Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

A comprehensive carbon footprint analysis of different wastewater

treatment plant configurations
Ziping Wu a, Haoran Duan a, b, *, Kaili Li a, Liu Ye a, **
a
School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
b
Australian Centre for Water and Environmental Biotechnology (ACWEB, Formerly AWMC), The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the growing concern of global warming, many water utilities are pioneering in mitigating greenhouse gas
Wastewater treatment process (GHG) emissions, with some water utilities aiming to achieve net-zero emissions operation in the next decade.
Carbon footprint However, for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the carbon footprint of different treatment technologies and
Greenhouse gas emissions
its contribution among various units within each treatment configuration is still unclear. This study evaluates the
Sludge management
Carbon neutrality
impacts of process design on the carbon footprint of WWTPs through the analysis of scope 1 (direct emission),
scope 2 (indirect emission), and scope 3 (value chain emission) emissions. The comprehensive configuration
design in this work considered three nutrient removal processes including typical aerobic and anaerobic
wastewater treatment technologies. Emissions from the sludge management processes are also calculated,
including aerobic and anaerobic sludge stabilization processes, short-term and long-term sludge storage, and
three sludge disposal options. In total, 45 processes were analysed and the results were compared. The results
showed the carbon footprints are highly dependent on the treatment configurations of WWTPs. Analysis sug­
gested scope 2 & 3 emissions can be reduced by selecting suitable processes. In general, anaerobic wastewater
and sludge stabilization technologies are more suitable than aerobic technologies to reduce scope 2 & 3 emis­
sions, leading to a lower overall carbon footprint. In comparison, configuration design offers limited opportu­
nities to reduce scope 1 emissions, which may be the future challenge for WWTP to achieve carbon neutrality.

anaerobic conditions occur such as anaerobic wastewater and sludge

1. Introduction
The main driver of climate change is the increased greenhouse gas
(GHG) in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2022). With the growing concern of
global warming, many countries are committed to achieving carbon
neutrality by 2050. Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is one of the
largest GHG emitters (Pan et al., 2016b; Zhao et al., 2019). Many water
utilities are pioneering in mitigating GHG emissions, with some aiming
to achieve net-zero emissions operation in the next decades. The carbon
footprint of WWTP can be categorized into three components: scope 1
emissions (direct emissions), scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions), and
scope 3 emissions (value chain emissions). Scope 1 emissions refer to
direct GHG emissions from wastewater treatment-related activities.
Specifically, it is N2O and CH4 produced during wastewater and sludge
treatment. N2O is mainly emitted from biological nitrogen removal
(BNR) processes during wastewater treatment. Unlike N2O, CH4 is
usually formed in the sewer system and parts of the WWTP where
treatment (Daelman et al., 2012). The N2O and CH4 have a global
warming potential (GWP) of 265 and 28 CO2-eq, respectively (IPCC,
2013). Even a small amount of N2O and CH4 emissions still contribute
significantly to the carbon footprint of a WWTP. De Haas and Hartley
(2004) estimated that 1% of nitrogen loading converted to N2O could
increase the total carbon footprint of WWTP by 30%. Scope 2 emissions
are the indirect GHG emissions from energy consumption, e.g., mixing,
aerating, pumping, dewatering, and transporting of wastewater and
sludge (Sotos, 2015). Scope 3 emissions are the GHG emissions from the
assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, e.g., GHG
emissions from off-site sludge disposal (Bhatia et al., 2011).
The wastewater treatment process mainly involves biological
nutrient removal from wastewater and the by-product sludge treatment.
The biological nutrient removal can be achieved by anaerobic or aerobic
treatment technologies. Typical aerobic technologies including Modi­
fied Ludzak-Ettinger (MLE), Anoxic/Aerobic (A/O) and membrane
bioreactor (MBR) can remove carbon and nitrogen from wastewater

* Corresponding author. School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h.duan@uq.edu.au (H. Duan), l.ye@uq.edu.au (L. Ye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113818
Received 26 January 2022; Received in revised form 30 May 2022; Accepted 30 June 2022
Available online 14 July 2022
0013-9351/Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Z. Wu et al.
Nomenclature
GHG Greenhouse gas
WWTPs Wastewater treatment plants
BNR Biological nitrogen removal
GWP Global warming potential
A2/O Anaerobic/Anoxic/Aerobic
MLE Modified Ludzak-Ettinger
UASB Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
AD Anaerobic digestion
AeD Aerobic digestion
LTD Long-term drying
STS Short-term storage
DM Dry matter
A/O Anoxic/Aerobic
MBR Membrane bioreactor
EGSB Expanded granular sludge blanket
EBPR Enhanced biological phosphorus removal
(Metcalf and Eddy, 2013). Anaerobic treatment technologies such as
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and expanded granular sludge
blanket (EGSB) remove carbon, and can be coupled with post aerobic
treatment to achieve carbon and nitrogen removal (Chernicharo, 2006).
The phosphate removal for these above technologies requires additional
chemical dosing, such as ferric iron, ferrous iron, aluminium, and cal­
cium (Metcalf and Eddy, 2013). Alternatively, Bardenpho, enhanced
biological phosphorus removal (EBPR), etc. Could be applied for the
biological phosphate and nitrogen removal in WWTP (Metcalf and Eddy,
2013). Wastewater treatment generates a large amount of sludge. Sludge
management at WWTP includes sludge thickening, stabilization, dew­
atering, drying, and disposal. Sludge stabilization is practiced in most
WWTP to reduce pathogens and unpleasant odours as well as inhibit,
reduce, or eliminate the potential for putrefaction. Anaerobic digestion
(AD) and aerobic digestion (AeD) are commonly applied stabilization
technologies (Duan et al., 2019; Metcalf and Eddy, 2013; Shammas and
Wang, 2007). AD reduces sludge volume, provides stabilization, and
generates methane for energy recovery. It has been widely adopted in
large WWTPs. In comparison, AeD is more applied in small WWTPs due
to its low capital cost, suitability for small amounts of less degradable
sludge, and simple operation (Duan et al., 2019). Stabilized sludge will
be stored in WWTPs before final disposal. Depending on the size of
WWTPs, the storage period is normally between 1 and 5 days (Daelman
et al., 2012). In some WWTPs, long-term sludge drying (LTD) is used for
further drying (by solar and wind) and digestion before final disposal
(Pan et al., 2016c). Sludge disposal is commonly achieved by com­
posting, landfills, agriculture/land reuse, incineration, and other pro­
cesses (e.g., ponds, industrial reuse) (Metcalf and Eddy, 2013).
Studies have been conducted to analyse the GHG emissions from
different wastewater/sludge treatment technologies with various focus
on part of the wastewater treatment configurations whereas not on the
whole configurations (Ab Hamid et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2020; Lopes
et al., 2020; Paulu et al., 2021). Previous studies have suggested that
different wastewater treatment technologies could result in different
levels of direct GHG emissions and various extent of energy consumption
and sludge production (Cakir and Stenstrom, 2005; Foley et al., 2010;
Piao et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2016; Vidal et al., 2002; Yoshida et al.,
2014). For example, Piao et al. (2016) reported that the carbon footprint
of wastewater treatment processes would increase by 20% by adopted
MLE, compared to the WWTP with A2/O. Moreover, the direct GHG
emissions could increase 105% by adopting aerobic wastewater treat­
ment, compared to anaerobic wastewater treatment (Cakir and Sten­
strom, 2005).
However, there are still uncertainties for WWTPs to understand the
2
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
carbon footprint of different wastewater treatment configurations.
Firstly, many potentially important sources of GHG emissions, particu­
larly in sludge handling processes, were not considered in previous an­
alyses. For examples, in sludge stabilization, most analyses only
considered anaerobic stabilization, while the GHG emissions from aer­
obic stabilization have been largely ignored (Daelman et al., 2012; Piao
et al., 2016; Rodriguez-Garcia et al., 2014). However, experiments
suggested AeD could be a significant source of GHG emissions in WWTPs
(Duan et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2016c). Similarly, sludge storage pro­
cesses, including sludge drying and short-term storage (STS) were not
included in previous carbon footprint analyses, while both were shown
with significant potential for CH4 emissions (Daelman et al., 2012; Pan
et al., 2016a). Despite suggested by experiments with significant GHG
emission potentials, their emission contributions and importance to
overall WWTP carbon footprint remain unclear. Secondly, Piao et al.
(2016) showed that when AD is applied for sludge treatment, GHG
emissions from sludge treatment process increase with the increase of
sludge quantity. A 59% increase in sludge production from wastewater
treatment could increase the direct GHG emissions from sludge treat­
ment processes by 30%. Various wastewater treatment technologies
could lead to different amounts of sludge production (e.g., aerobic
technologies produce 3–4 times of sludge than anaerobic counterpart)
(McCarty et al., 2011), which may significantly impact the GHG emis­
sions from the downstream sludge treatment processes. These un­
certainties underpin the importance of analysing the carbon footprint of
wastewater treatment configurations as a whole.
This study systematically evaluates the impacts of different WWTP
configurations, including various technologies/units used in wastewater
treatment, sludge handling and sludge disposal, on the total and specific
carbon footprint of WWTPs. It aims to fill the knowledge gap in un­
derstanding the carbon footprint of different WWTP configurations and
the contributions from specific processes. The carbon footprint of
different wastewater treatment configurations was analysed via a sta­
tistical model with a comprehensive scenario design based on the
literature values and reasonable assumptions. The design involves a
total combination of 45 processes, comprising 3 different processes on
wastewater treatment, 2 on sludge stabilization, 2 on sludge drying, and
3 on sludge proposal. The importance and sources of scope 1, 2, and 3
emissions in overall carbon footprint were also analysed.
2. Methodology
2.1. System boundary
In this work, the system boundary for GHG emissions calculation is
illustrated in Fig. 1. Direct GHG emissions (scope 1) including the dis­
solved methane in raw wastewater, generation from the wastewater
treatment, and on-side sludge treatment (e.g., stabilization, drying, and
storage) was indicated in boxes with red line. Indirect GHG emissions by
energy consumption (e.g., chemical dosing, pumping, aeration system)
and energy production by generated biogas from the anaerobic treat­
ment system to offset energy consumption, were also within the
boundary (indicated in boxes with blue line). Scope 3 GHG emissions (in
green boxes), including off-site sludge disposal processes (Landfill,
incineration, composting and agriculture usage) were considered as
well. In addition, it was assumed that all the electricity was generated
with coal, with the GHG intensity of 843–1171 g CO2-eq/kWh-el (Lenzen,
2008).
All the other sources of GHG emissions (e.g. GHG emissions from
receiving water body and sewer collection, biogenic CO2 emissions) and
energy consumption or generation (e.g. energy production from sludge
disposal, energy consumption for sludge transportation) were out of
scope (illustrated in blocks in dash line in Fig. 1).
Z. Wu et al. Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818

Fig. 1. Analytical system boundary for GHG emissions from WWTPs.

2.2. Scenario design investigate the GHG emissions from different wastewater and sludge
treatment configurations (Fig. 2). Three different nutrient removal
A comprehensive process design was performed in this study to wastewater treatment configurations were selected for wastewater

Fig. 2. Illustration of designed wastewater treatment system configurations. *Some configurations were designed for comparison and sludge treatment processes
after thickening were skipped.

3
Z. Wu et al.
treatment. Primary treatment, followed by MLE was selected as the
typical aerobic wastewater treatment configuration for this study. Note
that ferric chloride dosing was required for chemical phosphorus
removal from the MLE system. 5-stage bardenpho was also included in
this study. Bardenpho is a commonly used wastewater treatment tech­
nology for biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal. Another
wastewater treatment configuration option adopted was UASB + MLE.
Recently study shows the UASB system has remarkable potential to treat
domestic wastewater at ambient temperature (Crone et al., 2016; Daud
et al., 2018). The following MLE process aims to achieve nitrogen
removal from UASB effluent.
The sludge treatment in this study included the whole process of
thickening, stabilization, dewatering and STS/LTD (Fig. 2). The gener­
ated sludge after the thickening unit will be transported into the sludge
stabilization configuration. Two commonly used sludge stabilization
configurations, AeD or AD were designed to stabilize sludge. The
digested sludge will then be transported for dewatering. After dew­
atering, two options were designed for sludge storage. The dewatered
sludge can be stored in an LTD or STS configuration, before being
transported out for sludge disposal. The sludge disposal in this study
included the most common sludge disposal methods, namely, com­
posting + agriculture, landfills and incineration (Grobelak et al., 2019).
Each configuration was composed of one of the three wastewater
treatment processes (MLE, Bardenpho, or UASB + MLE), one of the two
sludge stabilization units (AeD or AD), one of the two sludge storage
methods (LTD or STS), and one of the three sludge disposal ways
(composting + agriculture, landfills or incineration). A total of 36 sce­
narios were studied.
To investigate the impacts of sludge stabilization on the WWTP
carbon footprint, additional scenarios were studied. Namely, the sludge
generated from the wastewater treatment processes was sent to disposal
without digestion and drying. These scenarios will enable direct com­
parison with the scenarios with sludge treatment. Specifically, these
configuration was composed of one of the three wastewater treatment
processes (MLE, Bardenpho, or UASB + MLE) and one of the three sludge
disposal options (composting + agriculture, landfills or incineration). A
total of 9 scenarios were studied.
2.3. GHG emissions calculation
A statistic model was built to calculate the GHG emissions from the
overall WWTPs within the boundary of this study. The designed raw
wastewater characteristics are listed in SI Table S1. The design param­
eters for different configurations of the WWTPs are mainly based on the
literature values and reasonable assumptions (SI Table S2). The esti­
mation of GHG emissions for different WWTPs is based on the emission
factor (EF) from the literature (SI Table S2). Given that the values of the
parameters vary between different studies and assumptions, the uncer­
tainty analysis for scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions from different
designed scenarios was conducted through Monte Carlo analysis in MS
Excel. For example, the N2O EF (wastewater treatment processes, aer­
obic digestion, and sludge disposal options), the COD and nutrients
loading in raw wastewater and the performance of treatment efficiency
were used to conduct the Monte Carlo analysis. The summary of design
parameters for uncertainty analysis are listed in SI Table S3.
For wastewater treatment, the emitted mass of N2O and CH4 were
calculated based on Eqs. (1)–(3) below:
44
N2 O ​ ww = EFi ​ ∗ ​ TNloading ​ ∗ ​ (1)
28
where: N2Oww is the N2O emissions from wastewater treatment pro­
cesses [kg N2O]; EFi is the N2O emissions factor from treatment
configuration i [kg N2O–N/kg-N]; TNloading is the total nitrogen loading
in influent wastewater [kg-N]; 44/28 is used to convert [kg N2O–N] to
[kg N2O].
4
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
(
CH4 ww1 = CH4 ​ dis, ​ in ​ ∗ ​ 1 − rox ） (2)
where: CH4ww1 is the methane emissions from wastewater treatment
processes by active stripping of dissolved methane in the influent
wastewater. Note that the dissolved methane is assumed to consist of 1%
of the total chemical oxygen demand (COD) loading in the influent [kg
CH4] (Daelman et al., 2012); CH4dis,in is the dissolved CH4 in the influent
wastewater [kg CH4]; rox is the percentage of the amount of CH4
oxidized in post-aerobic wastewater treatment. The default oxidation
percentage in this study is assumed to be 80% (Daelman et al., 2012).
(
CH4 ww2 = CH4 ​ dis, anaerobic ​ ∗ ​ 1 − rox ） (3)
where: CH4ww2 is the methane emissions from the anaerobic wastewater
treatment processes [kg CH4]; CH4dis, anaerobic is the dissolved CH4 in the
effluent of anaerobic wastewater treatment [kg CH4]; rox is the per­
centage of the amount of CH4 oxidized in post-aerobic wastewater
treatment. The default oxidation percentage in this study is assumed to
be 80% (Daelman et al., 2012).
The sludge production from the wastewater treatment is calculated
by Eqs. (4)–(6) below:
Q ​ ∗ ​ YH ​ ∗ ​ (SCODin − SCOD )
XHB = (4)
1 + bH ​ ∗ ​ SRT
where: XHB is the heterotrophs biomass generated per day [kg COD/d];
Q is the flow rate of the influent wastewater [L/d]; YH is the yield rate of
the heterotrophs [kg COD formed cells/kg COD consumed]; SCODin is the
concentration of the COD in the influent [kg COD/l]; SCOD is the con­
centration of the COD in the bioreactor [kg COD/L]; bH is the decay rate
of heterotrophs [d− 1]; SRT is the solid retention time of the bioreactor
[d].
( )
Q ​ ∗ ​ YA ​ ∗ ​ SNH3 in − SNH3
XA = (5)
1 + bA ​ ∗ ​ SRT
where: XA is the autotrophs biomass generated per day [kg COD/d]; YA
is the yield rate of the autotrophs [kg COD formed cells/kg NH3–N
consumed]; SNH3in is the concentration of the NH3–N in the influent [kg-
N/L]; SNH3 is the concentration of the NH3–N in the bioreactor [kg-N/L];
bA is the decay rate of autotrophs [d− 1].
Xinert = SRT ​ ∗ ​ (bA ​ ∗ ​ XA + bH ​ ∗ ​ XH ) ​ ∗ ​ f p (6)
where: Xinert is the inert solids generated in the bioreactor [kg COD/d];
fp is the fraction of the bio-inactive solids.
The GHG emissions from sludge treatment are described in Eqs. (7)–
(10) below:
N2 O ​ AeD = EFAeD ​ ∗ ​ TNloading,sludge ​ ∗ ​
44
(7)
28
where: N2OAeD is the N2O emissions from aerobic sludge digester [kg
N2O]; EFAeD is N2O emissions factor from AeD [kg N2O–N/kg-N];
TNloading, sludge is the total nitrogen loading in raw sludge [kg-N].
CH4 ​ AD = CH4 ​ dis, AD + EFAD,i ​ ∗ ​ biogas ​ produced (8)
where: CH4AD is the methane emissions from anaerobic sludge digester
[kg CH4]; biogasproduced is the total generated biogas from the anaerobic
digester [m3]; EFAD,i is the CH4 emissions factor of the anaerobic
digester, such as methane emissions from the pressure relief valve,
methane emission through gas bubbles entrained in digested sludge, etc
[m3 CH4/m3 ].
CH4 ​ LTD = CODAnaerobic ​ ∗ ​ CODBiodegradable (9)
where: CH4LTD is the methane emissions from LTD configuration [kg
CH4]; CODAnaerobic is the ratio of the COD consumed for CH4 generation
Z. Wu et al.
(Pan et al., 2016c); CODBiodegradble is the biodegradable COD loading of
the raw sludge [kg COD].
CH4 ​ STS = EFSTS ​ ∗ ​ CH4produced
where: CH4STS is the methane emissions from STS configuration [kg
CH4]; EFSTS is the methane emissions factor of the STS [m3CH4/m3
generated CH4]; CH4produced is the methane generated from the anaer­
obic digester [m3 CH4].
The GHG emissions from sludge disposal are determined by the IPCC
method, as indicated by Eq. (11) to (15)
( )
CH4incineration ​ = IWi ​ ∗ ​ EFIncineration CH4 ∗ ​ 10− 6 (11)
where: CH4incineration is the methane emissions from incineration [Gg
CH4/yr]; IWi is the amount of solids waste incinerated [Gg/yr]; EFInci­
neration_CH4 is the aggregate CH4 emissions factor [kg CH4/Gg waste].
( )
N2 Oincineration = IWi ​ ∗ ​ EFIncineration N2 O ∗ ​ 10− 6 (12)
where: N2Oincineration is the methane emissions from incineration [Gg
N2O/yr]; EFIncineration_N2O is the aggregate N2O emissions factor [kg
N2O/Gg of waste].
( )
N2 Ocomposting = Mi ​ ∗ ​ EFComposting N2 O ∗ ​ 10− 3 (13)
where: N2Ocompsoting is the methane emissions from composting [Gg
N2O]; Mi is the mass of organic waste treated by composting [Gg];
EFCompsoting_N2O is the N2O emissions factor for composting [g N2O/kg
waste treated].
( )
CH4composting = Mi ​ ∗ ​ EFComposting CH4 ∗ ​ 10− 3 − R (14)
where: N2Ocompsoting is the methane emissions from composting [Gg
CH4]; EFComposting_CH4 is the CH4 emissions factor for composting [g
CH4/kg waste]; R is the total amount of CH4 recovered (0 for this study)
[Gg CH4].
[(
CH4Landfill = MSWT ​ ∗ ​ MSWF ​ ∗ ​ MCF ​ ∗ ​ DOC ​ ∗ ​ DOCF ​ ∗ ​ F ​ ∗ ​
]
( )
− R ∗ 1 − rox, ​ Landfill
where: CH4Landfill is the CH4 emissions from landfill [kg CH4/yr]; MSWT
is the total municipal solids waste generated [Gg/yr]; MSWF is the
faction of municipal solids wastes disposed at the Landfill; MCF is the
methane correction factor; DOC is the degradable organic carbon [Gg/
Gg municipal solids waste]; DOCF is the fraction of the degradable
organic carbon; F is the fraction by volume of CH4 in landfills gas; R is
recovered CH4 [Gg/yr]; rox, Landfill is the oxidation factor of methane.
In this study, the N2O emissions from agriculture only considered the
synthetic fertilizer N applied to the managed soils. The N2O emission
from agriculture is described by the Eq. (16):
( ) ( ) by MLE or Bardenpho, sludge is stabilized by AeD and the LTD is avoi­
N2 O − Ninput = FSN ​ ∗ ​ EFAgriculture + FSN ​ ∗ ​ EFAgricultureFR (16)
where: N2O-Ninput is the annual direct N2O–N emissions from N inputs to
managed soils [kg N2O–N/yr]; FSN is the annual amount of synthetic
fertilizer N applied to soils [kg N/yr]; EFAgriculture is the emissions factor
for N2O emissions from N inputs [kg N2O–N/kg N input]; EFAgriculture_FR
is the emissions factor for N2O emissions from N inputs to flooded rice
[kg N2O–N/kg N input].
2.4. Carbon and energy neutrality
The carbon and energy neutrality targets of this study were defined
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
based on the Eqs. (17) and (18) (Li et al., 2022):
∑
Energy ​ recovery− eq,i
Carbon ​ Neutrality = ∑ ∑
(10) Direct ​ emissions− eq,i + Indirect ​ emissions− eq,i
(17)
∑
Energy ​ recovery− eq,i
Energy ​ Neutrality = ∑ (18)
Indirect ​ emissions− eq,i
∑
where: Direct emissions_eq,i is sum of the direct emissions equivalent
∑
to CO2 from WWTP [kgCO2-eq]; Indirect emissions_eq,i is sum of the
∑
energy consumption equivalent to CO2 of WWTP [kgCO2-eq]; Energy
recovery_eq,i is sum of the energy recovery equivalent to CO2 from
WWTP [kgCO2-eq].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Carbon footprints of WWTPs with different configurations
The carbon footprints of WWTPs with different configurations are
calculated and presented by the type of emissions source (scope 1, scope
2, scope 3 emissions) in Fig. 3. It can be seen clearly that the carbon
footprints are highly dependent on the treatment configurations of
WWTPs. The total GHG emissions of different scenarios vary greatly,
from 411 to 1775 kg CO2-eq/ML-ww/d, with the highest GHG emissions
approximately 4 times higher than that of the lowest GHG emissions.
The top three high emissions (1649–1775 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d) configu­
rations are dominated by the combination of aerobic nutrient removal
(MLE wastewater treatment), AeD and LTD. The sludge disposal in
WWTP only played a minor role in the total carbon footprint profile. In
fact, the top 3 configurations with the highest GHG emissions all
adopted aerobic wastewater treatment, aerobic sludge stabilization, and
LTD. The 3 lowest GHG emissions configurations are the combinations
employing anaerobic wastewater treatment (UASB), AD and STS, with
total GHG emissions of 411–520 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d. The large variation
of the overall carbon footprint suggests that there are opportunities to
reduce carbon footprint by choosing different configurations or pro­
)
16 cesses at the design stage of a WWTP or during the plant upgrading.
12
3.2. Scope 1 emissions
(15) The amount of scope 1 emissions and its contribution to the overall
GHG emissions is undoubtedly significant (as shown in Fig. 3). The scope
1 emissions account for 23–83% of the total carbon footprint under
different configuration scenarios. Scope 1 emission could be the major
contributor to carbon footprint for configurations with anaerobic pro­
cesses. This is because anaerobic treatment technologies could signifi­
cantly reduce scope 2 and scope 3 emissions due to energy recovery and
less sludge production. For example, in the configuration where the
wastewater is treated by UASB + MLE and sludge is stabilized by AD, the
scope 1 emissions could contribute to 63%–83% of total GHG emissions
from WWTP. Scope 1 emissions become less significant in configurations
with aerobic technologies. For example, when the wastewater is treated
ded, the scope 1 emissions only account for 23%–30% of the overall
carbon footprint of WWTP.
For comparison, the sources of scope 1 emissions from the waste­
water treatment processes and the sludge treatment processes were
plotted respectively as shown in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4a, the scope 1 emissions
from wastewater treatment processes varied from 218 to 354 kgCO2-eq/
ML-ww/d, contributing to 12%–75% of the total GHG emissions in
wastewater treatment processes, both CH4 and N2O emissions
contribute to scope 1 emissions of WWTPs. Compared with Bardenpho
or MLE process, the UASB + MLE process (anaerobic treatment with post
aerobic treatment) produced higher scope 1 emissions than aerobic
technologies. In the sealed UASB reactor, organics are converted to
5
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 3. Carbon footprints of WWTPs with different treatment configurations. The error bar represents the uncertainties (Monte Carlo analysis).
Fig. 4. Scope 1 emissions from WWTPs with different treatment configurations
(a) scope 1 emissions from carbon and nutrients removal wastewater treatment
processes; (b) scope 1 emissions from sludge treatment. The error bar represents
the uncertainties (Monte Carlo analysis).
6
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
methane-rich biogas and the supersaturated dissolved methane is also
formed normally in the range of 19–29 mg CH4/L (Bandara et al., 2012;
Matsuura et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2012). In the following aerobic
treatment for nitrogen removal, about 20% of the dissolved methane
would be stripped out by aeration (Daelman et al., 2012), which
contributed to 36% more direct GHG than aerobic technology only.
While methane emissions from wastewater treatment processes can be
reduced by choosing aerobic treatment technologies, the N2O is an
inevitable by-product generated in the biological nitrogen removal
process (Duan et al., 2017; Kampschreur et al., 2008). In this study, N2O
is always the dominant GHG when aerobic treatment processes are used,
accounting for up to 96% of the scope 1 emissions. Moreover, the
anaerobic technologies for nutrient removal also produce N2O in the
following nutrients removal process. The N2O emissions from UASB +
MLE processes contributed 61.1% of the direct emissions.
Sludge treatment could also be a significant source of scope 1
emissions (Fig. 4b). The direct GHG emissions from sludge treatment
Z. Wu et al. Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818

Table 1
Analyses of carbon neutrality and energy neutrality for different configurations.
Configurations Direct emission, Indirect emission, Energy recovery, Energy neutrality Carbon neutrality
kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d kg CO2-eq/ML-ww/d kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d

UASB + MLE + AeD + LTD 579 577 419 73% 36%

UASB + MLE + AeD + STS 399 577 419 73% 43%
UASB + MLE + AD + LTD 508 599 570 95% 51%
UASB + MLE + AD + STS 369 599 570 95% 59%
MLE + AeD + LTD 933 655 0 0% 0%
MLE + AeD + STS 316 655 0 0% 0%
MLE + AD + LTD 793 637 403 63% 28%
MLE + AD + STS 279 637 403 63% 44%
Bardenpho + AeD + LTD 569 620 0 0% 0%
Bardenpho + AeD + STS 265 620 0 0% 0%
Bardenpho + AD + LTD 517 612 176 29% 16%
Bardenpho + AD + STS 249 612 176 29% 20%

varied greatly, from 27 to 716 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, accounting for 4%–
58% of the total GHG emissions from WWTP. Unlike the wastewater
treatment process, CH4 emissions contribute to the majority of the scope
1 emissions from sludge treatment. The direct CH4 emissions from
sludge are 16–617 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, while the direct N2O emissions
from sludge are only 43.1 to 98.4 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d. When the LTD was
adopted in WWTP, the overall scope 1 emissions could increase signif­
icantly by 26%–46%. This is because a significant portion of the stabi­
lized sludge is still biodegradable. A long-term sludge drying lagoon
study showed that 43% of COD was biodegradable (Pan et al., 2016c).
The biodegradable portion of the sludge will be slowly digested during
the drying stage under the anaerobic condition to generate CH4. The
long-term sludge drying facility is often an open system. Therefore,
methane generated is emitted into the atmosphere.
Moreover, the scope 1 emissions from sludge treatment are also
highly dependent on the amount of the waste sludge to be treated. For
example, the amount of waste sludge generated from MLE, Bardenpho,
and the UASB + MLE processes are 24,208 kg dry matter (DM)/d,
10,614 kgDM/d, and 11,412 kgDM/d, respectively (Table 2). The scope
1 emission from sludge treatment after the MLE process are the highest
(716 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d) and the WWTP with UASB + MLE process has
the lowest scope 1 emissions from its following sludge treatment pro­
cesses (16–225 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d).
Clearly, scope 1 emissions from sludge treatment can be feasibly
minimized by avoiding LTD and by adopting the wastewater treatment
process with less sludge production. However, reducing scope 1 emis­
sions from wastewater treatment is still challenging since all the
wastewater treatment processes with nutrient removal inevitably led to
N2O emissions (Kampschreur et al., 2009; Vasilaki et al., 2019). Exten­
sive studies have attempted to mitigate N2O emissions from biological
nitrogen removal processes (Duan et al., 2021), which could further
reduce the carbon footprint of WWTPs in the future.
3.3. Scope 2 emissions
Scope 2 emissions in this study include energy consumption for both
wastewater and sludge treatment processes. The scope 2 emissions could
contribute 14–68% of total carbon footprint of WWTP. However, it was
observed that most configurations with relatively low GHG emissions
involve energy recovery, which offsets the scope 2 emissions. Scope 2
emissions could be minimized by reducing the energy consumption, as
well as by enhancing the energy recovery (scope 2 offset). Effectively,
the scope 2 emissions from WWTP could be minimized by choosing
configurations with high energy efficiency and energy recovery.
Anaerobic treatment technologies represent a promising solution to
minimize scope 2 emissions due to their low energy consumption and
potential for energy recovery via methane-rich biogas capture. UASB
enables energy recovery from produced biogas leading to offset GHG
emissions. During anaerobic wastewater treatment, most of the COD
would be converted to biogas. Roughly 60–70% of loading COD can be
converted to methane, and approximately 80% of generated methane
could be used for energy recovery (Bandara et al., 2011, 2012; Matsuura
et al., 2015; Souza et al., 2012). For example, when the UASB is adopted
in WWTPs, the carbon footprint of WWTPs could be significantly
reduced compared to the MLE and Bardenpho. The carbon footprint of
WWTPs with UASB are 411–816 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d. In comparison,
total GHG emissions from WWTPs with aerobic wastewater treatment
processes such as MLE and Bardenpho are 599–1773 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d
and 635–1221 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, respectively.
The direct GHG emissions, indirect GHG emissions, and offset GHG
emissions of all investigated configurations are summarised in Table 1.
The results showed that the complete aerobic wastewater and sludge
treatment has the highest energy consumption. For example, the energy
consumption for MEL + AeD and Bardenpho + AeD are 655 kgCO2-eq/
ML-ww/d and 622 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, respectively. When UASB and AeD
were adopted in WWTP, the energy consumption was 577 kgCO2-eq/ML-
ww/d as the anaerobic treatment has the potential for energy recovery.

Table 2
Summary of sludge production, sludge for disposal, biogas production, and energy generation.
Configurations Sludge production, kg DM/d Sludge for disposal, kg DM/d biogas production, m3/d Energy generation, kg CO2-eq/d

UASB + MLE + AeD + LTD 11412a 5225 5582 20972

UASB + MLE + AeD + STS 11412a 9078 5582 20972
UASB + MLE + AD + LTD 11412a 5077 6709 28513
UASB + MLE + AD + STS 11412a 8604 6709 28513
MLE + AeD + LTD 24208a 7329 0 0
MLE + AeD + STS 24208a 16150 0 0
MLE + AD + LTD 24208a 7027 3504 20181
MLE + AD + STS 24208a 15174 3504 20181
Bardenpho + AeD + LTD 10614 2687 0 0
Bardenpho + AeD + STS 10614 4679 0 0
Bardenpho + AD + LTD 10614 2603 1534 8841
Bardenpho + AD + STS 10614 6374 1534 8841
a
The generated sludge contained 3647 kg inorganic solid (nonnitrogen content) due to chemical dosing.

7
Z. Wu et al.
Therefore, the highest energy recovery option is the complete anaerobic
wastewater and sludge treatment which could recover 570 kgCO2-eq/
ML-ww/d of energy. Overall, in terms of the scope 2 emissions, the
optimal configurations for minimizing scope 2 emissions are the UASB
+ AD with only 29 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d of scope 2 emissions.
Lastly, the calculation shows that achieving energy neutrality is still
far from achieving carbon neutrality (Table 1). Scope 1 and scope 2
emissions were considered in carbon neutrality calculation, and both
electrical and heat energy were considered for the scope 2 emissions and
energy recovery calculations. In this analysis, energy neutrality could
achieve 35–95%, while carbon neutrality could achieve 17–59%. When
the UASB and AD were adopted in WWTP, the energy neutrality could
achieve 73–95%, and the carbon neutrality could reach 36–59%. When
MLE and Bardenpho were used for wastewater treatment and AD was
used for sludge stabilization, the energy and carbon neutrality could
increase by 29–63% and 16–44%, respectively.
3.4. Scope 3 emissions
The contributions of scope 3 emissions to overall emissions are
shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that in this study scope 3 refers
specifically to the GHG emissions from sludge disposal configurations.
Compared to scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, scope 3 emissions play a
minor role in overall GHG emissions in most WWTP configurations,
contributing only 1–13% to the overall carbon footprint. However, when
the landfill is applied for sludge disposal, the scope 3 emissions could
contribute to 21%–41% of the total GHG emissions. Landfill generates
significantly higher GHG than those from composting, agriculture, and
incineration. In addition, the amount of scope 3 emissions highly relies
on the amount of sludge for disposal. Table 2 presents the amount of
sludge production and sludge disposal. For example, the wasted sludge
for disposal was 5225–9078 kg of dry matter per day when UASB was
adopted. The scope 3 emission from WWTP with UASB was 8–138
kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d (Fig. 3). As discussed in Section 3.2, the UASB pro­
duces less sludge compared to the Bardenpho and MLE, thus resulting in
less scope 3 emissions from sludge disposal. When the MLE was applied
in WWTP, the generated sludge for disposal was 7329–16150 kg dry
matter/d, and the scope 3 emissions were 18–389 kgCO2-eq/ML ML-ww/
d.
3.5. Role of anaerobic wastewater treatment processes
The role of the anaerobic wastewater treatment process is seemingly
contradictory in terms of GHG emissions. On the one hand, anaerobic
technologies have higher energy efficiency and enable energy recovery
(scope 2 emissions). On the other hand, it leads to higher scope 1
emissions than aerobic technologies due to CH4 emissions. Nevertheless,
this study shows that despite higher scope 1 emissions, anaerobic
technologies lead to an overall small carbon footprint due to much lower
scope 2 and scope 3 emissions. For example, when comparing the UASB
+ MLE + AD + STS + Landfill with MLE + AD + STS + Landfill for scope
1 emissions, the former process was 369 kgCO2-eq/ML_ww/d, which was
higher than the latter MLE only process (279 kgCO2-eq/ML_ww/d).
However, for scope 2 and scope 3 emissions, the UASB + MLE process
was much lower than that of MLE only process. In comparison, the scope
2 and scope 3 emissions for the UASB + MLE process were 29 and 122
kgCO2-eq/ML_ww/d respectively, while the MLE process had an emission
of 122 and 355 kgCO2-eq/ML_ww/d for scope 2 and scope 3 emissions. In
terms of the overall carbon footprint, the wastewater treated by anaer­
obic configuration emitted 520 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, while the WWTP
with aerobic wastewater treatment emitted 868 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d.
It should be noted that CH4 emission has been regarded as the major
obstacle to the application of anaerobic technologies. The dissolved CH4
in the anaerobic treatment effluent could be largely released into the
atmosphere when the proper post-treatment was not applied. Some of
the post-treatment technologies have been developed to mitigate CH4
8
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
emissions. Air-stripping is a commonly applied technology to enhance
the liquid to gas transfer efficiency. It has been applied to remove the
ammonia and methane from landfill leachate (Ferraz et al., 2013).
However, applying air-stripping has the issue with dilution of the
methane in the biogas and prohibits the beneficial use of biogas. Another
technology is membrane-based technology which uses the non-porous or
microporous membrane to recover the methane for subsequent reuse
(Bandara et al., 2011). The microporous membrane can be used for the
high substrate concentration liquid, such as AnMBR, and the non-porous
membrane is more suitable for the less solid content effluent like UASB.
However, the use of membrane technology required sweeping gas to
create a methane gradient between the outside and inside of the mem­
brane to increase the mass transfer efficiency, which could reduce the
purity of methane in the biogas (Cookney et al., 2012).
The effective removal or recovery of the dissolved methane from
anaerobic treatment technology could reduce GHG emissions. However,
the feasibility of the currently developed post-treatment technologies
has not yet been fully evaluated by the economic viability and practi­
cability. In addition, while applied anaerobic technology has the above
benefits compared to aerobic technology, the benefits of using anaerobic
technology may be less significant in the future. With the ongoing
adoption of renewable energy, the scope 2 emissions may no longer be
an issue for WWTP. Thus, the benefits of using the CH4 generated from
anaerobic technology to offset scope 2 will reduce accordingly.
3.6. Sludge stabilization: source or sink?
AD and AeD are commonly applied in WWTP for sludge stabilization.
Similar to anaerobic wastewater treatment processes, sludge stabiliza­
tion processes could result in higher scope 1 emissions in WWTP while at
the same time may reduce scope 2 and/or scope 3 emissions. To answer
whether sludge stabilization may lead to a higher or lower carbon
footprint, the scenarios without sludge stabilization were analysed to
compare with the same configurations that equip with sludge treatment
(Fig. 5).
Fugitive GHG will be directly emitted into the atmosphere during the
sludge stabilization. Compared to the scenario without sludge treat­
ment, the GHG emissions from sludge stabilization processes could in­
crease the scope 1 emissions to different extents. AD slightly increases
the scope 1 emissions by 4–16 kgCO2-eq/ML-ww/d, representing 1.2%–
7% higher emission than configurations without sludge stabilization
(Fig. 4a and b). Methane leakage often occurs due to poor maintenance
of anaerobic digesters which contributes to the direct GHG emissions
(Daelman et al., 2012; Reinelt et al., 2016; Schaum et al., 2015, 2016;
Tauber et al., 2019). In an anaerobic digester, the gasholder prevents gas
leakage and stores generated biogas. However, the gasholder and valves
could result in leakage if poorly maintained. Tauber et al. (2019) re­
ported that methane leakage from AD maintenance holes contributed to
0.4% of the total generated methane due to poor maintenance. The
methane loss from pressure-relief valves reportedly contributes to
0.06–1.7% of the total methane generated in AD (Reinelt et al., 2016).
In comparison, AeD results in significantly higher scope 1 emissions,
mainly due to N2O emissions. Scope 1 emissions of WWTPs could be
increased by 14%–45% due to the adoption of AeD. In AeD, the available
substrates in feeding sludge are limited so that the microorganisms
consume their protoplasm, which the ammonia could be released, to
generate energy for cell reaction maintenance (Metcalf and Eddy, 2013).
Then nitrification and denitrification can happen in the aerobic digester
(Duan et al., 2019; Kim and Novak, 2017). Consequently, N2O will be
generated from BNR processes within the aerobic digestor, and the
aerobic digester usually is not covered. Therefore, the stripped-out N2O
could be directly emitted to the atmosphere, thus causing the increase of
scope 1 emissions from AeD.
When it comes to scope 2 emissions, AD and AeDs have distinct
consequences. AD could significantly reduce scope 2 emissions. In this
study, when the AD was used for sludge stabilization, the scope 2
Z. Wu et al.
Fig. 5. Overall emissions from WWTPs with different wastewater treatment configurations but without sludge stabilization process. The error bar represents the
uncertainties (Monte Carlo analysis).
emissions could be significantly reduced by 20.6%–73.2% compared to
the WWTP without AD. AD can convert the biogenic carbon contained in
the sludge to biogas to generate bioenergy (Calderon et al., 2021; IPCC
et al., 2019; Metcalf and Eddy, 2013). The generated biogas can be
converted to electrical energy to cover 60% of the overall electricity
consumption (Daelman et al., 2012). Thus, it reduces the use of energy
generated from fossil fuel sources. Therefore, the AD process is regarded
as a carbon sink (UNEP, 2017). In contrast, sludge stabilization by AeD
increases the scope 2 emissions. Unlike AD, AeD requires oxygen to
achieve organic matter removal and the aeration results in significant
electricity consumption. The oxygen requirements of AeD are typically
1.6–1.9 kg O2/kg VSS destroyed (Metcalf and Eddy, 2013). The scope 2
emissions from WWTP with aerobic digester could increase by 13%–
31% compared to that from WWTP without sludge stabilization. Note
that AeD results in significantly higher scope 2 emissions than AD as AeD
produces 30%–82% higher scope 2 emissions than AD.
Both AD and AeD reduce scope 3 emissions due to reduced organic
matters after sludge stabilization. Usually, AD and AeD can achieve
30%–40% organic matter destruction of the sludge, while the digestion
efficiency highly depends on the SRT and temperature (Kim et al., 2010;
Li et al., 2013; Metcalf and Eddy, 2013). Composting, agriculture reuse,
landfills, and incineration were considered sludge disposal options in
this study. The IPCC guideline identified the majority of the GHG
emissions from sludge disposal are N2O and CH4 (IPCC et al., 2019).
With the carbon loading rate reduced for sludge disposal, the CH4
emissions decreased. In this study, when sludge stabilization was
adopted in WWTP, the scope 3 emissions could be reduced by 40%–
47.5% regardless of AD or AeD.
Taking scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions into consideration, AD and AeD
can play distinct roles in WWTP carbon footprints. While AD could
slightly increase scope 1 emissions, it significantly reduces scope 2 and 3
emissions, collectively leading to lower carbon footprints of WWTP by
2–38%. In comparison, compared with WWTPs without sludge stabili­
zation, AeD leads to higher scope 1 and scope 2 emissions while
reducing scope 3 emissions. Consequently, the overall GHG emissions
significantly increased by 2%–29% compared with the scenarios
without AeD.
4. Implications to wastewater treatment design
This study shows that various wastewater treatment plant configu­
rations could have vast different carbon footprints and some processes
are better suited than the others to reduce the carbon footprints of
WWTPs.
For wastewater treatment, many studies have shown the possibility
of using anaerobic wastewater treatment technology with post aerobic
treatment, especially UASB, to treat municipal wastewater at ambient or
low temperatures, in the past decade (Chernicharo, 2006; Kayranli and
Ugurlu, 2011; Latif et al., 2011; Lew et al., 2011). This study
9
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
demonstrated that the UASB has the promising potential to minimize
GHG emissions compared to aerobic wastewater technologies through
significantly reduced scope 2 and 3 emissions but increased scope 1
emissions. Where it is feasible, the anaerobic process should be imple­
mented to enhance energy efficiency and enable energy recovery.
Nevertheless, the anaerobic process would increase scope 1 emissions
due to the remaining dissolved methane in the effluent, which is a major
challenge for anaerobic processes. Besides, it should be noted that as
renewable energy is becoming widely available, the role of anaerobic
technology in reducing GHG emissions (by reducing scope 2 emissions)
from WWTP may be less significant.
For sludge handling, while sludge drying could significantly reduce
the volume of the treated sludge and the operating cost, the uncaptured
CH4 results in significant scope 1 emissions (Pan et al., 2016c),
contributing to 22–59% of the total GHG emissions from WWTP. It
should therefore be avoided to reduce WWTP carbon footprint.
Furthermore, when AD is adopted, the GHG emissions could be reduced
by 12%–38% compared to the WWTP without sludge stabilization. The
potential for GHG emissions reduction from AD is significant. In com­
parison, while aerobic sludge digestion could also reduce scope 3
emissions due to reducing organic matter for sludge disposal, it increases
both scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, leading to an overall higher carbon
footprint.
Lastly, landfills should be avoided for sludge disposal. Compared to
other sludge disposal methods, the scope 3 emissions from landfills ac­
count for 10%–43% of the total carbon footprint. However, the scope 3
emissions from incineration, composting, and agriculture only
contribute 1%–14% of the total GHG emissions.
5. Conclusion and perspectives
This study systematically evaluated the impacts of different WWTP
configurations. The outcome of this study informs WWTP configuration
design, demonstrating that the carbon footprint of WWTP is highly
dependent on the treatment configurations, with the highest GHG
emissions approximately 4 times higher than that with the lowest GHG
emissions.
The analysis showed scope 2 & 3 emissions may be reduced by
selecting suitable processes. Specifically, applying anaerobic waste­
water treatment technologies can significantly reduce the total WWTP
carbon footprint due to its high energy efficiency and energy recovery
(scope 2 emissions offset), despite the increased scope 1 emissions due to
dissolved CH4 stripping. Sludge stabilization via AD could also reduce
the scope 2 & 3 emissions while aerobic sludge digestion may increase
the overall carbon footprint. Sludge disposal via landfill could result in
high scope 3 emissions and should be avoided.
Compared with Scope 2 & 3 emissions, there are less opportunities to
reduce Scope 1 emissions by configuration design. Long-term sludge
drying should be avoided as it contributes significantly to the carbon
Z. Wu et al.
footprint due to CH4 emissions. The biological nitrogen removal process
inevitably leads to N2O emissions and may not be significantly reduced
by configuration selection. Direct N2O emissions will likely be the future
challenge for WWTPs to achieve carbon neutrality.
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.
Acknowledgment
This study was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC)
through project DP180103369 and by Water Research Australia
Research Programs (2059-20). H. D. is a recipient of the UQ Research
Stimulus Fellowship. K.L. acknowledges the scholarship support from
the University of Queensland (UQ), Water Research Australia and Icon
Water. L.Y. is a recipient of the UQ Foundation Research Excellence
Awards.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113818.
References
Ab Hamid, N.H., Smart, S., Wang, D.K., Koh, K.W.J., Ng, K.J.C., Ye, L., 2020. Economic,
energy and carbon footprint assessment of integrated forward osmosis membrane
bioreactor (FOMBR) process in urban wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. J. Integr.
Environ. Res.: Water Res. Technol. 6 (1), 153–165.
Bandara, W.M., Kindaichi, T., Satoh, H., Sasakawa, M., Nakahara, Y., Takahashi, M.,
Okabe, S., 2012. Anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater at ambient
temperature: analysis of archaeal community structure and recovery of dissolved
methane. Water Res. 46 (17), 5756–5764.
Bandara, W.M., Satoh, H., Sasakawa, M., Nakahara, Y., Takahashi, M., Okabe, S., 2011.
Removal of residual dissolved methane gas in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor treating low-strength wastewater at low temperature with degassing
membrane. Water Res. 45 (11), 3533–3540.
Bhatia, P., Cummis, C., Rich, D., Draucker, L., Lahd, H., Brown, A., 2011. Greenhouse Gas
Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard.
Cakir, F., Stenstrom, M., 2005. Greenhouse gas production: a comparison between
aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment technology. Water Res. 39 (17),
4197–4203.
Calderon, A.G., Duan, H., Chen, X., Wu, Z., Yu, W., Silva, C.E., Li, Y., Shrestha, S.,
Wang, Z., Keller, J., 2021. Enhancing anaerobic digestion using free nitrous acid:
identifying the optimal pre-treatment condition in continuous operation. Water Res.
205, 117694.
Chernicharo, C.d., 2006. Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic
wastewater. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5 (1), 73–92.
Cookney, J., Cartmell, E., Jefferson, B., McAdam, E., 2012. Recovery of methane from
anaerobic process effluent using poly-di-methyl-siloxane membrane contactors.
Water Sci. Technol. 65 (4), 604–610.
Crone, B.C., Garland, J.L., Sorial, G.A., Vane, L.M., 2016. Significance of dissolved
methane in effluents of anaerobically treated low strength wastewater and potential
for recovery as an energy product: a review. Water Res. 104, 520–531.
Daelman, M.R., van Voorthuizen, E.M., van Dongen, U.G., Volcke, E.I., van
Loosdrecht, M.C., 2012. Methane emission during municipal wastewater treatment.
Water Res. 46 (11), 3657–3670.
Daud, M., Rizvi, H., Akram, M.F., Ali, S., Rizwan, M., Nafees, M., Jin, Z.S., 2018. Review
of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor technology: effect of different parameters
and developments for domestic wastewater treatment. J. Chem. 2018, 1596319.
De Haas, D., Hartley, K., 2004. Greenhouse Gas Emission from BNR Plants: Do We Have
the Right Focus, pp. 5–7.
Duan, H., Ye, L., Erler, D., Ni, B.J., Yuan, Z., 2017. Quantifying nitrous oxide production
pathways in wastewater treatment systems using isotope technology - a critical
review. Water Res. 122, 96–113.
Duan, H., Ye, L., Lu, X., Batstone, D.J., Yuan, Z., 2019. Self-sustained nitrite
accumulation at low pH greatly enhances volatile solids destruction and nitrogen
removal in aerobic sludge digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (3), 1225–1234.
Duan, H., Zhao, Y., Koch, K., Wells, G.F., Zheng, M., Yuan, Z., Ye, L., 2021. Insights into
nitrous oxide mitigation strategies in wastewater treatment and challenges for wider
implementation. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Ferraz, F.M., Povinelli, J., Vieira, E.M., 2013. Ammonia removal from landfill leachate by
air stripping and absorption. Environ. Technol. 34 (15), 2317–2326.
10
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Hartley, K., Lant, P., 2010. Comprehensive life cycle inventories of
alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 44 (5), 1654–1666.
Grobelak, A., Czerwińska, K., Murtaś, A., 2019. Industrial and Municipal Sludge.
Elsevier, pp. 135–153.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA.
IPCC, 2019. In: Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M.,
Ngarize, S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P., Federici, S. (Eds.), 2019
Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
IPCC, Switzerland.
IPCC, 2022. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.
Kampschreur, M.J., Tan, N.C., Kleerebezem, R., Picioreanu, C., Jetten, M.S.,
Loosdrecht, M.C.v., 2008. Effect of dynamic process conditions on nitrogen oxides
emission from a nitrifying culture. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (2), 429–435.
Kampschreur, M.J., Temmink, H., Kleerebezem, R., Jetten, M.S., van Loosdrecht, M.C.,
2009. Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater treatment. Water Res. 43 (17),
4093–4103.
Kayranli, B., Ugurlu, A., 2011. Effects of temperature and biomass concentration on the
performance of anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treating low strength
wastewater. Desalination 278 (1–3), 77–83.
Kim, D.-H., Jeong, E., Oh, S.-E., Shin, H.-S., 2010. Combined (alkaline+ ultrasonic)
pretreatment effect on sewage sludge disintegration. Water Res. 44 (10), 3093–3100.
Kim, J., Novak, J.T., 2017. Nitrogen removal in a staged anaerobic-aerobic sludge
digestion system. Water Environ. Res. 89 (1), 17–23.
Latif, M.A., Ghufran, R., Wahid, Z.A., Ahmad, A., 2011. Integrated application of upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor for the treatment of wastewaters. Water Res. 45
(16), 4683–4699.
Lenzen, M., 2008. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a
review. Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (8), 2178–2199.
Lew, B., Lustig, I., Beliavski, M., Tarre, S., Green, M., 2011. An integrated UASB-sludge
digester system for raw domestic wastewater treatment in temperate climates.
Bioresour. Technol. 102 (7), 4921–4924.
Li, H., Zou, S., Li, C., Jin, Y., 2013. Alkaline post-treatment for improved sludge
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 140, 187–191.
Li, L., Wang, X., Miao, J., Abulimiti, A., Jing, X., Ren, N., 2022. Carbon neutrality of
wastewater treatment-A systematic concept beyond the plant boundary. Environ.
Sci. Ecotechnol., 100180
Liao, X., Tian, Y., Gan, Y., Ji, J., 2020. Quantifying urban wastewater treatment sector’s
greenhouse gas emissions using a hybrid life cycle analysis method - an application
on Shenzhen city in China. Sci. Total Environ. 745, 141176.
Lopes, T.A., Queiroz, L.M., Torres, E.A., Kiperstok, A., 2020. Low complexity wastewater
treatment process in developing countries: a LCA approach to evaluate
environmental gains. Sci. Total Environ. 720, 137593.
Matsuura, N., Hatamoto, M., Sumino, H., Syutsubo, K., Yamaguchi, T., Ohashi, A., 2015.
Recovery and biological oxidation of dissolved methane in effluent from UASB
treatment of municipal sewage using a two-stage closed downflow hanging sponge
system. J. Environ. Manag. 151, 200–209.
McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy
Producer–Can This Be Achieved? ACS Publications.
Metcalf, Amp, Eddy, I., 2013. Wastewater Engineering : Treatment and Resource
Recovery. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, NY.
Pan, Y., Van Den Akker, B., Ye, L., Ni, B.-J., Watts, S., Reid, K., Yuan, Z., 2016a.
Unravelling the spatial variation of nitrous oxide emissions from a step-feed plug-
flow full scale wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Rep. 6 (1), 1–10.
Pan, Y., van den Akker, B., Ye, L., Ni, B.J., Watts, S., Reid, K., Yuan, Z., 2016b.
Unravelling the spatial variation of nitrous oxide emissions from a step-feed plug-
flow full scale wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Rep. 6, 20792.
Pan, Y., Ye, L., van den Akker, B., Ganigue Pages, R., Musenze, R.S., Yuan, Z., 2016c.
Sludge-drying lagoons: a potential significant methane source in wastewater
treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (3), 1368–1375.
Paulu, A., Bartáček, J., Šerešová, M., Kočí, V., 2021. Combining process modelling and
lca to assess the environmental impacts of wastewater treatment innovations. Water
13 (9), 1246.
Piao, W., Kim, Y., Kim, H., Kim, M., Kim, C., 2016. Life cycle assessment and economic
efficiency analysis of integrated management of wastewater treatment plants.
J. Clean. Prod. 113, 325–337.
Rahman, S.M., Eckelman, M.J., Onnis-Hayden, A., Gu, A.Z., 2016. Life-cycle assessment
of advanced nutrient removal technologies for wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50 (6), 3020–3030.
Reinelt, T., Liebetrau, J., Nelles, M., 2016. Analysis of operational methane emissions
from pressure relief valves from biogas storages of biogas plants. Bioresour. Technol.
217, 257–264.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Frison, N., Vazquez-Padin, J.R., Hospido, A., Garrido, J.M.,
Fatone, F., Bolzonella, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2014. Life cycle assessment of
nutrient removal technologies for the treatment of anaerobic digestion supernatant
and its integration in a wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 490,
871–879.
Schaum, C., Fundneider, T., Cornel, P., 2016. Analysis of methane emissions from
digested sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 73 (7), 1599–1607.
Schaum, C., Lensch, D., Bolle, P.-Y., Cornel, P., 2015. Sewage sludge treatment:
evaluation of the energy potential and methane emissions with COD balancing.
J. Water Reuse Desalin. 5 (4), 437–445.
Shammas, N., Wang, L., 2007. Biosolids Treatment Processes (Handbook of
Environmental Engineering, vol. 6.
Z. Wu et al.
Sotos, M.E., 2015. GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance.
Souza, C., Chernicharo, C., Melo, G., 2012. Methane and hydrogen sulfide emissions in
UASB reactors treating domestic wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 65 (7), 1229–1237.
Tauber, J., Parravicini, V., Svardal, K., Krampe, J., 2019. Quantifying methane emissions
from anaerobic digesters. Water Sci. Technol. 80 (9), 1654–1661.
UNEP, 2017. The emissions gap report 2017. United Nations Environ. Progr. (UNEP)
30–31 (Nairobi).
Vasilaki, V., Massara, T.M., Stanchev, P., Fatone, F., Katsou, E., 2019. A decade of nitrous
oxide (N2O) monitoring in full-scale wastewater treatment processes: a critical
review. Water Res. 161, 392–412.
11
Environmental Research 214 (2022) 113818
Vidal, N., Poch, M., Martí, E., Rodríguez-Roda, I., 2002. Evaluation of the environmental
implications to include structural changes in a wastewater treatment plant. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 77 (11), 1206–1211.
Yoshida, H., Clavreul, J., Scheutz, C., Christensen, T.H., 2014. Influence of data
collection schemes on the Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Water Res. 56, 292–303.
Zhao, X., Jin, X., Guo, W., Zhang, C., Shan, Y., Du, M., Tillotson, M., Yang, H., Liao, X.,
Li, Y., 2019. China’s urban methane emissions from municipal wastewater treatment
plant. Earth’s Future 7 (4), 480–490.