sustainability

Article
Life Cycle Assessment of a Domestic Wastewater Treatment
Plant Simulated with Alternative Operational Designs
Dania M. Allami, Mohamed T. Sorour , Medhat Moustafa, Ahmed Elreedy and Mai Fayed *

Sanitary Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21544, Egypt;
[email protected] (D.M.A.); [email protected] (M.T.S.); [email protected] (M.M.);
[email protected] (A.E.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a powerful tool to evaluate the environmental impacts of
domestic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operations. It involves a thorough evaluation of the
main characteristics or components of the environment, human health, and resources. However, the
literature to date is still lacking analysis on the widely varied designs and operational conditions
of full-scale WWTPs. The aim here was to integrate analyses such as LCA, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and energy consumption, when considering the environmental impacts of a full-scale
WWTP, which can provide practical outputs to aid decision-making on optimum designs and opera-
tional conditions. The Russtmiya domestic WWTP, located in Iraq, was considered as the case study.
Three operational alternatives were proposed as solutions to improve the WWTP’s performance, as
follows: (1) conventional activated sludge with sand filter (CAS), (2) conventional activated sludge
with sand filter and nitrogen removal (CAS-N), and (3) membrane bioreactor (MBR). The operation
of such alternatives was investigated through modeling and simulation using GPS-X 8.0.1 software.
The energy consumption of each alternative was estimated via GPS-X, while the GHG emissions
were estimated using three different methods according to the intergovernmental panel on climate
change (IPCC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and GPS-X software.
The OpenLCA software (1.10.3) was used to measure all impact categories at both the midpoint and
Citation: Allami, D.M.; Sorour, M.T.; endpoint levels using various methods. As a conclusion, comparing the three proposed alternatives
Moustafa, M.; Elreedy, A.; Fayed, M. indicated that: (1) the MBR alternative provided the lowest energy consumption and moderate GHG
Life Cycle Assessment of a Domestic emissions, and (2) the CAS alternative provided the best environmental performance, particularly
Wastewater Treatment Plant
in aspects such as ozone depletion, global warming, and climate change, where the lowest GHGs
Simulated with Alternative
emission values had the major contribution.
Operational Designs. Sustainability
2023, 15, 9033. https://doi.org/
Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); case study; energy
10.3390/su15119033
consumption; GPS-X; OpenLCA
Academic Editor: Andreas
Angelakis

Received: 15 March 2023

Revised: 27 May 2023 1. Introduction
Accepted: 30 May 2023 The treatment of domestic wastewater is one of the crucial issues facing Iraq’s environ-
Published: 2 June 2023 mental systems. Currently, not all Iraqis have access to services for wastewater treatment.
Only ten out of eighteen governorates in Iraq are equipped with wastewater treatment
facilities [1]. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are managed to mitigate environmental
degradation by eliminating pollutants from wastewater before its discharge [2]. To a certain
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
degree, it is possible for pollutants present in effluent to be discharged into the atmosphere,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
including emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) [3].
This article is an open access article
Before the construction of WWTPs according to a certain design and operation, studies
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
such as life cycle assessment (LCA) are essential to make sure it will not hurt the environ-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
ment. LCA examines environmental factors and quantifies the potential effects of WWTPs
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
over the course of their entire lives in a variety of categories, including resource use, the
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119033 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 2 of 16

impact on climate change, water pollution, waste production, etc. Although WWTPs in-
duce direct positive environmental effects, they also have negative environmental impacts
because they require much energy to run the wastewater infrastructure and treatment
facilities [4]. Compliance with environmental regulatory requirements and technology
costs should be considered [5], among other factors such as location, socioeconomic condi-
tions, and regional and global environmental impacts. For this, LCA tools are frequently
employed using a variety of software, including Semipro, OpenLCA, Gabi, Umberto, and
others [6].
OpenLCA is a well-known and user-friendly software program that enables the user
to consider all of the LCA stages [7,8]. This tool also has the benefit of giving users the
option to work with various databases. Experts endorse OpenLCA because of its user
friendliness and original database [9]. LCA can contribute to the optimization of operational
parameters in WWTPs and meet the requirements outlined in ISO 14040, thereby providing
acceptable access to the optimal decision [10]. The use of LCA ensures that all effects
on the environment are examined and compared within the LCA framework of different
types of WWTPs [11]. The LCA methodology enables the quantification of the effects
of the entire system under study by considering a variety of GHG emissions, energy
consumption, and material inputs and outputs throughout its life cycle [12–14]. Previous
studies have established a series of methodologies to estimate the GHG emissions from
WWTPs, such as those by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the
intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), and GPS-X software [15,16]. In addition,
the ECAM tool software was used to evaluate the sustainability of WWTPs in terms of
energy efficiency and GHG emissions [17]. The results indicated that a WWTP sustainability
assessment should be implemented as a significant tool to assist through introducing low-
energy, low-carbon management techniques as well as being useful for policy suggestions.
A study considering a Swedish WWTP was used to develop dynamic models for GHG
emissions, energy consumption, operational costs, and LCA [18,19], where the results
showed how important LCA and plant-wide mechanistic models are for understanding
how plants work and what effects they might have on the environment. Integrating LCA
and WWTP dynamic models showed that optimization of WWTP operations can reduce
their GHG emissions [20]. Another study showed that LCA can be used to compare the
environmental effects of several types of WWTPs. This highlights the significance of
including LCA in the design of a WWTP. Further, previous studies highlighted the impacts
of WWTP GHG emissions, energy consumption, and carbon footprints on the environment
via LCA [21–28].
However, to date, LCA studies on full-scale WWTP-related design/operational al-
ternatives are still limited despite their significant impacts on decision-making regarding
environmental conservation and moving toward the sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Different designs of WWTPs based on many technical/economic/social factors exist, which
can indeed affect the potential strategies to improve performance. For this purpose, ana-
lyzing existing WWTP designs and suitable alternatives for improvement, via simulation,
would provide practical and accurate outputs for the decision-making stage. Thus, the goal
of this study was to conduct an LCA using OpenLCA for a domestic WWTP (the Russtmiya
WWTP, as a case study) by combining the environmental impacts of GHG emissions and
energy consumption, using the tools from USEPA, IPCC, and GPS-X software. Simulated
outputs from three proposed alternatives to improve the performance of a WWTP, using
GPS-X software, were then assessed to emphasize the key role of such analyses when
optimizing the operation/design of WWTPs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Case-Study WWTP
One of Iraq’s first wastewater treatment facilities is the Russtmiya WWTP, which
serves almost a third of Baghdad’s population. According to earlier studies, however, the
effectiveness of treating pollutants has deteriorated. Overflow and inadequate capacity are
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 are significant challenges at the wastewater treatment plant in Baghdad [29,30]. Due to 3 ofthe
16
growth and increasing population density of Baghdad, it was necessary to construct an
extension to the WWTP, officially known as the new Russtmiya WWTP [31]. The plant’s
design capacity
significant is 475,000
challenges m3wastewater
at the /d. A 407,000treatment
square meter
plantland area was[29,30].
in Baghdad createdDueto contain
to the
three parallel
growth processing
and increasing units. The
population biological
density treatment
of Baghdad, at the
it was Russtmiya
necessary WWTP de-
to construct an
pended ontoactivated
extension the WWTP, sludge [29].known
officially The effluent characteristics
as the new Russtmiya of the wastewater
WWTP to be
[31]. The plant’s
treated capacity
design at the Russtmiya m3 /d. and
is 475,000WWTP the Iraqi
A 407,000 standard
square meterare shown
land area in
wasTable 1. to contain
created
three parallel processing units. The biological treatment at the Russtmiya WWTP depended
Table
on 1. Specifications
activated of influent
sludge [29]. and effluent
The effluent of the Russtmiya
characteristics of the WWTP according
wastewater to betotreated
Iraqi effluent
at the
standards.
Russtmiya WWTP and the Iraqi standard are shown in Table 1.
Indicator
Table 1. Specifications Influent
of influent and effluent Effluentaccording
of the Russtmiya WWTP Standards
to Iraqi
Discharge (m
effluent standards.
3/day) 450,000
pH 7.36 6.5–8
Indicator (°C)
Temperature Influent
22 Effluent<35
Standards
Discharge (m3 /day)
BOD (mg/L) 450,000
264 <40
CODpH (mg/L) 7.36
450 6.5–8
<100
Temperature (◦ C) 22 <35
TSS (mg/L) 300 60
BOD (mg/L) 264 <40
TDS (mg/L)
COD (mg/L) 1217
450 <100
Nitrate (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L) 6.6
300 50
60
TDS (mg/L)
Phosphate (mg/L) 1217
17.6 3
Nitrate (mg/L) 6.6 50
Sulphate (mg/L) 448 400
Phosphate (mg/L) 17.6 3
Chloride (mg/L)
Sulphate (mg/L) 664
448 600
400
Source: Northern Russtmiya WWTP; standards 664
Chloride (mg/L) according to Alanbari et al. [30]. 600
Source: Northern Russtmiya WWTP; standards according to Alanbari et al. [30].
2.2. Examined Operational Alternatives
2.2. Examined Operational Alternatives
This study focused on the extension of the Russtmiya WWTP (namely the “new
Russtmiyastudy
This focused
WWTP”) on the extension
in Baghdad to evaluateofthetheprospective
RusstmiyaLCA WWTP (namely
of the the “new
suggested treat-
Russtmiya WWTP”) in Baghdad to evaluate the prospective LCA of the suggested
ment methods and assist the decision-makers in selecting the best method with the treatment
lowest
methods and assist
environmental impacttheassessment.
decision-makers in selecting
An empirical the was
equation bestused
method with
for the the lowest
design sizing
environmental impact assessment. An empirical equation was used for the design
of the proposed alternatives, then the design and effluent quality were checked according sizing of
the proposed
to Iraqi alternatives,
standards then 8.0.1
using GPS-X the design andemission
[32]. The effluent of
quality
GHGswereandchecked according to
energy consumption
Iraqi
were standards
estimated using GPS-X
by GPS-X, 8.0.1
and [32].the
finally TheLCA
emission of GHGs and
was evaluated usingenergy consumption
OpenLCA for each
were
alternative. The proposed frameworks to achieve this objective were (1) activatedfor
estimated by GPS-X, and finally the LCA was evaluated using OpenLCA each
sludge
alternative. The proposed frameworks to achieve this objective were (1) activated
with slow sand filters (CAS), (2) activated sludge with nitrogen removal and sand filter sludge
with slow sand filters (CAS), (2) activated sludge with nitrogen removal and sand filter
(CAS-N), and (3) membrane bioreactor (MBR) [33], as also presented in Figure 1.
(CAS-N), and (3) membrane bioreactor (MBR) [33], as also presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diagram of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the operational alternatives
proposed in the current study.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17

Figure 1. Diagram of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and the operational alternatives pro-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 4 of 16
posed in the current study.

2.3. Estimation of GHG Emissions and Energy Consumption

2.3. Estimation
Direct GHGof GHG Emissions
emissions, suchand
as Energy
carbon Consumption
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are gen-
eratedDirect GHG emissions,
and released in sewers such
andasWWTPs
carbon dioxide, methane,
during the andtreatment
biological nitrous oxide, are gener-
of wastewater
ated and released
and sewage sludgein[34].
sewers andare
There WWTPs
numerousduring the biological
methods to estimatetreatment of wastewater
GHG emissions, and
and sewage sludge [34]. There are numerous methods to estimate GHG emissions,
the following are the three methods used in this study. First, GPS-X was used for calculat- and the
following are the three methods used in this study. First, GPS-X was
ing direct N2O and CO2 emissions to determine the carbon footprint of three different used for calculating
direct N2WWTP.
types of O and CO The2 emissions
ideal model to determine the carbon
for estimating footprint
greenhouse gases ofisthree different
Mantis 3, the types
methodof
WWTP. The ideal model for estimating greenhouse gases is Mantis 3, the
used in the program is according to scope 3 emissions, and the unit used was CO2eq [30]. method used in
the program
Second, is according
the standard methodto scope
by the3 emissions, and thein
IPCC, established unit used
2006, waswas CO2 eq [30].
considered [35].Second,
Third,
the standard method by the IPCC, established in 2006, was considered
the method provided by the USEPA was considered. Given that USEPA believes that car- [35]. Third, the
method provided by the USEPA was considered. Given that USEPA believes
bon from bio-genic sources in aerated tanks may contribute to the greenhouse effect and that carbon
from bio-geniccarbon
that reducing sourcesfromin aerated tanks may
sustainable contribute
sources to the
may delay itsgreenhouse
emission cycle effectand
andeven
that
reducing carbon from sustainable sources may delay its emission
global warming, an adopted method from the IPCC protocol was considered to estimate cycle and even global
warming, an adopted method from the IPCC protocol was considered to estimate CO2
CO2 emissions [36].
emissions [36].
Likewise, the energy consumption of various activities employed in WWTPs, includ-
Likewise, the energy consumption of various activities employed in WWTPs, including
ing aeration, mixing, and pumping, was estimated using the GPS-X software. An included
aeration, mixing, and pumping, was estimated using the GPS-X software. An included tool
tool was used to determine how much energy each process unit uses.
was used to determine how much energy each process unit uses.
2.4. LCA
2.4. LCA Considerations
Considerations and and Software
Software
To evaluate
To evaluate how
how substantially
substantially the the life
life cycle
cycle affects
affects the
the way
way LCA
LCA results
results are
are translated
translated
into linked environmental effects and damage from a WWTP,
into linked environmental effects and damage from a WWTP, an assessment of an assessment of impacts
impacts
and damage
and damage waswas created.
created. The
The results
results ofof the
the LCA
LCA cancan be
be combined
combined into
into an
an understandable,
understandable,
user-friendly unit using this practical tool, which is helpful for planners
user-friendly unit using this practical tool, which is helpful for planners [19]. The OpenLCA [19]. The
OpenLCA program was used to investigate the LCA of the WWTP
program was used to investigate the LCA of the WWTP [37,38]. The program looked [37,38]. The program
at the
looked at the results of an OpenLCA application that used different methods
results of an OpenLCA application that used different methods to figure out the advantages to figure out
the advantages and disadvantages of the Russtmiya WWTP. The
and disadvantages of the Russtmiya WWTP. The open LCA program was used to analyze open LCA program was
usedLCA
the to analyze the LCA
of the WWTP of the WWTP
according according
to methods of LCAto methods
(HTP 100ofReCiPe,
LCA (HTPGlobal100warming
ReCiPe,
Global warming
IMPACT IMPACTchange
2002+, climate 2002+, GWP20
climate change
(ReCiPe), GWP20
CML2001,(ReCiPe), CML2001,
Boulay Boulay
et al 2011 et al
(Human
2011 (Human
Health) Health)
[39], Pfister et al[39],
2010Pfister et al[40],
(ReCiPe) 2010and(ReCiPe)
CMhuman [40], Toxicity)
and CMhuman
[41]. TheToxicity)
stages of[41].
the
The stages of the LCA analysis of the studied WWTP, the mid-point
LCA analysis of the studied WWTP, the mid-point categories, and damages listed in the categories, and dam-
ages listed
LCA resultsinare
thepresented
LCA results are presented
in Figure 2. in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The stages of life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis using OpenLCA software.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 5 of 16

3. Results and Discussion

The findings of the study were split into four categories. The three design options
for the new Russtmiya WWTP extension are listed in the first section. Three approaches
were used in the second portion of the computation of GHG emissions from the WWTP
(IPCC, USEPA, and GPS-X). Third was the energy consumption of the WWTP during
operation. In the last section, the OpenLCA program’s LCA of the WWTP evaluated each
proposed alternative.

3.1. First Alternative: Conventional Activated Sludge with Sand Filter (CAS)
3.1.1. Result of the Preliminary Design of Russtmiya WWTP
The initial purpose of this work was to design a CAS utilizing guidelines. The parame-
ters of wastewater that were used for the empirical design of the proposed alternative (CAS)
were acquired from the WWTP that handles sewage for Baghdad, Iraq. The majority of
the design requirements and equations were collected from main references in WWTP [42]
for CAS. Designs for a certain guideline were developed by defining influent wastewater
characteristics, specifying operating preferences (e.g., DO and MLSS concentrations in
the reactors), and selecting and setting the effluent criteria. Reactor volumes, air blower
capacity, and pumping capacity were the design outputs. Table 2 provides a summary of
the CAS alternative’s architecture [43,44].
Table 2. The outcomes of the alternative CAS (conventional activated sludge with sand filter) design
proposed for the Russtmiya WWTP.

The Included Units for Phase One CAS

Pretreatment
Number of screenings 100
Screening
Area of each channel screen, m2 10 m2
Number of tanks 5
Aerated grit chamber Volume of each tank, m3 239 m3
Primary treatment
Number of tanks 5
Diameter, m 40 m
Secondary treatment
Number of tanks 15
Volume of each tank, m3 2794 m3
MLVSS, mg/L 3500
Aerobic tank
F/M ratio, gBOD5 /g day 0.31 gBOD5 /g MLVSS d
Required oxygen kg O2 /d 36,998.17 kg O2 /d
Solid retention time day 6
Number of tanks 15
Secondary sedimentation tank
Diameter, m 40 m
Efficiency of BOD removal with sand filter 96.7%

3.1.2. Estimation of GHG Emissions

Figure S1 below illustrates the outcomes of the three GHG estimation approaches. CO2
emissions differed by 143,227.5 t-CO2 /m3 between GPS-X and the USEPA,
3606.4 t-CO2 /m3 between the IPCC and the USEPA, and 9106.9 t-CO2 /m3 between GPS-X
and the IPCC. According to the results of the three methods for calculating GHG emissions
(CO2 , N2 O), GPS-X calculated the greatest quantity. This is because the most recent edition
of GPS-X calculates all sectors, including sludge treatment. In contrast to research done for
the Alexandria WWTP using an older version of the program, the USEPA method gave the
highest value in a previous evaluation [45].

3.1.3. Energy Consumption

GPS-X 8.0 estimates the energy consumption of processes such as aeration, mixing,
and pumping. It is an extremely useful tool. During the operational phase of the WWTP,
Figure 3 displays the schematic energy consumption of the alternate activated sludge with
 GPS-X calculates all sectors, including sludge treatment. In contrast to research done for
the Alexandria WWTP using an older version of the program, the USEPA method gave
the highest value in a previous evaluation [45].

3.1.3. Energy Consumption

Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 6 of 16
GPS-X 8.0 estimates the energy consumption of processes such as aeration, mixing,
and pumping. It is an extremely useful tool. During the operational phase of the WWTP,
Figure 3 displays the schematic energy consumption of the alternate activated sludge with
aa sand filter.Each
sand filter. Eachaeration
aeration tank
tank uses
uses 2314.54
2314.54 kilowatt
kilowatt hours
hours of electricity
of electricity peron
per day, day,
topon top of
the 389.29-
of the 389.29-kilowatt
kilowatthours
hours of electricity
electricityper
perday
dayused
used
byby
thethe influent
influent andand the 201.6
the 201.6 kilo- kilowatt
watt hours
hours of electricity
of electricity perper
dayday used
used bybythe
thedigestor.
digestor.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
TheGPS-X
GPS-Xrelated layout
related for for
layout energy consumption
energy in kilowatt
consumption hours per
in kilowatt day per
hours (kWh/d) of
day (kWh/d) of
the first alternative CAS (conventional activated sludge with sand filter) during operation of one
the first alternative CAS (conventional activated sludge with sand filter) during operation of one line
line of treatment.
of treatment.
Regarding the percentage of energy required by each component of the WWTP dur-
Regarding the percentage of energy required by each component of the WWTP during
ing operation of one line of the WWTP, 81.7% of the energy consumed was used for the
operation of one line of the WWTP, 81.7% of the energy consumed was used for the aeration
aeration tanks, 10.3% was used for mixing, and 5.6% was used for pumping.
tanks, 10.3% was used for mixing, and 5.6% was used for pumping.
3.1.4. LCA for the Alternative
3.1.4. LCA for the Alternative
The conclusions of the LCA analysis performed as part of the open LCA program
Thediverse
utilizing conclusions of the
approaches areLCA analysis
presented performed
in Table as part
S1. The table of thehow
illustrates opentheLCA
alter-program
utilizing
native CAS diverse
impactsapproaches are presented
a variety of categories, in human
such as Table S1. Thestratospheric
toxicity, table illustrates
ozonehow the
alternative CAS impacts
depletion, climate change, a airvariety
odors, of categories,
global warming,such as human
ionizing toxicity,
radiation, stratospheric
and aquatic eco- ozone
depletion, climate
toxicity, with change,
the least influenceairon
odors, global
ionizing warming,
radiation, ionizing
ecosystem radiation,
quality, and aquatic eco-
abiotic resource
depletion,with
toxicity, and the
humanleasthealth [46]. on ionizing radiation, ecosystem quality, abiotic resource
influence
depletion, and human health [46].

3.2. Second Alternative: Conventional Activated Sludge with Sand Filter and Nitrogen
Removal (CAS-N)
3.2.1. Results of the Preliminary Design of Russtmiya WWTP
The primary objective of this study was to construct the proposed alternative to CAS-N
using guidelines. The wastewater parameters used in the empirical design of the CAS-N
were acquired from the WWTP that processes Baghdad, Iraq’s sewage. The majority of
design requirements and equations were acquired according to Metcalf and Eddy (2003) [42].
In order to determine the designs for a specific guideline, influent wastewater parameters,
operational preferences (e.g., DO and MLSS concentrations in the reactors), and effluent
requirements were defined. Reactor volumes, air blower capacity, and pumping capacity
were the design outputs, 3500 was the MLVSS used to design a complete-mix activated
sludge operation with or without a denitrification system. The findings of the proposed
alternative’s (CAS-N) preliminary design are presented in Table 3 below.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 7 of 16

Table 3. The outcomes of the alternative CAS-N (conventional activated sludge with sand filter and
nitrogen removal) design proposed for the Russtmiya WWTP.

The Included Units for Phase One CAS-N

Pretreatment
Number of screenings 100
Screening
Area of each channel screen, m2 10 m2
Number of tanks 5
Aerated grit chamber Volume of each tank, m3 239 m3
Primary treatment
Number of tanks 5
Diameter, m 40 m
Secondary treatment
Number of tanks 20
Volume of each tank, m3 1042 m3
Anoxic tank
MLVSS, mg/L 2221.27 mg/L
F/M ratio, gBOD5 /g day 0.95 g BOD5 /g day
Number of tanks 20
Volume of each tank, m3 3155 m3
MLVSS, mg/L 3500
Aerobic tank F/M ratio, gBOD5 /g day 0.2 gBOD5/g MLVSS ·d
Required oxygen kg O2 /d 75,457,608.78 Kg O2 /d
Solid retention time day 10
Number of tanks 20
Secondary sedimentation tank
Diameter, m 35 m
Efficiency of BOD removal with sand filter 97%

3.2.2. Estimation of GHG Emissions

Figure S2 displays three methods for estimating GHG in CAS-N. The GPS-X and
USEPA methods disagreed by 176,165.8 t-CO2 /m3 , the IPCC and USEPA methods by
6322.1 t-CO2 /m3 , and the disparities due to N2 O were 20,580.9 t-CO2 /m3 for the GPS-X
and USEPA methods and 12,657.1 t-CO2 /m3 for the IPCC method. The IPCC method had
the lowest value of all of the estimated options because it does not count carbon dioxide in
its calculations.

3.2.3. Energy Consumption

GPS-X 8.0 estimates the energy required for aeration, mixing, pumping, and other
processes. Figure 4 depicts the alternative CAS-N schematic’s energy consumption during
the WWTP’s operational period. Each nitrification tank’s daily energy consumption was
1239.35 kilowatt-hours. The influent then needed 301.43 kWh per day, while the denitrifi-
cation tank and digester each used 201.9 kWh per day. Among the proportions of energy
consumed by each component of the WWTP while it was operational, the energy required
for aeration was 64.6%, mixing was 26.5%, and pumping, which used the least amount
of energy, was at 5.7%, according to the configuration of one line of a WWTP and the pie
chart below.

3.2.4. LCA for the Alternative

The effects of CAS-N on climate change, human toxicity, stratospheric ozone depletion,
and other categories were depicted using various approaches based on the results of the
LCA study. The OpenLCA program uses various methods of analysis to determine the
environmental impact of suggested treatment methods, as shown in Table S2. Depletion of
abiotic resources, ozone depletion, marine eutrophication, ecosystem quality, and human
health have small effects. Climate change, global warming, airborne odors, aquatic eco-
toxicity, and other causes, on the other hand, have major effects.
 processes. Figure 4 depicts the alternative CAS-N schematic’s energy consumption during
the WWTP’s operational period. Each nitrification tank’s daily energy consumption was
1239.35 kilowatt-hours. The influent then needed 301.43 kWh per day, while the denitrifi-
cation tank and digester each used 201.9 kWh per day. Among the proportions of energy
consumed by each component of the WWTP while it was operational, the energy required
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 for aeration was 64.6%, mixing was 26.5%, and pumping, which used the least amount of 8 of 16
energy, was at 5.7%, according to the configuration of one line of a WWTP and the pie
chart below.

Figure 4.4.The
Figure TheGPS-X
GPS-Xrelated layout
related for energy
layout consumption
for energy in kilowatts
consumption (kW) of the(kW)
in kilowatts second
of alterna-
the second alter-
tive: CAS-N (conventional activated sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal) of one line of
native: CAS-N (conventional activated sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal) of one line
treatment.
of treatment.
3.2.4. LCA for the Alternative
3.3. Third Alternative: Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
3.3.1.The effects of CAS-N on climate change, human toxicity, stratospheric ozone deple-
Result of the Preliminary Design of Russtmiya WWTP
tion, and other categories were depicted using various approaches based on the results of
Thestudy.
the LCA primaryThe objective
OpenLCA of this study
program was tomethods
uses various developofguidelines for the proposed
analysis to determine
alternative MBR. The characteristics of wastewater employed in the empirical
the environmental impact of suggested treatment methods, as shown in Table S2. Deple- design of the
MBR
tion ofwere
abioticacquired from
resources, thedepletion,
ozone WWTP inmarine
Baghdad, Iraq, which
eutrophication, treats sewage.
ecosystem quality, The
and majority
of the design
human requirements
health have small effects.and equations
Climate change,were
globalacquired from WWTP-related
warming, airborne odors, aquatic sources
eco-toxicity,
(Park and other
et al., 2015 causes,
for MBR). Inon the other
order hand, have
to determine themajor effects.
designs for a specific guideline, influent
wastewater parameters, operational preferences (e.g., DO and MLSS concentrations in the
3.3. Third Alternative:
reactors), Membrane
and effluent Bioreactorwere
requirements (MBR) defined. Reactor volumes, air blower capacity,
3.3.1. Result of the Preliminary Design of
and pumping capacity were the design outputs.Russtmiya WWTP
Because the membrane was utilized as
Theinprimary
a filter objective
aeration tanks of
asthis study was
opposed to develop
to gravity guidelines for the
sedimentation proposed
tanks, alter-
the bioreactor was
native MBR.
smaller thanThe
in characteristics
CAS procedures. of wastewater
The MBR employed
systeminwas
the designed
empirical design
using of
anthe
MLVSS of
8000 mg/L. The results of the preliminary MBR design for the proposed alternative are
provided in Table 4.

3.3.2. Estimation of GHG Emissions

Figure S3 describes the results of the three approaches used to estimate GHG in
MBR. In terms of CO2 emissions, the difference between GPS-X and the USEPA methods
was 177,921.65 tCO2 /m3 , the difference between the IPCC and USEPA methods was
4375.35 tCO2 /m3 , and the difference resulting from N2 O was −20,093.1 tCO2 /m3 for GPS-
X and the USEPA methods, compared to 17,147 tCO2 /m3 for the IPCC method. The MBR
treatment process produced the smallest amount of N2 O and CO2 emissions due to its low
running energy needs and efficient design.

3.3.3. Energy Consumption

Based on the MBR’s energy consumption, GPS-X 8.0 determined the energy required
for aeration, mixing, pumping, and other tasks. Figure 5 depicts a schematic of energy
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 9 of 16

consumption during the WWTP’s operational period. Each aeration tank consumed
830.62 kilowatt-hours of power every day. The digester, therefore, consumed 201.9 kwh/d,
whilst the influent consumed 389.29 kwh/d. Regarding the percentages of energy con-
sumed by each component of the WWTP’s operation phase, energy use was influenced by
aeration power (58%), mixing power usage (24%), and pumping power usage (11.9%).

Table 4. The outcomes of the alternate MBR design suggested for the Russtmiya WWTP.

The Included Units for Phase One MBR

Pretreatment
Number of screenings 100
Screening
Area of each channel screen, m2 10 m2
Number of tanks 5
Aerated grit chamber
Volume of each tank, m3 239 m3
Primary treatment
Number of tanks 5
Diameter, m 40 m
Secondary treatment
Number of tanks 15
Volume of each tank, m3 1389 m3
Anoxic tank
MLVSS, mg/L 2120.3 mg/L
F/M ratio, gBOD5 /g day 0.9 g/g day
Number of tanks 15
Volume of each tank, m3 3037 m3
MLVSS, mg/L 8000
Aerobic tank
F/M ratio, gBOD5 /g day 0.2 gBOD5 /g MLVSS ·d
Required oxygen kg O2 /d 286,459.2 kg O2 /d
Solid retention time day 20
Number of membrane tanks 75
Volume of each tank, m3 220.5
Immerged membrane Total membrane area m2 744,053.6 m2
Aeration requirement m3 /h 388,824.88 m3 /h
Design flux, L/m2 h 14 L/m2 h
Efficiency of BOD removal with sand filter 99%

3.3.4. LCA for the Alternative

The LCA study in the OpenLCA program used various methods of analysis to de-
termine the environmental effects of suggested treatment procedures. Table S3 displays
the consequences of MBR in many categories, such as human toxicity, stratospheric ozone
depletion, climate change, and other factors. Climate change, resources, ecosystem quality,
human health, and terrestrial eco-toxicity were the large-impact factors. Ionizing radiation,
depletion of abiotic resources, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidation (summer smog),
and marine eutrophication were the low-impact factors.

3.4. Comparison between the Three Alternatives

3.4.1. Estimation of GHG Emissions
CO2 emissions are not considered in the IPCC’s approach [47]. There is limited
literature available that presents comprehensive data on GHG emissions from receiving
water. However, the emission factor (EF) used in the calculation was based on the guidelines
provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as reported by
Zhuang et al. (2020) [48,49].CO2 emissions were equivalent in value in CAS, CAS-N, and
MBR due to the USEPA’s methodology not focusing on the type of operation [38] Other
nations, including the United States and China, emit the same quantity of GHG kgCO2 /m3
from WWTPs, ranging from 0.12 to 0.2 kg-CO2 /m3 [49]. The GPS-X program calculation
of GHG emissions had the highest value because version 8.01 of GPS-X also accounts
for NO2 emissions and emissions from the sludge treatment phase. The MBR method is
appropriate in terms of GHG emissions since it has lower emissions, particularly of N2 O
gases. In China, various treatment methods pertaining to industrial WWTPs have been
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 10 of 16

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

explored. The results indicated that among the alternatives studied, namely oxidation ditch
membrane bioreactor (MBR), sequencing batch reactor (SBR), anaerobic–anoxic-oxic (AAO),
and anaerobic-oxic (AO), the latter two exhibited the lowest GHG emissions [48]. Figure 6
consumption during the WWTP’s operational period. Each aeration tank consumed
below compares the three proposed alternatives to the three methods (IPCC, USEPA, and
830.62 kilowatt-hours of power every day. The digester, therefore, consumed 201.9 kwh/d,
GPS-X) and
whilst the revealsconsumed
influent that the GPS-X program
389.29 kwh/d. CAS-N has
Regarding the the highest GHG
percentages estimation
of energy con- value,
while
sumed by each component of the WWTP’s operation phase, energy use was influenced by between
the CAS with sand filter has the lowest; for USEPA and IPCC, the difference
the proposed
aeration poweralternatives
(58%), mixingispower
minimal.
usage (24%), and pumping power usage (11.9%).

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

GHG emissions had the highest value because version 8.01 of GPS-X also accounts for NO2
emissions and emissions from the sludge treatment phase. The MBR method is appropri-
ate in terms of GHG emissions since it has lower emissions, particularly of N2O gases. In
China, various treatment methods pertaining to industrial WWTPs have been explored.
The results indicated that among the alternatives studied, namely oxidation ditch mem-
brane bioreactor (MBR), sequencing batch reactor (SBR), anaerobic–anoxic-oxic (AAO),
and anaerobic-oxic (AO), the latter two exhibited the lowest GHG emissions [48]. Figure
6 below compares the three proposed alternatives to the three methods (IPCC, USEPA,
and GPS-X) and reveals that the GPS-X program CAS-N has the highest GHG estimation
value,
Figure while
Figure 5.
5. The the CAS
TheGSP-X
GSP-X with
related sand
layout
related forfilter
layout the has
for third
the the alternative,
lowest;
alternative,
third i.e.,for USEPA
membrane
i.e., and IPCC,
bioreactor
membrane thefor
(MBR),
bioreactordifference
(MBR), for
energy consumption
between the in kilowatt
proposed hours per is
alternatives day (kWh/d) during operation of one line of treatment.
minimal.
energy consumption in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/d) during operation of one line of treatment.
3.3.4. LCA for the Alternative
250,000
The LCA study IPCC
in the OpenLCA program used various methods of analysis to deter-
GHG emissions ton-CO2/m3

USEPAeffects of suggested treatment procedures. Table S3 displays the

mine the environmental
200,000 of MBR in many categories, such as human toxicity, stratospheric ozone
consequences GPS-X
depletion, climate change, and other factors. Climate change, resources, ecosystem qual-
150,000health, and terrestrial eco-toxicity were the large-impact factors. Ionizing ra-
ity, human
diation, depletion of abiotic resources, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidation (sum-
mer smog), and marine eutrophication were the low-impact factors.
100,000
3.4. Comparison between the Three Alternatives
50,000
3.4.1. Estimation of GHG Emissions
CO2 emissions are not considered in the IPCC’s approach [47]. There is limited liter-
0 that presents comprehensive data on GHG emissions from receiving water.
ature available
However, the emission CAS factor (EF) used in theCAS-N calculation was basedMBR on the guidelines
provided by the Intergovernmental Proposed Panel on alternatives
Climate Change (IPCC), as reported by
Zhuang et al. (2020) [48,49].CO2 emissions were equivalent in value in CAS, CAS-N, and
Figure
Figure
MBR due The
6. The
6. resulting
resulting
to the USEPA’s total
total emissions of
emissions
methodology of
not GHGs
GHGs from
from
focusing the
onthe proposed
theproposed alternatives
alternatives
type of operation according
[38]according
Other to to the
the
IPCC,
IPCC, USEPA,
USEPA,
nations, and
including GPS-X
andthe
GPS-X
Unitedmethods.
methods. CAS,
CAS,
States and conventional
conventional
China, activated
activated
emit the same sludge
sludge
quantity with
withsand
of GHG sand filter;
kgCO /m CAS-N,
2filter;
3 CAS-N,
conventional
from WWTPs,
conventional activated sludge
rangingsludge
from 0.12with
with sand
tosand filterand
0.2 kg-CO
filter and nitrogen
2/m3nitrogen removal
[49]. Theremoval unit;MBR,
GPS-X program
unit; MBR, membrane
calculation
membrane bioreac-
ofbioreactor.
tor.
Figure 7 compares the three proposed alternatives based on their emissions of CH4 ,
N2 O,Figure 7 2compares
and CO . Based onthe
thethree proposed
comparison, alternatives
the alternativebased
CAS-N onhad
their
theemissions of 2CH
greatest CO 4,
and
N2O, and CO2. Based on the comparison, the alternative CAS-N had the greatest CO2 and
N2O emissions, while the alternative CAS had the lowest emissions. From this compari-
son, MBR had the lowest N2O emissions and the highest CH4 emissions, whereas CAS-N
had the highest overall emissions; sludge production in CAS-N was the highest, and low-
est in CAS.
 Figure 6. The resulting total emissions of GHGs from the proposed alternatives according to the
IPCC, USEPA, and GPS-X methods. CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; CAS-N,
conventional activated sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal unit; MBR, membrane bioreac-
tor.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 11 of 16
Figure 7 compares the three proposed alternatives based on their emissions of CH4,
N2O, and CO2. Based on the comparison, the alternative CAS-N had the greatest CO2 and
N 2O emissions, while the alternative CAS had the lowest emissions. From this compari-
N2 O emissions, while the alternative CAS had the lowest emissions. From this comparison,
son,
MBRMBR had had the lowest
the lowest N2 ONemissions
2O emissions and the highest CH4 emissions, whereas CAS-N
and the highest CH4 emissions, whereas CAS-N had
had the highest overall emissions; sludge
the highest overall emissions; sludge production
production in CAS-N
in CAS-N was
was thethe highest,
highest, and
and low-
lowest
est in
in CAS.CAS.

0.0056
N₂O
0.0048 CH₄
CO₂
Emissions (ton-CO2/m3)

0.004 Total emissions

0.0032

0.0024

0.0016

0.0008

0
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW CAS CAS-N MBR 12 of 17

Proposed alternatives

FigureFigure 7. Comparison
7. Comparison of the of the proposed
three three proposed alternatives
alternatives according
according to GHGto GHG emissions
emissions assessed
assessed with with
GPS-X. CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; CAS-N, conventional
GPS-X. CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; CAS-N, conventional activated sludge activated sludge
with filter
with sand sand and
filternitrogen
and nitrogen
removalremoval unit; MBR,
unit; MBR, membrane
membrane bioreactor.
bioreactor.

3.4.2. Energy Consumption

3.4.2. Energy Consumption
Due to the WWTP consumption of diffuser air, the aeration phase in the pie chart
Due to the WWTP consumption of diffuser air, the aeration phase in the pie chart had
had the largest consumption. According to the GPS-X estimates, the MBR used the small-
the largest consumption. According to the GPS-X estimates, the MBR used the smallest
est amount of energy, and the activated sludge with sand filter (CAS) consumed the
amount of energy, and the activated sludge with sand filter (CAS) consumed the most
most energy during operation of the WWTP. Activated sludge activities consumed 0.30
energy during operation of the WWTP. Activated sludge activities consumed 0.30 to 0.60
to 0.60 kWh/m3 of energy [45]. Based on information from a previous study, Iraq con-
kWh/m3 of energy [45]. Based on information from a previous study, Iraq consumes the
sumes the same amount of energy as China, Austria, and Iran, which are 0.26, 0.33, and
same amount of 3energy as China, Austria, and Iran, which are 0.26, 0.33, and 0.30 kW/m3,
0.30 kW/m , respectively [45]. The alternative MBR was the least energy-consuming dur-
respectively [45]. The
ing operation, alternative
consuming MBR
just was
1896.7 the per
kWh leastday
energy-consuming
(58%); this merely during operation,
indicates that it emits
consuming just 1896.7 kWh per day (58%); this merely indicates that it emits
fewer greenhouse gases because of its energy consumption. Figure 8 illustrates the fewer green-
contrast
houseduegases because
to the of its
energy energy consumption.
consumption, in kWh/m Figure
3 per8day,
illustrates
of the the contrastalternatives;
proposed due to the the
energy consumption,
alternative CAS in kWh/m
with sand per
3 day,
filter of the proposed
consumed the most alternatives;
energy, whilethe alternative CASMBR
the alternative
with consumed
sand filter consumed
the least. the most energy, while the alternative MBR consumed the least.

0.35
Energy consumption (kWh/m3/d)

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
CAS CAS-N MBR
Proposed alternatives
8. Energy consumption (kWh/m 3 ) of proposed alternatives for the Russtmiya WWTP (as a
FigureFigure
8. Energy consumption (kWh/m 3) of proposed alternatives for the Russtmiya WWTP (as a
case study). CAS, conventional activated sludge
case study). CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; filter;
with sand CAS-N, conventional
CAS-N, activated
conventional activated
sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.
sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.

3.4.3. LCA
The four categories of damage are listed as follows: resource depletion, ecosystem
type, climate change, and human health. There are various damage categories within each
one, and they are all quantified in the same units. The analysis of the three suggested
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 12 of 16

3.4.3. LCA
The four categories of damage are listed as follows: resource depletion, ecosystem type,
climate change, and human health. There are various damage categories within each one,
and they are all quantified in the same units. The analysis of the three suggested options
revealed that CAS with a sand filter has the least effect on climate change, global warming,
and human health. Due to MBR treatment methods, stratospheric ozone depletion has less
of an effect than the depletion of non-living resources [3]. According to these approaches,
Figure 9 compares the effect of WWTP emissions (kg/CO2 per year) based on the LCAs
of climate change (CML 2001), climate change (GWP 20) (ReCiPe), and global warming
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 1
(IMPACT 2002+) for the three proposed alternatives. MBR and CAS-N had the highest
value, whereas CAS had the lowest. The negative value of environmental impact results
implies that their impact on the environment decreases over time.

1.60E+11
1.20E+11
kg-CO2

8.00E+10 MBR

4.00E+10 CAS-N
CAS
0.00E+00
CML2001 climate Global
change - warming -
GWP20 IMPACT
(ReCiPe) 2002+
CAS 3.55E-04 3.55E-04 3.00E-02
CAS-N 1.29E+11 1.29E+11 6.99E+10
MBR 1.29E+11 1.29E+11 6.99E+10

Climate change
Figure9.9.Climate
Figure changeand andglobal warming
global warmingindicators (i.e., CO
indicators 2 emissions)
(i.e., for the three
CO2 emissions) proposed
for the three propose
alternatives(CAS,
alternatives (CAS, CAS-N,
CAS-N,and andMBR), using
MBR), three
using different
three methods.
different CAS, conventional
methods. activated activate
CAS, conventional
sludgewith
sludge withsand
sand filter;
filter;CAS-N,
CAS-N, conventional activated
conventional sludge
activated with sand
sludge withfilter
sand and nitrogen
filter removal remova
and nitrogen
unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.
unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.

Figure 10 displays a comparison of the three recommended alternatives according

Figure 10 displays a comparison of the three recommended alternatives according t
to the LCA-based effects of emissions on human health: human toxicity (HTP 20a, CML
the LCA-based
2001, effects of
HH), distribution emissions
(Boulay on human
et al. 2011 (Humanhealth:
Health)human toxicity
and Pfister et al. (HTP 20a, CML 2001
2010 (ReCiPe)
HH), distribution
models), and human (Boulay
toxicityet(HTP
al. 2011 (Human
20a, CML 2001,Health)
HH) (HTP and Pfister
100, et al.The
RECIPE). 2010 (ReCiPe)
results for mod
els), and to
toxicity human
humans toxicity (HTP
show that 20a,
these CML produce
methods 2001, HH) (HTP 100,
carcinogens RECIPE).
(IMPACT Theand
2002+) results fo
non-carcinogens
toxicity to humans (IMPACT
show2002+) (kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene
that these methods produce (1,4-DB) equivalent).
carcinogens ReCiPe for
(IMPACT 2002+) and
CML-2001 human toxicity, non-carcinogens (IMPACT 2002+): CAS-N
non-carcinogens (IMPACT 2002+) (kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DB) equivalent). ReCiPand MBR had the
highest value among the majority of techniques, while the proposed alternative had the
for CML-2001 human toxicity, non-carcinogens (IMPACT 2002+): CAS-N and MBR had
lowest value.
the highest valuethe
Comparing among
resultsthe
withmajority
the studyof on
techniques, while the
the investigation proposed
of LCA on the alternative
WWTP had
the lowestthe
through value.
implementation of IFAS-MBR, MBR-RO, and A2O treatment techniques re-
vealed the presence of GHG emissions and significant adverse effects on human health in
the IFAS-MBR system. Based on the findings, it is noteworthy that the IFAS-MBR and MBR-
RO setups exhibited the lowest levels of environmental impact and energy consumption,
respectively [50]. Another LCA study of the WWTP during construction found that global
warming, nonrenewable energy, and respiratory inorganics had the greatest environmental
impact potential because of steel and cement (phase of construction), plant operations,
4-dichlorobenzene

1.60E+11
electricity use, chemical storage, pipes and plastic use, and Najaf WWTP emissions [51].
1.20E+11
8.00E+10
4.00E+10 MBR
0.00E+00 CAS-N
 Figure 9. Climate change and global warming indicators (i.e., CO2 emissions) for the three proposed
alternatives (CAS, CAS-N, and MBR), using three different methods. CAS, conventional activated
sludge with sand filter; CAS-N, conventional activated sludge with sand filter and nitrogen removal
unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 13 of 16
Figure 10 displays a comparison of the three recommended alternatives according to
the LCA-based effects of emissions on human health: human toxicity (HTP 20a, CML 2001,
HH),Another
distribution
study (Boulay
used LCAettoal. 2011 (Human
monitor Health) and
WWTP operations and Pfister
improveetefficiency
al. 2010 (ReCiPe)
showed mod-
els),
how and humantreatment
wastewater toxicity (HTP 20a, CML
may harm 2001, HH) WWTPs’
the environment. (HTP 100, RECIPE). The
environmental results for
impli-
cations can
toxicity be categorized.
to humans show Human toxicity,
that these ozoneproduce
methods depletion, respiratory impacts,
carcinogens (IMPACT photo-
2002+) and
chemical oxidation,(IMPACT
non-carcinogens and ionizing radiation
2002+) affect human health. Another
(kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene study
(1,4-DB) examined ReCiPe
equivalent).
for CML-2001 human toxicity, non-carcinogens (IMPACT 2002+): CAS-N mineral
how wastewater treatment might affect ecosystem quality. Climate change (72.8%), and MBR had
and fossil resource depletion (0.3%), and photochemical oxidation of ozone (0.2%) were
the highest value among the majority of techniques, while the proposed alternative had
the biggest worldwide impacts (73.2%). Soil eutrophication (0.7%) and acidification (0.6%)
the
hadlowest value. impacts. Local implications depend on environmental factors near the
fewer regional
pollution source (freshwater ecotoxicity, 2.9%; and ionization radiation, 8.1%) [52].
kg-1,4-dichlorobenzene

1.60E+11
1.20E+11
8.00E+10
4.00E+10 MBR
0.00E+00 CAS-N
CAS
-4.00E+10
CMhuman (Boulay et (Pfister et HTP100
toxicity al., 2011) al., 2010) (ReCiPe)
CAS 3.55E-04 -1.04E-07 -7.69E-10 1.60E-04
CAS-N 1.29E+11 1.30E-04 9.67E-07 2.97E+01
MBR 1.29E+11 1.30E+10 9.67E+07 1.55E+01

Figure 10. A comparison between the proposed alternatives using various LCA program results.
Figure 10. A comparison between the proposed alternatives using various LCA program results.
CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; CAS-N, conventional activated sludge with sand
CAS, conventional activated sludge with sand filter; CAS-N, conventional activated sludge with
filter and nitrogen removal unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.
sand filter and nitrogen removal unit; MBR, membrane bioreactor.
4. Conclusions
Comparing the results
Conducting LCAs withWWTP
for different the study onallows
designs the investigation of LCA
for a comprehensive on the WWTP
evaluation
through the implementation
of their environmental impacts,of IFAS-MBR,
including their MBR-RO, and A2O
GHG emissions. treatmentemission
By identifying techniques re-
sourcesthe
vealed andpresence
implementing
of GHG targeted strategies,
emissions the design and
and significant operation
adverse ofon
effects WWTPs
human can
health in
be optimized, which would globally contribute to achieving the SDGs. Particularly in
this work, OpenLCA was successfully used to analyze the environmental impacts of a
full-scale running domestic WWTP simulated (using GPS-X software) with three proposed
operational alternatives to improve its performance, i.e., CAS, CAS-N, and MBR. The
analysis included GHGs emissions, energy consumption, and other influent and effluent
parameters. The results emphasized that the principal source of GHG emissions was the en-
ergy consumption in the aeration-related operational phases of the WWTP. In addition, the
conducted analyses, using IPCC, USEPA, and GPS-X software, showed that the alternatives
CAS and MBR had the lowest GHG emissions (177,025 and 183,413 t-CO2 /m3 , respectively),
whereas CAS-N had the highest value, of 221,738 t-CO2 /m3 . However, the alternative CAS
showed the lowest impacts on human health, using different estimation models of LCA
(i.e., 3.55 × 104 1,4-DB (CMhuman toxicity), −1.04 × 10−7 (Boulay et al., 2011 (ReCipe)),
7.69 × 10−10 (Pfister et al., 2010 (ReCipe)), and 1.60 × 10−4 (HTP100 (ReCiPe)), compared
with the alternatives CAS-N and MBR. Additionally, the alternative CAS had the lowest
influence on aquatic eco-toxicity, of 8.31 × 10−2 kg- Tri ethylene Glycol in water (accord-
ing to IMPACT 2002+). Finally, it can be emphasized here that proper decision-making
regarding domestic WWTP designs and operations can be achieved via integrating LCA
and simulation tools, particularly to reduce the potential environmental consequences.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 14 of 16

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15119033/s1, Figure S1. The result of N2 O and CO2 to
the CAS. * CAS (conventional activated sludge). Figure S2. The result of N2 O and CO2 to the CAS-N.
* CAS-N (conventional activated sludge with nitrogen removal) with sand filter. Figure S3. The result
of N2 O and CO2 to the MBR. Table S1: The outcome of the open LCA program’s LCA analysis of the
CAS (conventional activated sludge) for various methods. Table S2: The outcome of the open LCA
program’s LCA analysis of the CAS-N (conventional activated sludge with nitrogen removal with
sand filter for various methods. Table S3: The outcome of the open LCA program’s LCA analysis of
the MBR for various methods.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.M.A., M.T.S. and M.F.; Methodology, D.M.A., M.T.S.,
M.M. and M.F.; Software, D.M.A.; Validation, D.M.A.; Formal analysis, D.M.A. and M.F.; Investigation,
D.M.A. and M.F.; Resources, D.M.A.; Data curation, D.M.A. and M.F.; Writing—original draft, D.M.A.
and M.F.; Writing—review & editing, M.T.S., M.M. and A.E.; Supervision, M.T.S., M.M. and A.E. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

GHG Greenhouse Gases

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
LCA Life Cycle Assessment Impact
CAS Conventional Activated Sludge
CAS-N Conventional Activated Sludge with Nitrogen Removal
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2eq Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
GPS-X General Purpose Simulator
OD Oxidation Ditch
SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
AAO Anaerobic–Anoxic-Oxic
AO Anaerobic-Oxic
IFAS Integrated Fixed Activated Sludge
IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes
USEPA The United States Environmental Protection Agency
N2 O Nitrous Oxide

References
1. Ministry of Planning/Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology (COSIT); Ministry of Municipalities and
Public Works; Ministry of Environment; Baghdad Municipality; Ministry of Planning/Statistics Office of the Kurdistan Region;
Ministry of Municipalities of the Kurdistan Region; Ministry of Environment of the Kurdistan Region; In cooperation with
UNICEF. Environmental Survey in Iraq 2010: Water-Sanitation-Municipal Services. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/
report/iraq/environmental-survey-iraq-2010-water-sanitation-municipal-services-detailed-report (accessed on 12 August 2021).
2. Wanjiru, E.; Xia, X.; Xia, X. Optimal Energy-Water Management in Urban Residential Buildings through Grey Water Recycling.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 654–668. [CrossRef]
3. Gallego-Schmid, A.; Tarpani, R.R.Z. Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries: A Review. Water
Res. 2019, 153, 63–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Mathematics, A. Rice Straw Utilisation for Bioenergy Production. Energies 2016, 15, 5542.
5. Rashid, S.S.; Harun, S.N.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Razman, K.K.; Liu, Y.Q.; Tholibon, D.A. Life Cycle Assessment and Its Application in
Wastewater Treatment: A Brief Overview. Processes 2023, 11, 208. [CrossRef]
6. Iswara, A.P.; Farahdiba, A.U.; Nadhifatin, E.N.; Pirade, F.; Andhikaputra, G.; Muflihah, I.; Boedisantoso, R. A Comparative Study
of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Using Different Software Programs. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 506, p. 012002.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 15 of 16

7. OpenLCA Nexus: The Source for LCA Data Sets. Available online: https://nexus.openlca.org/database/ecoinvent (accessed on
26 September 2022).
8. OpenLCA. OpenLCA Is a Free, Professional Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Footprint Software with a Broad Range of Features
and Many Available Databases, Created by GreenDelta since 2006. Available online: https://www.openlca.org/ (accessed on
26 September 2022).
9. Delre, A.; ten Hoeve, M.; Scheutz, C. Site-Specific Carbon Footprints of Scandinavian Wastewater Treatment Plants, Using the
Life Cycle Assessment Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1001–1014. [CrossRef]
10. Aleisa, E.; Al-Mutiri, A. Life Cycle Assessment for Tertiary Wastewater Treatment and Reuse versus Seawater Desalination. IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1026, 012001. [CrossRef]
11. Corominas, L.; Flores-Alsina, X.; Snip, L.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Comparison of Different Modeling Approaches to Better Evaluate
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Whole Wastewater Treatment Plants. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012, 109, 2854–2863. [CrossRef]
12. Ahmed, M.T. Life Cycle Analysis in Wastewater: A Sustainability Perspective. In Waste Water Treatment and Reuse in the
Mediterranean Region; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 125–154.
13. Larrey-Lassalle, P.; Catel, L.; Roux, P.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Lopez-Ferber, M.; Junqua, G.; Loiseau, E. An Innovative Implementation
of LCA within the EIA Procedure: Lessons Learned from Two Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Studies. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 2017, 63, 95–106. [CrossRef]
14. Kyung, D.; Kim, M.; Chang, J.; Lee, W. Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Hybrid Wastewater Treatment Plant.
J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 95, 117–123. [CrossRef]
15. Yerushalmi, L.; Ashrafi, O.; Haghighat, F. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Generation and Energy Consumption in
Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 67, 1159–1164. [CrossRef]
16. Mamais, D.; Noutsopoulos, C.; Dimopoulou, A.; Stasinakis, A.; Lekkas, T.D. Wastewater Treatment Process Impact on Energy
Savings and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 303–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Fighir, D.; Teodosiu, C.; Fiore, S. Environmental and Energy Assessment of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Italy and
Romania: A Comparative Study. Water 2019, 11, 1611.
18. Arnell, M.; Rahmberg, M.; Oliveira, F.; Jeppsson, U. Multi-Objective Performance Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants
Combining Plant-Wide Process Models and Life Cycle Assessment. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, 715–729. [CrossRef]
19. Lehtinen, H.; Saarentaus, A.; Rouhiainen, J.; Pitts, M.; Azapagic, A. A Review of LCA Methods and Tools and Their Suitability for
SMEs List of Contents; Europe Innova Eco-Innovation BioChem: Manchester, UK, 2011.
20. Nguyen, T.K.L.; Ngo, H.H.; Guo, W.S.; Chang, S.W.; Nguyen, D.D.; Nghiem, L.D.; Nguyen, T.V. A Critical Review on Life Cycle
Assessment and Plant-Wide Models towards Emission Control Strategies for Greenhouse Gas from Wastewater Treatment Plants.
J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Awad, H.; Alalm, M.G.; El-Etriby, H.K. Environmental and Cost Life Cycle Assessment of Different Alternatives for Improvement
of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Developing Countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 57–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Piao, W.; Kim, Y.; Kim, H.; Kim, M.; Kim, C. Life Cycle Assessment and Economic Efficiency Analysis of Integrated Management
of Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 325–337. [CrossRef]
23. Gallego, A.; Hospido, A.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Environmental Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Small
Populations. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52, 931–940. [CrossRef]
24. Préndez, M.; Lara-González, S. Application of Strategies for Sanitation Management in Wastewater Treatment Plants in Order to
Control/Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 658–664. [CrossRef]
25. Siddiqi, A.; Anadon, L.D. The Water–Energy Nexus in Middle East and North Africa. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4529–4540. [CrossRef]
26. Zappone, M.; Fiore, S.; Genon, G.; Venkatesh, G.; Brattebø, H.; Meucci, L. Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission within the Turin
Metropolitan Area Urban Water Cycle. Procedia Eng. 2014, 89, 1382–1389. [CrossRef]
27. Cornejo, P.K.; Zhang, Q.; Mihelcic, J.R. Quantifying Benefits of Resource Recovery from Sanitation Provision in a Developing
World Setting. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 7–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Lorenzo-Toja, Y.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Chenel, S.; Marín-Navarro, D.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Spanish
WWTPs Using the LCA+ DEA Method. Water Res. 2015, 68, 651–666. [CrossRef]
29. Abeer, A.; Al-Sakini, Y. Rustumiya Sanitation Project and Its Effects on Polluting Diyala River. Adab. Al-Basrah 2016, 2016, 243–268.
30. Alanbari, M.A.; Al-Ansari, N.; Altaee, S.A.; Knutsson, S. Application of Simapro7 on Karbala Wastewater Treatment Plant, Iraq.
J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 4, 55–68.
31. Al-Rawi, S.M. Contribution of Man–Made Activities to the Pollution of the Tigris within Mosul Area/IRAQ. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2005, 2, 245–250. [CrossRef]
32. Hydromantis Inc. GPS-X Technical Reference 2018; Hydromantis Inc.: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2018.
33. Arroyo, P.; Molinos-Senante, M. Selecting Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technologies Using a Choosing-by-Advantages
Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 819–827. [CrossRef]
34. Henze, M.; Gujer, W.; Mino, T.; Matsuo, T.; Wentzel, M.C.; Marais, G.V.R.; Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. Activated Sludge Model
No.2d, ASM2d. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 165–182. [CrossRef]
35. IPCC Publications—IPCC-TFI. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.
ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (accessed on 25 September 2022).
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|US EPA. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ (accessed on 26 September 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 9033 16 of 16

37. Water and Wastewater Treatment Modeling and Simulation Software|Hydromantis. Available online: https://www.hydromantis.
com/ (accessed on 26 September 2022).
38. Plassmann, K.; Norton, A.; Attarzadeh, N.; Jensen, M.P.; Brenton, P.; Edwards-Jones, G. Methodological Complexities of Product
Carbon Footprinting: A Sensitivity Analysis of Key Variables in a Developing Country Context. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13,
393–404. [CrossRef]
39. Boulay, A.M.; Bulle, C.; Bayart, J.B.; Deschenes, L.; Margni, M. Regional Characterization of Freshwater Use in LCA: Modeling
Direct Impacts on Human Health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 8948–8957. [CrossRef]
40. Pfister, S.; Saner, D.; Koehler, A. The environmental relevance of freshwater consumption in global power production. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 580–591. [CrossRef]
41. Bartram, D.; Michael, D.S.; Ebie, Y.; Farkaš, J.; Gueguen, C.; Peters, M.G.; Zanzottera, N.M.; Karthik, M. Emissions Scenarios; IPCC:
Tokyo, Japan, 2019.
42. Eddy, M. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse; McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
43. Abd El Mooty, M.; Kansoh, R.; Abdulhadi, A. Challenges of Water Resources in Iraq. J. Waste Water Treat. Anal. 2016, 7, 260.
[CrossRef]
44. Al-Zuhairi, M. Evaluation for Future Baghdad Wastewater Treatments Plants Efficiency. J. Tech. 2008, 21, A14–A23.
45. Drechsel, P.; Qadir, M.; Wichelns, D. Wastewater: An Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2015; pp. 1–282. [CrossRef]
46. Zang, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, W.; Xiong, W. Towards More Accurate Life Cycle Assessment of Biological Wastewater Treatment
Plants: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 676–692. [CrossRef]
47. Abdelmoula, S.; Sorour, M.T.; Moustafa, M.; Fayed, M. Estimating Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Large Wastewater Treatment
Plants Using Different Methods-(Case Study: Alexandria, Egypt). In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on
Advances in Bio-Informatics, Bio-Technology and Environmental Engineering-ABBE 2019, Birmingham, UK, 23–24 April 2019.
48. Guo, D.; Li, B.; Yu, W.; Han, J.; Zhou, Y.; Ye, Z.; Wu, X. Revisiting China’s Domestic Greenhouse Gas Emission from Wastewater
Treatment: A Quantitative Process Life-Cycle Assessment Science of the Total Environment Revisiting China’s Domestic
Greenhouse Gas Emission from Wastewater Treatment: A Quantitativ. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 876, 162597. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Zhuang, H.; Guan, J.; Leu, S.-Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H. Carbon Footprint Analysis of Chemical Enhanced Primary Treatment and
Sludge Incineration for Sewage Treatment in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122630. [CrossRef]
50. Hajar, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environ. Resour. Res. 2022, 10, 41–50. [CrossRef]
51. Al-Anbari, M.A.; Altaee, S.A.; Kareem, S.L. Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Appraisal Sustainability Indicators of Najaf
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Egypt. J. Chem. 2022, 65, 513–519. [CrossRef]
52. Csicsaiová, R.; Stanko, Š.; Dubcová, M. Usage of the Life Cycle Assessment Method for Environmental Impact Assessment of
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Pollack Period. 2019, 14, 151–160. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.