Life Cycle Assessment of two municipal WWTP configurations :

oxidation ditch versus a 26-CSTR cascade system

Marazioti C.E.1, Koza S.1, Kornaros M.1,*
1

Dept. Chemical Engineering, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece

ABSTRACT
The environmental implications of two different systems for municipal wastewater treatment were
investigated in this work. Life Cycle Assessment was used in order to evaluate the environmental
performance of each system. The oxidation ditch and a 26-CSTR cascade configuration were
selected for comparison. The 26-CSTR cascade configuration was studied for three different
aeration patterns: 2 pairs of 4 aerobic/8 anoxic CSTRs, 2 pairs of 3 aerobic/9 anoxic CSTRs and 3
pairs of 2 aerobic/6 anoxic CSTRs. Results show that the CSTR cascade system reduces the effect
of the plant on almost all impact categories considered. The full-scale application of the optimum
CSTR cascade configuration would cause less environmental impact than the conventional
oxidation ditch configuration.
1. INTRODUCTION
Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP) are a priori considered as environmental friendly systems.
However, they give rise to environmental impacts due to their energy consumption, use of
chemicals, emissions to atmosphere and sludge production. The wide implementation of the
European Water Act (91/271/EC) is leading to a rapid multiplication of WWTPs across Europe and,
consequently, this activity must be evaluated for its environmental influence.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that helps to identify the overall environmental effects
associated with the whole life of a product or process [1]. The methodology for conducting a life
cycle assessment (LCA) consists of four phases: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis,
impact assessment and interpretation [2]. LCA has been previously used in order to evaluate
environmental effects from the operation of WWTPs. Among other studies, Bengtsson et al. [3]
used LCA to facilitate the municipalities decision-making regarding choice of technologies for
wastewater systems. Clauson-Kaas [4] optimised the operation of a WWTP from Denmark using
LCA methodology. In a Dutch study [5], an LCA was performed of different conventional
wastewater systems in order to assess the total environmental burden of these systems on a national
Dutch level. In Spain, Vidal et al. [6] compared three configurations of biological treatments by
means of a simulation software in order to reduce the discharge of nitrogen in the treated effluent.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the environmental performance of a typical configuration for a
WWTP and compare it with an alternative system that has already been technically evaluated and
*

Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Patras,
26500 Patras, GREECE. Tel./Fax: +30 2610 997418, E-mail: kornaros@chemeng.upatras.gr

optimized on a lab-scale level [7]. The LCA was focused on the consequences caused by an
operational change on the biological stage of a conventional WWTP.
2. GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION
The goal of this study is to compare the potential environmental impacts associated with the
operation of a municipal WWTP using a typical oxidation ditch for organic load and nutrients
removal to those of an alternative WWTP where the oxidation ditch has been replaced by a 26CSTR-cascade system (operating with three different aeration patterns).
The studied WWTP is located in the city of Patras (Greece) and has a maximum treatment capacity
of 180,000 inhabitants. The system consists of the following treatment stages : preliminary,
primary, biological, tertiary and sludge treatment. The biological treatment system is based on a
conventional oxidation ditch. The alternative system that was studied replaces the oxidation ditch
with a 26-CSTR cascade system of same volume operating with three different aeration strategies: 2
pairs of 4 aerobic/8 anoxic CSTRs, 2 pairs of 3 aerobic/9 anoxic CSTRs and 3 pairs of 2 aerobic/6
anoxic CSTRs.
Considering the boundaries of the reference system for its evaluation by LCA the wastewater
process was divided into four subsystems (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Simplified flowchart of the conventional system and the subsystems defined.
Subsystem 1: it comprises the input of raw water, its pre-treatment and primary treatment and the
discharge of the partially treated effluent to the subsystem 2 for further treatment.
The primary sludge (from the primary clarifier) is discharged to the subsystem 3.
Subsystem 2: it entails the secondary treatment (oxidation ditch) and the discharge of the treated
water to the sea. The secondary sludge (from the secondary clarifier) is also
discharged to the subsystem 3.
Subsystem 3: it considers the sludge line, from its generation (primary and secondary sludge) to its
treatment and disposal. It is also considers the biogas production.
Subsystem 4: this phase includes the scenario of sludge disposal. In this study sludge is considered
as a solid waste output of the system.
Considering the boundaries of the alternative system for its evaluation by LCA the wastewater
process was divided into four subsystems, same as previous with the only difference in the
subsystem 2 where the oxidation ditch is displaced with the CSTR cascade system (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Simplified flowchart of the alternative system and the subsystems defined.
The amount of wastewater treated at the WWTP per day (22833.33 m3/day), calculated as an
average using annual data, was selected as the functional unit in this study.
The physicochemical characterization of the raw wastewater and the treated effluent for the
conventional WWTP system were obtained from the director of the plant in Patras (September
2006). The effluent characteristics of the alternative scenario system were estimated from the results
of a lab-scale 26-CSTR cascade system which was operated using different aeration patterns.
In relation to the electricity production profile, an electrical percentage distribution according to
data from Public Power Corporation S.A. (Greece) [8] has been used: 43.1% from lignite, 19.1%
from oil power plants, 12.9% from natural gas, 24.8% is hydroelectric and <0.001% is renewable
energy sources. The air emissions from the biological treatment, the sludge thickening and the
anaerobic digesters were calculated by stoichiometric considerations regarding the removal of
organic material (Equation 1) [9] and the complete combustion of biogas (Equation 2) [10].
Eq 1. C18H19O9N + 0.74 NH3 + 8.8 O2 1.74 C5H7O2N + 9.3 CO2 + 4.52 H2O
Eq 2. CH4 + 2 (O2 + 3.78 N2 ) CO2 + 7.56 N2 + 2 H2O + heat
3. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY
A life cycle inventory step is concerned with the data collection and calculation procedures
necessary to complete the inventory. This is the first step to carry out s complete characterization of
the different streams in order to obtain a comprehensive inventory of all the inputs and outputs.
Summaries for each subsystem and for each scenario are presented in tables 1-9. The inventory data
for subsystem 1 are given only in the first scenario, as exactly the same data are considered for the
alternative scenarios.
Conventional WWTP
TABLE 1: Inventory Data for Subsystem 1 (pre-treatment and primary treatment)
INPUTS
From the upstream function
Q (m3/day)
22833.33

From the background function

Electricity (Mwh)
0.318

COD (Kg/day)
BOD5 (Kg/day)
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
NH4 (Kg/day)
NO3 (Kg/day)
TKN (Kg/day)
TP (Kg/day)

9430.16
4087.16
3973
842.1
43.16
1194.4
596.4
OUTPUTS
To the subsystem 2
Q (m3/day)
22833.33
COD (Kg/day)
9430.16
BOD5 (Kg/day)
4087.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
842.1
NO3 (Kg/day)
43.16
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
596.4

TABLE 2: Inventory Data for Subsystem 2 (biological treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 2
From the background function
Q (m3/day)
22833.33
Electricity (Mwh)
6.29
COD (Kg/day)
9430.16
BOD5 (Kg/day)
4087.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
842.1
NO3 (Kg/day)
43.16
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
596.4
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
Q (m3/day)
22722.96
CO2 (Kg/day)
64.471
COD (Kg/day)
249.96
BOD5 (Kg/day)
68.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
181.1
NH4 (Kg/day)
18.4
NO3 (Kg/day)
212.9
TKN (Kg/day)
113.6
TP (Kg/day)
98.16

TABLE 3: Inventory Data for Subsystem 3 ((sludge treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 1 and 2
From the background function
Mixed sludge (m3/day)
1121.38
Electricity (Mwh)
4.4
Polymer (Kg/ton SS)
0.02
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
CO2 (Kg/day)
179.95
CH4 (Kg/day)
143.55

26-CSTR cascade system (2 pairs of 4 aerobic/8 anoxic):

TABLE 4: Inventory Data for Subsystem 2 (biological treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 2
From the background function
Q (m3/day)
22833.33
Electricity (Mwh)
3.22
COD (Kg/day)
9430.16
BOD5 (Kg/day)
4087.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
842.1
NO3 (Kg/day)
43.16
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
596.4
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
Q (m3/day)
22722.96
CO2 (Kg/day)
238.7
COD (Kg/day)
924.77
BOD5 (Kg/day)
427.87
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
9.88
NO3 (Kg/day)
7.92
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
568.3

TABLE 5: Inventory Data for Subsystem 3 ((sludge treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 1 and 2
From the background function
Mixed sludge (m3/day)
180.38
Electricity (Mwh)
6.55
Polymer (Kg/ton SS)
0.0298
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
CO2 (Kg/day)
60.061
CH4 (Kg/day)
104.80

26-CSTR cascade system (2 pairs of 3 aerobic/9 anoxic):

TABLE 6: Inventory Data for Subsystem 2 (biological treatment)
INPUTS
From the subsystem 2
From the background function
Q (m3/day)
22833.33
Electricity (Mwh)
2.58
COD (Kg/day)
9430.16
BOD5 (Kg/day)
4087.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
842.1
NO3 (Kg/day)
43.16
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
596.4
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
Q (m3/day)
22722.96
CO2 (Kg/day)
311.51
COD (Kg/day)
1207.76
BOD5 (Kg/day)
525.12
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
11.569
NO3 (Kg/day)
7.72
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
556.78

TABLE 7: Inventory Data for Subsystem 3 (sludge treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 1 and 2
From the background function
Mixed sludge (m3/day)
83.723
Electricity (Mwh)
2.49
Polymer (Kg/ton SS)
0.0113
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
CO2 (Kg/day)
27.44
CH4 (Kg/day)
41.1

26-CSTR cascade system (3 pairs of 2 aerobic/6 anoxic):

TABLE 8: Inventory Data for Subsystem 2 (biological treatment)
INPUTS
From the subsystem 2
From the background function
Q (m3/day)
22833.33
Electricity (Mwh)
2.58
COD (Kg/day)
9430.16
BOD5 (Kg/day)
4087.16
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
842.1
NO3 (Kg/day)
43.16
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
596.4
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
Q (m3/day)
22722.96
CO2 (Kg/day)
96.1
COD (Kg/day)
552.88
BOD5 (Kg/day)
240.38
SS/TSS (Kg/day)
3973
NH4 (Kg/day)
14.9
NO3 (Kg/day)
6.33
TKN (Kg/day)
1194.4
TP (Kg/day)
556.63

TABLE 9: Inventory Data for Subsystem 3 (sludge treatment)

INPUTS
From the subsystem 1 and 2
From the background function
Mixed sludge (m3/day)
766.33
Electricity (Mwh)
3.35
Polymer (Kg/ton SS)
0.0151
OUTPUTS to the environment
Emissions to water
Emissions to air
CO2 (Kg/day)
261.92
CH4 (Kg/day)
524.04

4. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS

In the first steps of the life cycle inventory analysis, classification and characterization emissions
and resources coming from the inventory are sorted into different groups or impact categories
according to their potential impact on the environment. The chosen impact categories are:

greenhouse, ozone layer, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, eutrophication, acidification, summer smog,
energy resources and solid waste.
Results from the characterization phase are shown in terms of relative contribution of subsystems to
the different categories (Figure 3). In Figure 4 the normalization results are presented, which allows
us to compare all the environmental impacts on the same scale.

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

20

10

10

0
ho

la
ye
r
Ec
ot
ox
ic
ity
H
um
an
to
xi
ci
ty
Eu
tro
fi c
at
io
n
Ac
id
i fi
ca
tio
Su
n
m
m
er
sm
En
og
er
gy
re
so
ur
se
s
So
lid
wa
st
e

en
G
re

26-CSTR cascade system (2 pairs of 4 aerobic/8 anoxic)

sub 3

sub 1
100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

sub 3

wa
st
e
id

So
l

En
er
gy

er

sm
og
re
so
ur
se
s

at
io
n
ifi
c

i ty

ic

to
xi
c

at
io
n

Ac
id

Su
m

Eu
tro
f

an

re
en
G

zo
ne

re
en
G

ox
ic
i ty

um

10

ho
us
e

20

10

la
ye
r
Ec
ot
ox
ic
ity
H
um
an
to
xi
ci
ty
Eu
tro
fic
at
io
n
Ac
id
ifi
ca
tio
Su
n
m
m
er
s
m
En
og
er
gy
re
so
ur
se
s
So
lid
wa
st
e

30

20

ho
us
e

40

30

26-CSTR cascade system (2 pairs of 3 aerobic/9 anoxic)

sub 2

50

40

Ec
ot

50

la
ye
r

100%

100

O
zo
ne

re
en
G

us
e

30

20

ho
us
e

40

30

sub 2

sub 3

50

40

sub 1

sub 2

e
la
ye
r
Ec
ot
ox
ic
ity
H
um
an
to
xic
ity
Eu
tro
fic
at
io
n
Ac
id
ifi
ca
tio
Su
n
m
m
er
sm
En
og
er
gy
re
so
ur
se
s
So
lid
wa
st
e

100%

100

Conventional WWTP

100%

sub 1

sub 3

O
zo
n

sub 2

zo
ne

100%

sub 1
100

26-CSTR cascade system (3 pairs of 2 aerobic/6 anoxic)

Figure 3. Characterization profiles for the four alternative scenarios.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this work a conventional WWTP established in the city of Patras (Greece) was compared with an
alternative scenario of 26-CSTR cascade system, operated with three different aeration patterns. For
all the scenarios the contribution of subsystem 2 to the impact categories examined is the most
important. The most affected impact category is the eutrophication, which is reduced when the
oxidation ditch is replaced by the 26-CSTR system.

14

oxidation ditch
26CSTR (2 pairs of 4 aerobic/8 anoxic)
26CSTR (2 pairs of 3 aerobic/9 anoxic)
26CSTR (3 pairs of 2 aerobic/6 anoxic)

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

wa
st
e
So
lid

Su
m
m
er
sm
og
En
er
gy
re
co
ur
se
s

Ac
id
ific
at
io
n

to
xic
ity
Eu
tro
ph
ica
tio
n

H
um
an

Ec
ot
ox
ici
ty

la
ye
r
O
zo
ne

G
re
en

ho
us
e

Figure 4. Normalization data for each impact category.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the European Social Fund (ESF), Operational Program for Educational
and Vocational Training II (EPEAEK II) and particularly the Program PYTHAGORAS I, for
funding the above work.
REFERENCES
1.

Consoli F., Allen D., Boustead I., Fava J., Franklin W., Jensen A., A de Oude N., Parrish P.,
Perriman R., Postlethwaite D., Quay B, Sguin J. and Vigon B. (1993) Guidelines for Life
Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice, SETAC.
2. ISO 14040 (1997) Environmental management life cycle assessment principles and
framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organisation (ISO).
3. Bengtsson M., Lundin M. and Sverker M. (1997) Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater
Systems. Case studies of conventional treatment, urine sorting and liquid composting in
three Swedish municipalities. Technical Environmental Planning Report. Gteborg, Sweden.
4. Clauson Kaas J. (2000) Environmental Accounting. A decision support tool in WWTP.
COIW, Consulting Engineers and Planners, Lyngby, Denmark.
5. Roeleveld P.J., Klapwijk A., Eggels P.G., Rulkens W.H. and Van Starkenburg W. (1997)
Sustainability of municipal wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology, 35(10):
221-228.
6. Vidal N., Poch M., Mart E. and Rodrguez-Roda I. (2002) Evaluation on the environmental
implications to include structural changes in a wastewater treatment plant. J. of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology, 77: 12061211.
7. Kornaros M., Marazioti C. and Lyberatos G. (2007) Optimization of Biological Nitrogen
Removal in a CSTR-cascade System Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on
Environmental Science and Technology, 5 - 7 September 2007, Kos Island, Greece, A-694700.
8. P.P.C. (Public Power Corporation S.A.) (2006) Installed power (MW) of PPC S.A.
powerstations. http://www.dei.gr
9. Henze M. and P. Harremoes (2000) Wastewater treatment: Biological and chemical
processes. Springer, Berlin
10. Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Fernndez-Couto, M. and Feijoo, F. (2004). Environmental
Performance of a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Int J LCA, 9(4): 261-271.