Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Environmental Analysis of A Domestic Rainwater Harvesting System A Case Study in France
Environmental Analysis of A Domestic Rainwater Harvesting System A Case Study in France
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Life cycle assessment methodology along with water footprint analysis was used to assess the envi-
Received 26 February 2015 ronmental impacts of a domestic rainwater harvesting system (RWH) in France. Firstly, the relevance of
Received in revised form 18 June 2015 substituting drinking water (DW) with rainwater in a private individual household was studied. Secondly,
Accepted 28 July 2015
the effect of several parameters namely construction of infrastructures, building scale and disinfection
Available online 24 August 2015
were evaluated. The quantification of environmental impacts was performed using Ecoinvent inventory
data and Impact 2002+ evaluation method. The water footprint was assessed through the water stress
Keywords:
indicator (WSI). From an environmental standpoint, the RWH system has only slightly higher impact
Rainwater harvesting
Environmental impacts
than the DW system. The consumption of electricity for pumping generates the strongest impact. The
Life cycle assessment analysis of the WSI showed that the RWH system can relieve a stress on water resources where it exists.
Water footprint Consideration of infrastructures and disinfection turns environmental impacts significantly higher in all
impact categories. Setting up the RWH system at bigger scale, i.e., building scale, is a bit less favoured
than the RWH system at household scale. This study aims at pointing out areas of improvement which
need to be further studied to make RWH systems more sustainable.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.024
0921-3449/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Vialle et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 178–184 179
study complements the existing literature on rainwater harvesting The supply is performed with three pumps (75 kWh). The different
targeting areas of improvement. steps of the water treatment process are summarised in Fig. 2.
In the present case, the rainwater harvesting system and the
2. Materials and methods water production plant are supposed to run for 50 years without
renovation; therefore, dismantlement has not been integrated. The
LCA was performed according to the ISO 14040 (AFNOR, 2006a) reference year is 2010.
and the ISO 14044 (AFNOR, 2006b) standards.
Fig. 3. Flowchart for the rainwater harvesting baseline system and options.
C. Vialle et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 178–184 181
Table 1
Characteristics of the site under study.
Table 2
Sensitive parameters summary.
DW
Drinking water Option I : construction of infrastructures included
system
elementary flows (Pré consultants, 2014). All numerical data used analyse the propagation of uncertainty. These simulations permit
for calculation in this study are available elsewhere (Vialle, 2011). to check if differences between scenarios were significant or not.
The substitution of a portion of the potable water with rainwater The influence of three parameters on the RWH system and one
in the flush toilet was compared to the exclusive use of potable parameter on the DW system was assessed. Fig. 6 presents the
water at the individual household scale. The results are presented results in endpoint categories.
with endpoint categories in Fig. 5. Rainwater harvesting practices
are slightly less favourable than using potable water for all impact 3.2.1. Parameter 1: infrastructures included (DW/I and RHW/I)
categories. When the construction of infrastructures is taken into account,
The WSI for the RWH system is equal to −0.71 equivalent litres environmental impacts increase significantly for both systems. The
of water per functional unit. The negative sign means that stressed increase is particularly drastic for the DW system. Although rain-
water is made available for another user during the process. A RWH water was considered to substitute potable water used to flush
system for toilet flush operating in a family of four people during toilet, drinking water remains necessary for other domestic uses.
one year would make available around 1 m3 of stressed water for This is why neglecting the construction of drinking water plant and
another user, i.e., 2% of the water consumed. The WSI for the DW water supply network is closer to reality in France, as the drinking
system is equals to 0, which means it does not have any impact on water system is already set up. Yet the same does not apply to RWH
the environment. Such a result can be explained by the fact that system, as it is added to pre-existing houses.
in the Garonne watershed, there is no stress on rainwater (˛i = 0).
However, there is a small stress on river water (˛i = 0.027). That is 3.2.2. Parameter 2: building scale (RWH/B)
why it is better to use rainwater than river water. With regard to the RWH system, environmental impacts of the
Although the RWH system is slightly less interesting than building scale appear to be approximately 10% or 20% higher than
the DW system concerning the impact categories human health, the household scale, depending on the damage category consid-
ecosystem quality, resources and climate change, it has a success- ered. This is due to the electricity consumption for pumping which
ful water footprint. In case there is a complex treatment process to is higher in the building because all eight toilets must periodically
C. Vialle et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 178–184 183
Table 3
Water category and their respective ˛i (Boulay et al., 2011b).
RWH system
Intake water Rain 0
Released water S3: high coliform, medium toxicity 0.027
DW system
Intake water S3: high coliform, medium toxicity 0.027
Released water S3: high coliform, medium toxicity 0.027
Fig. 7. Impact 2002+ – midpoint categories – contribution of sub-processes. RWH/I/D, rainwater harvesting with infrastructures and disinfection included; I, infrastructure
sub-process; F, functioning sub-process.
be used at the same time. As a result, the installed pumps are more assessment results from Crettaz et al. (1999), who showed that
powerful in the building than in the household. This result is con- energy consumption appears to be the most sensitive factor in the
sistent with the one of Morales-Pinzón who demonstrated that the environmental evaluation.
potential for energy consumption is higher for apartment building
than for house (Morales-Pinzón et al., 2012).
4. Conclusion
3.2.3. Parameter 3: disinfection step included (RWH/D) In this study, an attributional life cycle assessment was
Within the RWH system, a disinfection step can be added right conducted. This methodology takes into account sub-processes
after the second filtration to ensure water quality. However, results implied in the life cycle and evaluates environmental impacts
suggest that disinfection is a very high source of impact, due to the within the current conditions of production and consumption. A
high energy consumption required for the UV lamps. water footprint analysis was also conducted. Pilot systems in France
were the subjects of case studies designed to collect the necessary
3.3. Analysis of RWH system sub processes data.
The substitution of a portion of the potable water used by rain-
The relative contributions of sub-processes are evaluated with water was compared to the exclusive use of potable water on a
midpoint categories for an individual household. The results cor- private individual household. Environmental impacts of these two
responding to the RWH system with infrastructures (RWH/I) and systems are very similar, and the RWH system slightly has higher
disinfection (RWH/D) included are presented in Fig. 7. impacts. The sub-process with the greatest impact is pumping due
The results show that for some midpoint categories, the con- to its electricity consumption. The use of an active carbon filter
struction phase (below dashes in Fig. 7) has major impacts in is also unfavourable to respiratory organics and land occupation.
comparison with the operation phase (above dashes in Fig. 7). Sub- Water footprint analysis has revealed that using RWH systems
processes linked to the construction of the system contribute to relieve a stress on water resources where it exists while DW sys-
more than 60% of the impact for carcinogens, aquatic acidification, tems do not, which is quite interesting.
and mineral extraction categories. In particular, the sub-process Besides, according to the local context, some options have to
“storage” corresponding to the installation of the HDPE tank is the be included and can significantly change the results. As of today in
most polluting operation in terms of carcinogens and respiratory France, the impact of the construction phase increase environmen-
organics. In terms of function, the most polluting sub-process is tal impacts and cannot be neglected if the RWH system have to be
disinfection and the second most polluting is pumping. Secondary added to pre-existing houses or buildings, while it can be neglected
filtration plays a key role in respiratory organics and land occupa- if the DW system already exists. In particular, the installation of the
tion because of the use of active carbon. HDPE tank used for storage in the RWH system largely contributes
These results mirror those presented in Section 3.2: infras- to environmental problems such as the release of carcinogens
tructures and disinfection seriously increase the environmental and respiratory organics. The use of a disinfection stage ensures
impacts. Moreover, these results are consistent with the life cycle that there is no sanitary risk; however, it is highly unfavourable
184 C. Vialle et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 102 (2015) 178–184