Environmental Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Developing Countries Using LCA: A Case Study in Perú

Authors

  • Daniela Castro

    Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería Sanitaria, Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa P.O. Box 04001, Perú
  • Hebert Ccalloapaza

    Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería Sanitaria, Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa P.O. Box 04001, Perú
  • Isaac Yanqui

    Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa, Arequipa P.O. Box 04001, Perú
  • Luis Rodriguez

    Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería Civil, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real P.O. Box 13071, España

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/jees.v7i7.10186
Received: 25 May 2025 | Revised: 6 June 2025 | Accepted: 10 June 2025 | Published Online: 2 July 2025

Abstract

Treating municipal wastewater is essential to safeguarding both ecosystem integrity and public health. Although wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) significantly improve effluent quality, they also incur collateral environmental burdens. In this investigation, a “gate to gate" Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted to analyze the environmental performance of two major WWTPs in Arequipa: La Escalerilla (Plant A, activated sludge) and La Enlozada (Plant B, trickling filters). The analysis was conducted using OpenLCA and the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) 2016 impact assessment method, with a functional unit defined as 1 m³ of treated effluent. Energy consumption emerges as the primary driver for the climate change (GWP100), fossil depletion (FDP), and human toxicity (HTPinf) impact categories, accounting for approximately 75% to 85% of the total effects. Plant A, which requires 0.59 kWh/m³ of electricity, achieves superior nutrient removal reflected in a freshwater eutrophication potential of 1.92 × 10⁻⁶ kg P-eq/m³, and exhibits marginally higher CO₂-eq emissions (GWP100) (1.17 × 10⁻¹ kg CO₂-eq/m³). Conversely, Plant B consumes only 0.34 kWh/m³, resulting in a slightly lower GWP100 (1.14 × 10⁻¹ kg CO₂-eq/m³) and a significantly greater reduction in fossil depletion potential (FDP) (2.56 × 10⁻² kg oil-eq/m³ vs. Plant A's 4.75 × 10⁻² kg oil-eq/m³), although it exhibits an elevated eutrophication potential of 4.10 × 10⁻⁶ kg P-eq/m³. Both plants meet discharge standards. This study shows that treatment technologies must balance efficiency and sustainability, with energy use being critical. As Peruvian LCA research is scarce, these results offer key insights for future policies.

Keywords:

Environmental Impact; OpenLCA; Metodologia Recipe; Wastewater Treatment Plant

References

[1] Biancardi, A., Colasante, A., D'Adamo, I., 2023. Sustainable education and youth confidence as pillars of future civil society. Scientific Reports. 13(1), 955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28143-9

[2] Tsangas, M., Papamichael, I., Banti, D., et al., 2023. LCA of municipal wastewater treatment. Chemosphere. 341, 139952. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139952

[3] Aslanidis, P.-S.C., Golia, E.E., 2022. Urban Sustainability at Risk Due to Soil Pollution by Heavy Metals—Case Study: Volos, Greece. Land. 11(7), 1016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071016

[4] Bost, M., Houdart, S., Oberli, M., et al., 2016. Dietary copper and human health: Current evidence and unresolved issues. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 35, 107–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.02.006

[5] Chasapis, C.T., Ntoupa, P.-S.A., Spiliopoulou, C.A., et al., 2020. Recent aspects of the effects of zinc on human health. Archives of Toxicology. 94(5), 1443–1460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-020-02702-9

[6] Mehmeti, A., Canaj, K., 2022. Environmental Assessment of Wastewater Treatment and Reuse for Irrigation: A Mini-Review of LCA Studies. Resources. 11(10), 94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11100094

[7] ISO 14040:2006, 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.

[8] De Feo, G., Ferrara, C., Iuliano, G., 2016. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two on-site small-scale activated sludge total oxidation systems in plastic and vibrated reinforced concrete. Sustainability. 8(3), 212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030212

[9] Machado, A.P., Urbano, L., Brito, A.G., et al., 2007. Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment options for small and decentralized communities. Water Science and Technology. 56(3), 15–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.497

[10] Moussavi, S., Thompson, M., Li, S., et al., 2021. Assessment of small mechanical wastewater treatment plants: Relative life cycle environmental impacts of construction and operations. Journal of Environmental Management. 292, 112802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112802

[11] Burchart-Korol, D., Zawartka, P., 2019. Environmental life cycle assessment of septic tanks in urban wastewater system – A case study for Poland. Archives of Environmental Protection. 45(4), 68–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24425/aep.2019.130243

[12] Abello-Passteni, V., Alvear, E.M., Lira, S., et al., 2020. Evaluación de eco-eficiencia de tecnologías de tratamiento de aguas residuales domésticas en Chile [in Spanish]. Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua. 11(2), 190–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24850/j-tyca-2020-02-05

[13] Yeo, J., Chopra, S.S., von Eiff, D., et al., 2022. An integrated techno-economic analysis on wastewater reclamation in Hong Kong: A comprehensive cost – Benefit analysis with life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 357, 131838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131838

[14] Lima, P.M., Lopes, T.A.S., Queiroz, L.M., et al., 2022. Resource-oriented sanitation: Identifying appropriate technologies and environmental gains by coupling Santiago software and life cycle assessment in a Brazilian case study. Science of the Total Environment. 837, 155777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155777

[15] Awad, H., Gar Alalm, M., El-Etriby, H.K., 2019. Environmental and cost life cycle assessment of different alternatives for improvement of wastewater treatment plants in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment. 660, 57–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.386

[16] Sabeen, A.H., Noor, Z.Z., Ngadi, N., et al., 2018. Quantification of environmental impacts of domestic wastewater treatment using life cycle assessment: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 190, 221–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.053

[17] Kyung, D., Jung, D.Y., Lim, S.R., 2020. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from an underground wastewater treatment plant. Membrane and Water Treatment. 11(3), 173–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/mwt.2020.11.3.173

[18] Lopes, T.A.S., Queiroz, L.M., Torres, E.A., et al., 2020. Low complexity wastewater treatment process in developing countries: A LCA approach to evaluate environmental gains. Science of the Total Environment. 720, 137593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137593

[19] Rebello, T.A., Gonçalves, R.F., Calmon, J.L., 2022. Mitigation of environmental impacts in warm-weather wastewater treatment plants using the life cycle assessment tool. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 19(5), 4763–4778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03430-y

[20] Nguyen, T.K.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., et al., 2020. A critical review on life cycle assessment and plant-wide models towards emission control strategies for greenhouse gas from wastewater treatment plants. Journal of Environmental Management. 264, 110440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110440

[21] Audit Directorate, 2022. Annual wastewater management report. Ministry of Environment: Lima, Peru [In Spanish].

[22] Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., et al., 2013. Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: State of the art. Water Research. 47(15), 5480–5492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.049

[23] Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Amores, M.J., et al., 2016. Benchmarking wastewater treatment plants under an eco-efficiency perspective. Science of the Total Environment. 566, 468–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.110

[24] Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, H.D., Tsuchihashi, R., et al., 2014. Wastewater engineering: Treatment and resource recovery, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA.

[25] Amann, A., Weber, N., Krampe, J., et al., 2022. Systematic data-driven exploration of Austrian wastewater and sludge treatment - Implications for phosphorus governance, costs and environment. Science of the Total Environment. 846, 157401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157401

[26] Hernández-Padilla, F., Margni, M., Noyola, A., et al., 2017. Assessing wastewater treatment in Latin America and the Caribbean: Enhancing life cycle assessment interpretation by regionalization and impact assessment sensibility. Journal of Cleaner Production. 142, 2140–2153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.068

[27] IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES): Kanagawa, Japan.

[28] Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2008. A comparison of municipal wastewater treatment plants for big centres of population in Galicia (Spain). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 13, 57–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.03.314

[29] Allami, D.M., Sorour, M.T., Moustafa, M., et al., 2023. Life Cycle Assessment of a Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Simulated with Alternative Operational Designs. Sustainability. 15(11), 9033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15119033

[30] Li, Y., Xu, Y., Fu, Z., et al., 2021. Assessment of energy use and environmental impacts of wastewater treatment plants in the entire life cycle: A system meta-analysis. Environmental Research. 198, 110458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110458

[31] Garfí, M., Flores, L., Ferrer, I., 2017. Life Cycle Assessment of wastewater treatment systems for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal ponds. Journal of Cleaner Production. 161, 211–219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.116

[32] Banti, D.C., Tsangas, M., Samaras, P., et al., 2020. LCA of a Membrane Bioreactor Compared to Activated Sludge System for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Membranes. 10(12), 421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes10120421

[33] Postacchini, L., Lamichhane, K.M., Furukawa, D., et al., 2016. Life cycle assessment comparison of activated sludge, trickling filter, and high-rate anaerobic-aerobic digestion (HRAAD). Water Science and Technology. 73(10), 2353–2360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.087

[34] Viotti, P., Tatti, F., Bongirolami, S., et al., 2024. Life Cycle Assessment Methodology Applied to a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Water. 16(8), 1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/w16081177

[35] Peruvian Ministry of Environment, 2010. Maximum Permissible Limits for Effluents from Domestic or Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (Supreme Decree No. 003-2010-MINAM). Ministry of Environment: Lima, Peru [In Spanish].

Downloads

How to Cite

Castro, D., Ccalloapaza, H., Yanqui, I., & Rodriguez, L. (2025). Environmental Assessment of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Developing Countries Using LCA: A Case Study in Perú. Journal of Environmental & Earth Sciences, 7(7), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.30564/jees.v7i7.10186

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 7 (July 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Daniela Castro, Hebert Ccalloapaza, Isaac Yanqui, Luis Rodriguez

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC