Received in revised form impacts and economic costs of a new water treatment technology for removal of organic compounds
27 October 2014
known as the ‘Arvia’ process. The impacts and costs are compared with the widely-used granulated
Accepted 4 November 2014
Available online 12 November 2014
activated carbon (GAC) process. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to estimate the environmental
impacts and the economic analysis is based on the operating costs. For the GAC system, two scenarios are
considered: no regeneration of the spent GAC which is landfilled (GAC-1) and 90% regeneration with 10%
Keywords:
Arvia process
of fresh GAC added to replace losses (GAC-2). The LCA results suggest that the Arvia process has lower
Granulated activated carbon environmental impacts in comparison to both GAC scenarios for at least seven out of 11 impacts
Life cycle assessment considered. Relative to the GAC-1 scenario, Arvia has 70% lower global warming, acidification, eutro-
Natural organic matter phication, depletion of fossil resources, human, freshwater and marine toxicity. Compared to GAC-2, the
Water treatment reductions in these impacts range between 5% and 50%. However, GAC-2 has lower depletion of elements
and ozone layer, photochemical smog and terrestrial toxicity than the Arvia process. The results also
show that Arvia has slightly higher operational costs than GAC-2 but significantly lower than GAC-1.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction as to reduce the formation of disinfection by-products during

Raw water abstracted from the environment to be treated for
use as drinking water often contains a wide range of organic con-
taminants, including natural matter such as humic, amino and
carboxylic acids (Vahala et al., 1999) as well as synthetic substances
like detergents, fertilisers, chemicals and chlorinated organic
compounds (Hendricks, 2007). The quantity of organic matter in
drinking water is usually reported as Total Organic Carbon (TOC). In
many waters, it is the Natural Organic Matter (NOM), particularly
humic and fulvic acids, that are not only the biggest contributors to
TOC, but also give the brown, peaty colour typical of some raw
waters. The NOM concentration has to be reduced to remove the
colour and produce aesthetically acceptable drinking water as well
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: harish.jeswani@manchester.ac.uk (H.K. Jeswani).
chlorination which could be carcinogenic (Richardson et al., 2007;
Zhang et al., 2012). In addition, pesticides may need to be
removed to ensure compliance with legislation; for example, the
European Drinking Water Directive allows a maximum of 0.1 mg/l of
potable water for an individual pesticide or 0.5 mg/l for total
pesticide concentration (EC, 1998).
Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) is one the most commonly
used treatment processes for the removal of organic compounds
from water (Bansal and Goyal, 2005). GAC is a porous filter medium
with a large surface area onto which organic compounds are
adsorbed. It is considered particularly suitable for removal of
organic contaminants for compliance with water quality standards;
for example, it is used in drinking water treatment for the removal
of pesticides. GAC can remove TOC over the typical range for water
treatment plants of 1e16 mg/l, with removal efficiencies ranging
between 10% and 90% (Snoeyink and Summers, 1999). However, the
capacity of GAC filters to remove organic matter decreases over

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.017
0959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
204 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
time with saturation of the activated carbon (Matilainen et al.,
2006). Moreover, its adsorption efficiency also decreases very
quickly when heavily polluted waters are treated as activated car-
bon is non-selective in its removal of contaminants (Brown and
Roberts, 2007; Ho et al., 2011). Once the carbon has been exhaus-
ted, it can be disposed of in a landfill or incinerated; this is typically
the case if the quantity of spent GAC is small (Mun ~ oz, 2006).
Alternatively, the spent GAC can be regenerated thermally for reuse
e this option is practiced widely as it is more economically viable
than disposal (San Miguel et al., 2001). However, thermal regen-
eration is an energy intensive process often requiring trans-
portation to off-site regeneration facilities and results in about a
10% loss of GAC in each regeneration cycle (Bayer et al., 2005;
McKay, 1996). Furthermore, the reactivation can enlarge the pores
in the activated carbon owing to the burn-off effects which can
affect adversely its capacity to adsorb small organic molecules
(Matilainen et al., 2006).
A process recently developed by Arvia Technology Ltd., known
as the Arvia process, offers an alternative to GAC for the removal of
organic pollutants from water (Brown et al., 2007). Developed in
the mid 2000s, in addition to the treatment of organics, the tech-
nology can be used for other applications, including water disin-
fection and removal of radionuclides (Arvia, 2014; Brown et al.,
2011). Similar to the GAC treatment, the Arvia process is also
based on the adsorption of dissolved organic pollutants onto an
adsorbent. However, instead of using GAC, it utilises a proprietary
adsorbent Nyex™, a highly-conducting, non-porous material based
on a graphite intercalation compound (Enoki et al., 2003; Brown
et al., 2004; Mohammed et al., 2011). Nyex is produced by treat-
ing graphite flakes chemically or electrochemically in oxidising
conditions in the presence of sulphuric acid (Brown, 1995).
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the Nyex bed is placed within a tank
containing graphite electrodes and a separator in the form of a
microporous polyethylene membrane (Daramic 350). The
Fig. 1. Schematics of the Arvia treatment process (Arvia, 2014).
membrane is placed in front of the cathode and the gap between
them is filled with a pumped sodium chloride solution (0.3%) to
keep the cell voltage as low as possible. During regeneration, Nyex
acts as the anode. The treatment process can be operated in either a
batch or continuous mode. The former, shown schematically in
Fig. 1, involves the following stages:
1. Adsorption: The raw water is pumped into the tank and com-
pressed air is blown from the bottom of the tank to fluidise the
Nyex bed into the water. This provides the mixing required for
the adsorption onto the surface of the Nyex particles e the
adsorption process occurs rapidly since it is not limited by
diffusion into the pores, as is the case with GAC. Typically, this
takes around 15e30 min.
2. Gravity settling: The air is then switched off and Nyex is allowed
to settle. As a result of its high specific gravity (2.225 g cm
3), it
settles within 5e10 min.
3. Electrochemical regeneration: Direct electric current is then
passed through the Nyex bed which acts as the anode. The high
electrical conductivity of Nyex means only low voltage is needed
(3.5e5 V depending on the current density) and, hence, the
electricity consumption is low. Electrochemical oxidation at the
anode destroys the organics to produce carbon dioxide and
water. At the cathode, electrochemical reduction generates
hydrogen and hydroxide ions from the reduction of water. The
concentration of hydrogen is maintained at below 10% of its
lower explosive limits to ensure safe operation. The hydroxide
ions are neutralised using hydrochloric acid to control the pH of
the catholyte solution. Regeneration typically takes 3e45 min
depending on the organics loading. The regeneration process
recovers 100% of the adsorptive capacity with a negligible loss of
adsorbent (Brown and Roberts, 2007). After regeneration, the
treated water is pumped out of the tank and Nyex is ready for
the next water treatment cycle.
 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
Whilst similar cells are used in both the batch and continuous
processes, the mechanism of operation in the latter is slightly
different, with the adsorption and regeneration occurring simul-
taneously. This is achieved by using the influent water instead of air
to fluidise the Nyex bed. By keeping the flow rate below the flu-
idisation velocity, the adsorption and electrochemical regeneration
are carried out continuously and simultaneously (Arvia, 2014).
Although the adsorption process is fast and regeneration of
Nyex can be carried out in situ, its non-porous nature means that it
has a low adsorptive capacity compared to GAC. For example, it can
adsorb only 1 mg of phenol per gram of Nyex at liquid-phase
concentrations of 100 mg phenol/l (Brown, 2005), compared with
GAC which adsorbs 150 mg phenol per gram of activated carbon
(Kumar et al., 2011). Given the low adsorptivity, regeneration has to
be carried out frequently, consuming chemicals and electricity and
emitting carbon dioxide. Therefore, it is not immediately clear
which of the two processes is environmentally and economically
more sustainable. Thus, this paper sets out to compare these two
treatment options on their environmental and economic perfor-
mance. The former is assessed using Life Cycle assessment (LCA)
and the latter is based on the operating costs.
A number of other studies have used LCA to assess the envi-
ronmental impacts of water and wastewater treatment systems
(e.g. Dennison et al., 1998, 1999; Barrios et al., 2008; Hospido et al.,
2008; Vince et al., 2008; Foley et al., 2010; Pasqualino et al., 2011;
Gabarrell et al., 2012; Amores et al., 2013; Corominas et al., 2013;
Borghi et al., 2013; Igos et al., 2014; Mery et al., 2014) but most
have focused on treatment plants, mainly to assess the impacts of
different treatment stages or strategies. Several studies have also
examined the environmental impacts associated with specific
treatment technologies or processes to remove organic contami-
nants such as GAC, nanofiltration, membrane filtration (Romero-
Hernandez, 2005; Bayer et al., 2005; Mun ~ oz et al., 2007, 2009;
Marín et al., 2011; Bonton et al., 2012; Manda et al., 2014). The
current study is the first to assess the LCA impacts and economic
costs of the Arvia process. These are compared to the impacts and
costs of GAC as one of technologies widely used for removal of
organic compounds from water. Besides water treatment, Arvia
process is being also used to treat radioactive liquid organic waste
and hazardous chemical wastes (Arvia, 2014). Therefore, the results
of the study will be useful for the water and other industries that
need to treat water for organic contamination, including the nu-
clear industry.
Fig. 2. System boundary for the Arvia process.
205
2. Life cycle assessment
2.1. Methodology, assumptions and data
The LCA study follows the ISO 14040/44 LCA methodology (ISO,
2006a,b). The goal of the study is to estimate and compare the
environmental impacts of the Arvia and GAC water treatment
processes. The functional unit (unit of analysis) is defined as the
‘treatment of 1000 m3 of low-coloured raw water to produce
drinking-quality water by removing TOC produced from decaying
NOM’. The inlet concentration of TOC is 8.2 mg/l with a pale straw
colour and the treated water is clear; the TOC removal efficiency is
25%.
The scope of the study is from ‘cradle to grave’ and both types of
the process are assumed to be based in the UK. As shown in Fig. 2
for the Arvia process, the following life cycle stages are included
within the system boundaries:
 production of Nyex and its transport to the water treatment
plant;
 production and transport of chemicals and other materials used
in the treatment plant;
 electricity generation for the treatment process and regenera-
tion of Nyex; and
 transport and disposal of waste.
The continuous process has been assumed for the assessment.
As there is no evidence to date that the Nyex is degraded by during
operation or regeneration, it is assumed that Nyex will last the
lifetime of the plant and only small quantities need to be added to
replenish the losses from regeneration. Graphite electrodes are
replaced every two years since part of the electrode is lost during
the electrolysis process owing to wear. The remaining electrode is
disposed in a landfill.
The system boundaries for the GAC treatment process are
shown in Fig. 3. Two GAC scenarios are considered:
i) GAC-1: all GAC is freshly prepared and all spent GAC is disposed
of to a landfill without any regeneration;
ii) GAC-2: all spent GAC is regenerated at an off-site facility and
reused with an addition of 10% of fresh GAC to replace the losses
during reactivation.
206 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
Water
Electricity
GAC (production)
T
T
Fig. 3. System boundary for the granulated activated carbon (GAC) process.
The life cycle stages considered for GAC-1 comprise:
 fresh GAC production and transport;
 electricity generation for the treatment process; and
 transport and disposal of spent GAC by landfilling.
The system boundaries are similar for GAC-2, except that instead
of being landfilled, the spent GAC is transported to a regeneration
facility and reactivated for reuse after which it is transported back
to the treatment process (Fig. 3).
It is assumed that the water pre- and post-treatment processes
are the same for both Arvia and GAC; hence, they are not included
in the study. The infrastructure for the treatment processes is also
excluded from consideration, assuming that the related impacts
would be similar for the two processes. Moreover, the contribution
of infrastructure to environmental impacts of a water treatment
plant is small, typically ranging between 4 and 11% (Igos et al.,
2014).
The primary data for the Arvia process have been obtained
directly from the technology developer (Arvia Technology Ltd.).
Given that this is a new technology, the data are based on the
operation of the small pilot plant capable of treating 1.4 m3 of water
per day. The data for GAC have been sourced from Orica Watercare
(2009) and the literature (Meier, 1997; Bayer et al., 2005; Mun ~ oz,
2006). The background data for both systems are from the Ecoin-
vent V2.2 (Ecoinvent, 2010) and Gabi databases (PE International,
2011).
The life cycle inventory (LCI) data for Arvia and GAC are pre-
sented in Tables 1e4. The data for the Arvia process in Table 1
include the chemicals and electricity used as well as the process
emissions and wastes generated during water treatment. The
manufacturing data for Nyex are also shown (Brown, 1995).
Table 2 lists the data for the GAC process for both scenarios
considered. The GAC consumption data for GAC-1 are sourced from
Orica Watercare (2009). For the GAC-2 scenario, 10% of fresh GAC is
added after regeneration and the remaining 90% is regenerated and
reused in the process. For the calculation of transport distances, it is
assumed that the fresh GAC is imported to the UK from Germany
and reactivation is carried out at an off-site facility in the UK. It is
assumed that the amount of electricity used for pumping water
through the GAC filters is the same as that in the Arvia process.
In the absence of LCI data for production of GAC and reactivation
of spent GAC in the Ecoinvent and other databases, the inventory
T = Transport
Treated water
GAC Process
Landfill
T (spent
GAC)
or
GAC
Reactivation
data for these processes were obtained from literature. As shown in
Table 3, two different datasets for GAC production are available
(Bayer et al., 2005; Meier, 1997), which have been used in other
studies, including Bonton et al. (2012), Mun ~ oz (2006) and Mery
et al. (2014). Considering that the data for GAC production in
Bayer et al. (2005) are more recent, they have been used for this
study, while the older data from Meier (1997) are used in a sensi-
tivity analysis later in the paper. LCI data on the reactivation of
spent GAC are also available in various studies but the most detailed
and complete inventories were found in Hutchinson (1975) and
Meier (1997) as shown in Table 4. The data from these studies have
been also used in other studies including Romero-Hernandez
(2004), Mun ~ oz et al. (2007) and Gabarrell et al. (2012). According
to Chowdhury et al. (2013), the GAC regeneration process typically
requires 7e18 MJ of natural gas and 0.5e2 kg of steam. As shown in
Table 4, the data for natural gas and steam consumption reported in
Hutchinson (1975) are closer to the above-mentioned values and
are, therefore, used the main analysis; the data from Meier (1997)
are considered in the sensitivity analysis.
2.2. LCA results and discussion
The GaBi V4.3 LCA software (PE International, 2011) has been
used to model the systems and to estimate the environmental
impacts. There are several life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
methods available, for both the mid- and end-point impacts (JRC,
2011). As the ISO standard (ISO, 2006b) does not specify a partic-
ular LCIA methodology, the most widely used CML 2001 method
(Guinee et al., 2002), updated in November 2009, has been used in
this work. The results are presented in Fig. 4 and are discussed in
the following sections.
2.2.1. Global warming potential (GWP)
As shown in Fig. 4, the GWP of the Arvia treatment process is
estimated at 107.2 kg CO2 eq. per 1000 m3 of water treated. This is
3.7 times lower than the impact from GAC-1 (399 kg CO2 eq./
1000 m3) and 31% lower than for GAC-2 (154.8 kg CO2 eq./1000 m3).
This is largely due to the small amount of adsorbent required for the
Arvia process in comparison to the GAC treatment options. Most of
the GWP impact for the Arvia process is from the use of energy for
the pumps and in-situ regeneration of Nyex. For the GAC-1 option,
the main contributor (81%) to the GWP is the production of GAC.
The reuse of regenerated adsorbent in the GAC-2 scenario reduces
 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213 207

Table 1
Inventory data for the Arvia process.

Amount per functional unit (1000 m3 of water) Units

Nyex production and transport

Graphitea 0.35 kg
Chromium oxidea 0.02625 kg
Iron sulphatea 0.0875 kg
Sulphuric acid (98%)a 0.385 kg
Limea 0.2975 kg
Electricityb 0.35 kWh
Packaging: high density polyethylene (HDPE) tubsc 0.018 kg
Transport from manufacturer to supplier (truck)b 500 km
Transport from manufacturer to supplier (shipping)b 7000 km
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km

Electrochemical cell manufacture

Electrodes
Graphite, battery gradea 1.5 kg
Packaging: polyethylene film (bubble wrap)a 0.021 kg
Packaging: cardboarda 0.021 kg
Transport from manufacturer to supplier (truck)b 160 km
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km
Membrane
Polyethylenea 0.06 kg
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 1000 km
Frame
Polyvinyl chloridea 0.44 kg
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km
Wires
Coppera 0.1 kg
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km

Operation of the cell

Sodium chloridea (20% diluted at site to 3%) 6.27 kg
Packaging: HDPE (drum)c 0.3 kg
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km
Hydrochloric acid (30%)a 7.12 kg
Packaging: intermediate bulk container (reused 5 times)c 1.12 kg
Transport from supplier to site (truck)b 500 km
Electricityb (for Nyex regeneration) 50 kWh
Electricityb (for pumps) 86 kWh
Carbon dioxide emissions 4.4 kg
Carbon monoxide emissions 1.9 kg
Chlorine emissions 0.5 kg

Waste management
Cardboard (landfill)a 0.021 kg
Polyethylene (landfill)a 0.081 kg
Spent electrodes (landfill)a 0.6 kg
PVC from the cell assembly frame (recycled)c 0.44 kg
Copper wire (recycled)c 0.1 kg
HDPE tubs and drums (landfill)a 0.318 kg
Steel from intermediate bulk container (recycled)c 0.19 kg
HDPE from intermediate bulk container (incinerated)a 0.04 kg
Transport of all waste to waste management facility (truck)b 100 km
a
Life cycle inventory data from the Ecoinvent (2010) database.
b
Life cycle inventory data from the Gabi database (PE International, 2011).
c
Modelled using Life cycle inventory data from CCaLC (2013) and Ecoinvent (2010) database.

this impact by 61% compared to GAC-1 because the regeneration
process is less energy intensive than the production of GAC.
2.2.2. Abiotic depletion potential (ADP, fossil and elements)
The total depletion of fossil resources for the GAC-1 system is
equal to 5009 MJ per 1000 m3 of water treated (Fig. 4). This is 3 and
4.3 times higher than the estimated values for the GAC-2 and Arvia
processes, respectively. Coal and natural gas are the major con-
tributors to this impact for all three options.
Contrary to the results for the fossil resources, the depletion of
elements for the Arvia process is 36 times higher than for GAC-2
and 5.4 higher than for GAC-1. This is mainly due to the use of
HCl and NaCl in the Arvia process, which contribute 78% and 13% to
the total, respectively. The use of chemicals and material also ac-
counts for most of the impact in the GAC process.
2.2.3. Acidification potential (AP)
At 0.61 kg SO2 eq./1000 m3, the AP from the Arvia treatment
process is four times lower than that from GAC-1 (2.38 kg SO2 eq./
1000 m3). However, the AP for GAC-2 is much closer to the value for
Arvia: at 0.68 kg SO2 eq., it is only 10% higher. In the Arvia process,
the treatment stage accounts for 88% of this impact owing to the
power consumed during the Nyex regeneration and operation of
the pumps. In the GAC-1 option, the chemicals and materials ac-
count for about 84% of the AP, which is mainly from the combustion
of coal and natural gas used for the production of GAC. The pro-
duction of Nyex does not require direct use of coal; hence, the Arvia
process has significantly lower AP compared to GAC-1. Similarly,
lower energy consumption for the regeneration than for the pro-
duction of GAC results in a 71% saving of the AP in the GAC-2
compared to the GAC-1 scenario.
208 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213

Table 2
Inventory data for granulated activated carbon (GAC) process.

Amount per functional unita (1000 m3 of water) Units

GAC-1 GAC-2

GAC (fresh) 39 3.9 kg

Transport to site (truck)c 1000 1000 km
Spent GAC to landfill (70% water þ adsorbed material)b 148 e kg
Transport of spent GAC to landfill (truck)c 100 e km
Reactivated GAC e 35.1 kg
Transport of GAC to and back from regeneration (truck)c e 500 km
Electricity (pumps)c 86 86 kWh

Process emissions (at regeneration facility)

Carbon dioxide 7.3 kg
Carbon monoxide 0.02 kg
Nitrogen oxides 0.03 kg
a ~ oz (2006).
Adapted from Orica Watercare (2009), Meier (1997), Bayer et al. (2005) and Mun
b
Life cycle inventory data from the Ecoinvent (2010) database.
c
Life cycle inventory data from the Gabi database (PE International, 2011).

Table 3 2.2.6. Human toxicity potential (HTP)

Inventory data for the production of fresh granulated activated carbon (GAC). The HTP for the GAC-1 process of 123 kg DCB eq./1000 m3 is
Amount per kg of fresh GAC Units about six times higher than the impact from both GAC-2 and Arvia
(Bayer et al., 2005) (Meier, 1997)
(see Fig. 4). This is largely due to the air emissions from the com-
bustion of coal and natural gas during the production of activated
Hard coala 3c 2d kg
carbon. Overall, the production of chemicals and materials accounts
Hydrochloric acid (30%)a e 0.04 kg
Natural gas combustiona 13.2 196 MJ for more than 80% of the HTP in the GAC process. The emissions to
Steama e 3 kg air of arsenic, chromium, hydrogen fluoride and benzene during the
Deionised watera 12 e kg production and reactivation of GAC are the major burdens
Electricityb 1.6 0.021 kWh
contributing to this impact. For the Arvia process, the use of elec-
a
Life cycle inventory data from the Ecoinvent (2010) database. tricity, HCl, and graphite electrodes each account for about 30% of
b
Life cycle inventory data from the Gabi database (PE International, 2011). the HTP.
c
Of which 2 kg of coal is burned in furnace during the production process and
1 kg is converted to GAC.
d
Of which 1 kg of coal is burned in furnace during the production process and 2.2.7. Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential (MAETP)
1 kg is converted to GAC.
The MAETP for GAC-1 and GAC-2 is respectively 14 and two
times higher than that from the Arvia process (Fig. 4). For both GAC
Table 4 options, over 94% of the impact is associated with the production
Inventory data for the regeneration of spent granulated activated carbon (GAC). and regeneration of GAC. In the case of the Arvia process, the
production of chemicals and materials contributes 78% and the
Amount per kg of re-activated GAC Units
treatment process 20%. Hydrogen fluoride emissions to air and
(Hutchinson, 1975) (Meier, 1997)
beryllium emissions to water are the major environmental burdens
Hard coal combustiona 0.1 0.1 kg accounting for over 70% of the total MAETP in both processes.
Natural gas combustiona 10.4 108 MJ
Steama 0.6 0.3 kg
Electricityb 0.03 0.001 kWh 2.2.8. Ozone layer depletion potential (ODP)
a
Life cycle inventory data from the Ecoinvent (2010) database. As indicated in Fig. 4, the ODP for the Arvia process is 15% and
b
Life cycle inventory data from the Gabi database (PE International, 2011). 32% higher than for GAC-1 and GAC-2, respectively. The reason for
this is mainly the additional electricity consumption for the
regeneration of Nyex. Overall, the electricity consumption in the
2.2.4. Eutrophication potential (EP) treatment process contributes 68% to the total ODP from the Arvia
This impact is highest for GAC-1, estimated at 1.66 kg PO4 eq./ system. Electricity consumption also accounts for 51% and 63% of
1000 m3, with the major source (71%) being waste management. impact from GAC-1 and GAC-2, respectively. Production of chem-
This is mainly due to the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and TOC icals and material contributes to most of the remaining impact in
emissions to water associated with landfilling of the spent GAC. By both treatment processes.
regenerating it, these emissions are avoided, hence a reduction of
94% of the EP in GAC-2 compared to GAC-1. However, at 0.08 kg PO4
2.2.9. Photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP)
eq./1000 m3, the impact from the Arvia process is still the lowest:
For this impact, GAC-2 is the best option, with the total POCP
about 15% lower than for GAC-2 and 21 times lower than for GAC-1.
estimated at 45 g C2H4 eq./1000 m3 (Fig. 4). The value for Arvia is
two times higher (94 g C2H4 eq./1000 m3) and for GAC-1 3.2 times
2.2.5. Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential (FAETP) (143 g C2H4 eq.). In the Arvia process, the treatment stage accounts
At 7.3 kg DCB eq./1000 m3, the FAETP for the Arvia process is 12 for 84% of this impact, mainly because of the CO emissions from the
and 1.5 times lower than from GAC-1 and GAC-2, respectively oxidation of adsorbed organic pollutants during the regeneration of
(Fig. 4). For both the Arvia and GAC processes, over 90% of the Nyex. The production of GAC is responsible for 84% of POCP in the
impact is due to the production of chemicals and materials, with GAC-1 system owing to the emissions of CO, NOx and VOCs from
nickel, vanadium, beryllium and chromium emissions to water the combustion of coal and natural gas during the production of
being the major contributors. GAC.
 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213 209

Fig. 4. Comparison of the life cycle environmental impacts for the Arvia and granulated activated carbon systems. [Treatment process includes the impacts from electricity. GWP:
Global warming potential; ADP fossil: Abiotic resource depletion of fossil fuels; ADP elements: Abiotic resource depletion of elements; AP: Acidification potential; EP: Eutrophi-
cation potential; FAETP: Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity potential; HTP: Human toxicity potential; MAETP: Marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential; ODP: Ozone layer depletion po-
tential, POCP: Photochemical oxidants creation potential; TETP: Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential.].

2.2.10. Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential (TETP)
At 198 g DCB eq./1000 m3, the GAC-2 option has the lowest
impact (see Fig. 4). The impact from Arvia is around 30% higher
than from GAC-2 but three times lower than from GAC-1, which has
the highest impact at 892 g DCB eq./1000 m3. For the Arvia process,
the production of HCl is the major contributor, accounting for 70%
of the total TETP, followed by the electricity consumption which
adds a further 15% of the impact. Mercury and chromium emissions
to air from the HCl production and electricity generation are the
major burdens contributing to the TETP. For the GAC options, be-
sides the mercury and chromium emissions to air, vanadium
emissions to air and chromium emissions to soil from the GAC
production and reactivation processes are also responsible for this
impact.
2.3. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis has been carried out to check the robust-
ness of the LCA results against a plausible range of variations in
different LCI parameters. For these purposes, the variations in the
main parameters contributing to the impacts are considered,
informed by the findings of the contribution analysis presented in
the previous section. For the Arvia process, the following five
parameters have been chosen: consumption of Nyex, electrodes,
HCl consumption, electricity for pumping and electricity for
regeneration. For GAC, the following is considered: consumption of
GAC (fresh and regenerated), electricity for pumping, disposal of
spent GAC and the amount of GAC lost during the regeneration
process. Since the detailed information on the variations in the
above-mentioned parameters was not available, an arbitrary vari-
ation (±50%) from the average value of the parameters was applied.
It is deemed that this range is sufficiently wide to allow for seasonal
changes in the type and concentration of organic contaminants in
the raw water.
A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was performed
to generate probabilistic impact results for both the GAC and Arvia
processes. The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 5, with the
whisker bars representing the spread between the 10th and 90th
percentile ranges and the box plots showing the interquartile
ranges for all impact categories. It can be seen in the figure that the
whisker bars for Arvia and GAC-1 do not overlap for any impact
categories suggesting a greater confidence in the findings that the
Arvia process has significantly lower environmental impacts for
nine out of 11 impacts considered. Looking at the comparison be-
tween the Arvia and GAC-2 process, it can be observed that there
are no overlaps for seven impact categories: GWP, ADP (fossil), ADP
210 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia

Arvia
GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2

GAC-1
GAC-2
GWP ADP (fossil) ADP (el.) AP EP FAETP HTP MAETP ODP POCP TETP
[kg CO2 eq.] [x 10 MJ] [x 10^-6 kg [x 10^-2 kg [x 10^-2 kg [kg DCB eq.] [kg DCB eq.] [x 10^3 kg [x 10^-7 kg [x 10^-3 kg [x 10^-2 kg
Sb eq.] SO2 eq.] PO4 eq.] DCB eq.] R11eq.] C2H4 eq.] DCB eq.]

Fig. 5. Uncertainty analysis [GAC-1: no regeneration of activated carbon. GAC-2: 90% regeneration. Box plots represent the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers show the range
between the 10th and 90th percentile. For impacts nomenclature, see Fig. 4. Some impacts have been scaled to fit. To obtain the original values, multiply the values shown on the
graph with the factor shown in brackets against relevant impacts.].

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis [Data for GAC production and regeneration are from Meier (1997) as shown in Tables 3 and 4. For impacts nomenclature, see Fig. 4. Some impacts have
been scaled to fit. To obtain the original values, multiply the values shown on the graph with the factor shown in brackets against relevant impacts.].
 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
Fig. 7. Comparison with literature data of the global warming potential of the gran-
ulated activated carbon (GAC) system.
(element), FAETP, MAETP, ODP and POCP. Based on this, it can be
inferred with a greater confidence that these impacts are lower for
Arvia than for GAC-2. However, the comparative results between
Arvia and GAC-2 for the remaining four impact categories (AP, EP,
HTP and TETP) are inconclusive as their impacts overlap, suggesting
a greater level of uncertainty.
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
As mentioned earlier and indicated in Table 3, there are two
significantly different inventory datasets for the GAC production
and GAC reactivation available in the literature. As also stated
previously, the data from Bayer et al. (2005) and Hutchinson (1975)
have been used in the main analysis (GAC-1 and GAC-2) in this
study. To examine the effect on the results of these two different
datasets, a sensitivity analysis has been carried out using a second
dataset provided by Meier (1997). For the GAC production, the main
differences between these datasets are with respect to the energy
inputs to the production process (Table 3). For example, the amount
of coal is 50% lower in Meier (1997) compared to Bayer et al. (2005).
On the other hand, the use of natural gas is about 15 times higher in
the latter than in the former. For the GAC reactivation process, the
carbon losses remain unchanged while the energy inputs (i.e.
natural gas and steam) are significantly different between the two
datasets.
Fig. 8. Comparison of the operational costs for the Arvia and granulated activated
carbon (GAC) systems [Treatment process includes the cost of electricity.].
211
Fig. 6 compares the LCA results for the Arvia process with the
two GAC options using the second dataset (denoted as GAC-1s and
GAC-2s in the figure). All other assumptions remain the same as for
the GAC-1 and GAC-2 options. Several findings can be observed
from these results. First, the Arvia process has significantly lower
impacts than both GAC-1s and GAC-2s options for all the impact
categories. The only exceptions are the ADP (elements) and POCP
for which GAC-2s is a better option. Secondly, there is a significant
increase in most environmental impacts for GAC-2s in comparison
to GAC-2. Some of the notable increases are for the GWP (63%), ODP
(74%), ADP fossil (71%), ADP elements (73%), POCP (50%) and TETP
(30%). Finally, in comparison to GAC-1, GAC-1s has higher GWP, ADP
(fossil and elements), ODP and POCP; however, its other impacts
are lower.
2.5. Comparison of results with literature
This section compares the results for the GAC process obtained
in the current work with other studies. Comparison of the results
for Arvia is not possible as this is the first time an LCA study of this
process has been carried out.
As can be seen in Fig. 7, for the GAC-1 option (no regeneration),
the GWP estimated in this study compares well with Orica
Watercare (2009), but is about 30% lower than that reported by
Bonton et al. (2012). The main reason for this variation is that
Bonton et al. (2012) considered fresh GAC usage of 0.076 kg/m3
compared to 0.039 kg/m3 in Orica Watercare (2009) and the cur-
rent study. Moreover, as discussed in Section 2.3, choice of in-
ventory data for GAC production can significantly influence the LCA
results.
As also indicated in Fig. 7, the GWP for the GAC-2 option (90%
regeneration) in the present study compares well with the value
obtained by Marín et al. (2011): 155 vs 140 kg CO2 eq./1000 m3.
Note that comparison for the other impacts is not possible as the
above studies have either only estimated the GWP (Orica
Watercare, 2009), or used a different impact assessment method
(Bonton et al., 2012), or reported only relative values (Marín et al.,
2011).
3. Economic evaluation
The Arvia and GAC treatment options have also been assessed
for the operational costs. The operating cost data for the Arvia
process have been provided by Arvia Technology. Owing to confi-
dentiality, the individual cost data for the materials and chemicals
are not available; instead, the total cost for these items has been
provided amounting to £33.8/1000 m3 water. The cost of the fresh
Fig. 9. Comparison with literature of operational costs of the granulated activated
carbon (GAC) system.
212 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
GAC is assumed at £1.6/kg (Orica Watercare, 2008) while that of the
reactivated GAC is about 50% lower (Bayer et al., 2005). The unit
cost of electricity is assumed at £0.12/kWh and the waste man-
agement (including transport) costs are taken to be £96/t (WRAP,
2011).
The results are compared in Fig. 8 which shows that Arvia has
12% higher costs than the GAC-2 option but 42% lower than GAC-1.
For the Arvia process, the main cost components are electricity and
graphite electrodes. In the case of GAC-1, fresh GAC contributes to
72% of the operational costs. With the use of reactivated GAC in the
GAC-2 scenario, the cost of materials is significantly reduced and
the cost associated with the disposal of spent GAC is avoided.
The operational costs for both GAC options are compared in
Fig. 9 with two other studies found in literature. As can be seen, the
results of this study for the GAC-2 option are comparable with
Schantz and Gnagy (2011). However, in the case of GAC-1, the re-
sults in the current and Orica Watercare (2008) study differ
significantly. Since the detailed breakdown of the costs are not
provided in the latter, it is not possible to determine the reasons for
the difference in the estimated costs. In any case, the costs will be
influenced by the quantity of GAC used, energy costs and cost of
waste disposal, none of which is specified in Orica Watercare
(2008).
4. Limitations of the study
As with any LCA study, this study also has some limitations. The
most important limitation is related to the data assumptions.
Although the primary data for Arvia process were obtained directly
from the technology developer, these were based on the operation
of a small pilot plant. On the other hand, the data for the GAC
process were obtained from previously published studies. Also, as
mentioned in Section 2, two different inventory datasets for the
production of GAC are available in the literature. The implications of
these data limitations and other assumptions were assessed with
the uncertainly and sensitivity analyses.
The other important limitation is related to the economic
evaluation. Given that a full-scale commercial Ariva plant is yet to
be installed, the installation costs as well as other life cycle costs
such as labour and maintenance are not available. As a result, the
comparative analysis presented here is limited to the operational
costs only.
Lastly, it is important to mention that the data used in this study
are related to one particular application of Arvia and GAC water
treatment processes, i.e. removal of TOC/NOM. Therefore, the re-
sults may not be relevant or valid for other applications.
5. Conclusions
The life cycle environmental impacts and operational costs have
been estimated for the Arvia and GAC processes for the removal of
organic compounds from water. For the GAC process, two scenarios
have been considered: GAC-1 whereby all spent GAC is landfilled
with no regeneration and GAC-2 in which 90% of GAC is regener-
ated. The LCA results demonstrate that for at least seven out of the
11 environmental categories considered, the Arvia technology has
lower impacts than the GAC process. Relative to GAC-1, Arvia has
70% lower global warming, acidification, eutrophication, depletion
of fossil resources, human, freshwater and marine toxicity.
Compared to the GAC-2 option, the reductions in these impacts
range between 5% and 50%. However, GAC-2 has lower depletion of
elements and ozone layer, photochemical smog and terrestrial
toxicity than the Arvia process.
For the GAC system, the main contributor to the impacts is the
production of GAC because of high energy consumption. The
absorbent used in the Arvia process, Nyex, is made of graphite and
its production has lower environmental impacts compared to that
of GAC. Moreover, in comparison to the GAC treatment, Arvia re-
quires a smaller amount of the adsorbent. The major contributors to
global warming, acidification, eutrophication and depletion of
ozone layer and fossil resources from the Arvia system are the
energy used for pumping and in-situ regeneration of Nyex, while
HCl and graphite electrodes are the major contributors to the
toxicity-related impacts.
With regard to the economic costs, the results indicate that the
Arvia treatment process has somewhat higher operational costs
(12%) than GAC-2 (with regeneration) but significantly lower (42%)
than GAC-1 (no regeneration).
This study has only assessed the environmental and economic
impacts associated with the removal of organic matter from raw
water. Future studies could look into different applications of the
treatment process such as removal of TOC from industrial waste-
water, nuclear-active oily wastes and wastewater containing agro-
chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) and chlorinated organics. The
comparisons with other competing technologies such as ion-
exchange process, ozonation and nano-filtration would also be
needed.
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC), UK within the CCaLC project (Grant no.
EP/F003501/1). This funding is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Amores, M.J., Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., Anto n, A., Castells, F., 2013. Environmental
assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 43, 84e92.
Arvia, 2014. Arvia Technology Ltd. www.arviatechnology.com.
Bansal, R., Goyal, M., 2005. Activated Carbon Adsorption. CRC Press.
Barrios, R., Siebel, M., van der Helm, A., Bosklopper, K., Gijzen, H., 2008. Environ-
mental and financial life cycle impact assessment of drinking water production
at Waternet. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 471e476.
Bayer, P., Heuer, E., Karl, U., Finkel, M., 2005. Economical and ecological comparison
of granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber refill strategies. Water Res. 39,
1719e1728.
Bonton, A., Bouchard, C., Barbeau, B., Jedrzejak, S., 2012. Comparative life cycle
assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 284, 42e54.
Borghi, A., Strazza, C., Gallo, M., Messineo, S., Naso, M., 2013. Water supply and
sustainability: life cycle assessment of water collection, treatment and distri-
bution service. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1158e1168.
Brown, N.W., 1995. Development of a Cleaner Process for the Manufacture of
Exfoliating Graphite. UMIST, Manchester, UK.
Brown, N.W., 2005. Adsorption of Organics in Wastewater on Nyex and Electro-
chemical Regeneration. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Brown, N.W., Roberts, E.P.L., 2007. Electrochemical pre-treatment of effluents con-
taining chlorinated compounds using an adsorbent. J. Appl. Electrochem. 37,
1329e1335.
Brown, N.W., Roberts, E.P.L., Chasiotis, A., Cherdron, T., Sanghrajka, N., 2004. Atra-
zine removal using adsorption and electrochemical regeneration. Water Res. 38,
3067e3074.
Brown, N.W., Roberts, E.P.L., Eccleston, K.T., 2007. Apparatus for Electrochemical
Regeneration of Adsorbents Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), International
Application WO 2007/125334.
Brown, N.W., Roberts, E.P.L., Hussain, S.N., De-Les-Heras, N., Gaffey, P., Gaffey, A.,
Keighley, M., 2011. Development of a Grey Water Treatment System, Envirolink
NW & IEMA Knowledge Exchange 2011. Kings Conference Centre, Manchester.
CCaLC, 2013. CCaLC Software and Databases V3.0. http://www.ccalc.org.uk.
Chowdhury, Z.K., Summers, R.S., Westerhoff, G.P., Leto, B.J., Nowack, K.O.,
Corwin, C.J., Passantino, L.B., 2013. Activated Carbon: Solutions for Improving
Water Quality. American Water Works Association, USA.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A.,
2013. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State of the art.
Water Res. 47, 5480e5492.
Dennison, F.J., Azapagic, A., Clift, R., Colbourae, J.S., 1998. Assessing management
options for wastewater treatment works in the context of life cycle assessment.
Water Sci. Technol. 38, 23e30.
 H.K. Jeswani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 89 (2015) 203e213
Dennison, F.J., Azapagic, A., Clift, R., Colbourne, J.S., 1999. Life cycle assessment:
comparing strategic options for the mains infrastructure d Part I. Water Sci.
Technol. 39, 315e319.
EC, 1998. Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the Quality of Water
Intened for Human Consumption. OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998. European Commission,
Brussels.
Ecoinvent, 2010. Ecoinvent v2.0 Database. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Enoki, T., Suzuki, M., Endo, M., 2003. Graphite Intercalation Compounds and Ap-
plications. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K., Lant, P., 2010. Comprehensive life cycle inventories
of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 44, 1654e1666.
Gabarrell, X., Font, M., Vicent, T., Caminal, G., Sarr a, M., Blanquez, P., 2012.
A comparative life cycle assessment of two treatment technologies for the Grey
Lanaset G textile dye: biodegradation by Trametes versicolor and granular
activated carbon adsorption. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 613e624.
Guinee, J.B., Gorre e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de, Koning, A., van
Oers, L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, J.A., van
Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Opera-
tional Guide to the ISO Standards, Eco-efficiency in Industry and Science.
Kluwer,, Dordrecht.
Hendricks, D.W., 2007. Water Treatment Unit Processes: Physical and Chemical. CRC
Press.
Ho, L., Grasset, C., Hoefel, D., Dixon, M.B., Leusch, F.D.L., Newcombe, G., Saint, C.P.,
Brookes, J.D., 2011. Assessing granular media filtration for the removal of
chemical contaminants from wastewater. Water Res. 45, 3461e3472.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M., Feijoo, G., 2008. A comparison of municipal wastewater
treatment plants for big centres of population in Galicia (Spain). Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 13, 57e64.
Hutchinson, R.A., 1975. Thermal regeneration costs. Chem. Eng. Prog. 71, 86e88.
Igos, E., Dalle, A., Tiruta-Barna, L., Benetto, E., Baudin, I., Mery, Y., 2014. Life Cycle
Assessment of water treatment: what is the contribution of infrastructure and
operation at unit process level? J. Clean. Prod. 65, 424e431.
ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 e Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e
Principles and Framework. International Standard Organization (ISO). Interna-
tional Standard Organization (ISO), Geneva.
ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Re-
quirements and Guidelines. International Standard Organization (ISO), Geneva.
JRC, 2011. Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook e Recommendation for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment in the European Context. European Commission Joint
Research Center, Luxemburg.
Kumar, S., Zafar, M., Prajapati, J.K., Kumar, S., Kannepalli, S., 2011. Modeling studies
on simultaneous adsorption of phenol and resorcinol onto granular activated
carbon from simulated aqueous solution. J. Hazard. Mater. 185, 287e294.
Manda, B.M.K., Worrell, E., Patel, M.K., 2014. Innovative membrane filtration system
for micropollutant removal from drinking water e prospective environmental
LCA and its integration in business decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 72, 153e166.
Marín, D., Massague , A., Cortina, J.L., Junc
a, S., Fonseca, I., 2011. LCA as a Support Tool
in the Urban Water Cycle Management: the Barcelona Metropolitan Area Case
Study. International Water Week, 29 Octe4 Nov 2011. www.
internationalwaterweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/IWW-2011-
Session-6.2-D-Mar%C3%ADn-Water-Energy.pdf (Amsterdam).
Matilainen, A., Vieno, N., Tuhkanen, T., 2006. Efficiency of the activated carbon
filtration in the natural organic matter removal. Environ. Int. 32, 324e331.
McKay, G., 1996. Use of Adsorbents for the Removal of Pollutants from Wastewaters.
CRC Press, London.
Meier, M.A., 1997. Eco-efficiency Evaluation of Waste Gas Purification Systems in the
Chemical Industry. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich.
213
Mery, Y., Tiruta-Barna, L., Baudin, I., Benetto, E., Igos, E., 2014. Formalization of a
technical procedure for process ecodesign dedicated to drinking water treat-
ment plants. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 16e24.
Mohammed, F.M., Roberts, E.P.L., Hill, A., Campen, A.K., Brown, N.W., 2011.
Continuous water treatment by adsorption and electrochemical regeneration.
Water Res. 45, 3065e3074.
Mun~ oz, I., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment as Tool for Green Chemistry: Application to
Different Advanced Oxidation Processes for Wastewater Treatment. Universitat
Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mun~ oz, I., Peral, J., Ayllon, J.A., Malato, S., Martin, M.J., Perrot, J.Y., Vincent, M.,
Domenech, X., 2007. Life-cycle assessment of a coupled advanced oxidation-
Biological process for wastewater treatment: comparison with granular acti-
vated carbon adsorption. Environ. Eng. Sci. 24, 638e651.
Mun~ oz, I., Rodríguez, A., Rosal, R., Ferna
ndez-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, 1245e1256.
Orica Watercare, 2008. MIEX® Treatment versus GAC for TOC Removal- Lifecycle
Cost Comparison, V0608. Technical Note. http://www.miexresin.com/files/
partnerSite/MIEXvsGAC_Comparison_V0608.pdf.
Orica Watercare, 2009. Carbon Footprint of TOC Removal Technologies - Compar-
ison of the MIEX® Process, GAC. Ozone & High Pressure Membranes Technical
Note. http://www.miexresin.com/index.asp?page¼77 (accessed 20.01.11.).
Pasqualino, J.C., Meneses, M., Castells, F., 2011. Life cycle assessment of urban
wastewater reclamation and reuse alternatives. J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 49e63.
PE International, 2011. Gabi database. http://www.pe-international.com.
Richardson, S.D., Plewa, M.J., Wagner, E.D., Schoeny, R., Demarini, D.M., 2007.
Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging
disinfection by-products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research.
Mutat. Res. 636, 178e242.
Romero-Hernandez, O., 2004. To treat or not to treat? Applying chemical engi-
neering tools and a life cycle approach to assessing the level of sustainability of
a clean-up technology. Green. Chem. 6, 395e400.
Romero-Hernandez, O., 2005. Applying life cycle tools and process engineering to
determine the most adequate treatment process conditions. A tool in envi-
ronmental policy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 355e363.
San Miguel, G., Lambert, S.D., Graham, N.J.D., 2001. The regeneration of field-spent
granular-activated carbons. Water Res. 35, 2740e2748.
Schantz, R., Gnagy, M., 2011. Anion exchange and GAC - demonstration for TOC
removal and THM control. AWWA Annual Conference 2011. www.ohiowater.
org/oawwa/oawwa/workshops%20&;%20Seminars/Handouts/2011%20Annual%
20Conference/Treatment%20Sessions%20AM/Anion%20Exchange%20and%
20GAC%20Demonstration%20for%20TOC%20Removal%20and%20THM%
20Control%20-%20gnagy.pdf.
Snoeyink, V.L., Summers, S., 1999. Adsorption of organic compounds. In: American
Water Works Association (Ed.), Water Quality and Treatment - a Handbook of
Community Water Supplies, fifth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Vahala, R., Långvik, V.A., Laukkanen, R., 1999. Controlling adsorbable organic hal-
ogens (AOX) and trihalomethanes (THM) formation by ozonation and two-step
granule activated carbon (GAC) filtration. Water Sci. Technol. 40, 249e256.
Vince, F., Aoustin, E., Breant, P., Marechal, F., 2008. LCA tool for the environmental
evaluation of potable water production. Desalination 220, 37e56.
WRAP, 2011. Gate Fees Report, 2011-comparing the Cost of Alternative Waste
Treatment Options. Waste & Resources Action Programme. http://www.wrap.
org.uk/downloads/Gate_Fees_Report_2011.b1b7a78c.11007.pdf.
Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Shi, Q., Hu, J., Chu, M., Yu, J., Yang, M., 2012. Study on trans-
formation of natural organic matter in source water during chlorination and its
chlorinated products using Ultrahigh Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 46, 4396e4402.