Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Techno-economic and environmental assessment of wastewater T

management systems: Life cycle approach
⁎
Mohamed Abdallah , Abdallah Shanableh, Doha Elshazly, Sainab Feroz
University of Sharjah, University City, Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The septic-tank and tanker (STT) system is a traditional wastewater management practice commonly used in
Life-cycle analysis many developing countries. The system is based on septic tanks that are pumped out by sewage tankers on a
Financial feasibility regular basis. Although the STT system is gradually being replaced by conventional gravity sewers (CGS), the
Eco-efficiency assessment high capital cost of this shift remains a major obstacle. This research aims to investigate the economic feasibility
Small-bore sewer system
and environmental footprint of an alternative wastewater management system compared to existing sanitation
Conventional sewer system
Septic tank system
systems. The study examines the small-bore sewers (SBS) system which utilizes the existing septic tanks to
separate solids from gravity-conveyed effluent. A comparative assessment of the three systems (STT, CGS, and
SBS) along with their treatment facilities was conducted on a residential area in the United Arab Emirates. Local
design criteria of the SBS system were proposed based on current CGS guidelines and international SBS stan-
dards. A cost-integrated life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out in order to evaluate the environmental and
economic aspects of the three management strategies. The total present value of the SBS strategy was found to be
significantly higher than those of STT and CGS, respectively. Moreover, a 67% smaller treatment plant was
sufficient to serve the SBS effluent. The LCA results revealed that the CGS strategy imparted the highest damage
to the environment in all impact categories considered including global warming potential, whereas, the STT
system produced a higher impact than SBS in six out of the eleven tested impact categories. Overall, while the
STT strategy was the least financially feasible, the CGS had the largest environmental footprint. The eco-effi-
ciency assessment revealed that the SBS strategy was the most favored among the examined strategies.

1. Introduction
Population in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been rapidly
increasing in the last decade, reaching 9.4 million capita in 2017 at an
average annual growth rate of 1.39% (World Bank, 2018). The high
standard of living, among other factors, has resulted in one of the top
per-capita water consumption rates worldwide, 550 L/capita/day
(Szabo, 2011). This, in turn, has resulted in extreme wastewater gen-
eration rates. Wastewater collection systems comprising septic tanks
and sewage tankers have traditionally been implemented in several
parts of the country, and still widely used to date. Septic tanks in such
systems function as storage units from which the accumulated waste-
water is pumped out and transported to treatment facilities on a daily
basis. However, local communities suffer from the negative impacts of
this system, such as: major traffic delays, as well as multiple environ-
mental and health risks caused by emissions and leakages. Therefore, to
serve the increasing sanitation needs, the septic-tank/tanker (STT)
system has been replaced by conventional gravity sewers (CGS). While
the CGS system is successfully applied throughout the world, its high
capital cost hinders its complete roll out throughout the UAE. More-
over, the system typically requires deep excavation which is impractical
for densely populated areas. Hence, it is essential to explore un-
conventional cost-effective wastewater collection systems such as
pressurized sewers, vacuum networks, small-bore sewers, and simpli-
fied sewers. In order to cope with the increasing consumption pattern, it
is crucial to explore innovative, cost-effective, and eco-friendly waste-
water management approaches (Ghulam et al., 2017; Tahir and Sagir,
2019). The present research is focused on the small-bore sewer (SBS)
system which has been proven to be efficient in several countries and
can be implemented in areas where the SST system is currently in use.
The SBS system is a solid-free pipe network that transports the li-
quid portion of the sewage under gravity from septic tanks to the
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The system is also termed solid-
free sewers, settled sewers, small diameter gravity sewers (SDGS) in the
United States, and septic tank effluent drainage systems (STED) in
Australia. The SBS consists of key components including: house

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mabdallah@sharjah.ac.ae (M. Abdallah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106378
Received 17 September 2019; Received in revised form 21 February 2020; Accepted 21 February 2020
0195-9255/ © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Abdallah, et al.
connections, septic tanks, sewer conduits, and cleanouts. The waste-
water solids effectively settle in the septic tank during a retention
period of one to two days, thus eliminating sludge and scum from the
liquid stream and preventing potential clogging of downstream sewers.
As raw sewage flows through septic tanks, it undergoes primary treat-
ment in the form of physical settling and anaerobic decomposition
processes, resulting in 80% reduction of the sludge layer (Butler and
Payne, 1995; Mills et al., 2014). A well-maintained septic tank can ef-
ficiently remove 30 to 50% of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and
60 to 80% of total suspended solids (TSS) (USEPA, 2002). Since the
receiving sewers run free of solids, self-cleansing velocity and partially-
full flow are no longer required. Hence, smaller conduits can be used at
mild gradient, leading to lower material and excavation costs. More-
over, fewer inspection points, in the form of simple cleanouts rather
than the bulky manholes, are required for maintenance (Otis and
Duncan Mara, 1985; Tilley et al., 2014).
The SBS system is considered a potentially viable alternative to
improve the current wastewater management practices. This is evident
in several studies that documented its successful application in various
developed and developing countries such as Canada, Australia, USA,
Nigeria, Zambia and Egypt (Bakir, 2001; Hailu, 1988; Harindi and
Kamil, 2011; Hass, 2007; Otis and Duncan Mara, 1985; Palmer et al.,
2010). Hass (2008) examined case studies in Canada where SBS was
installed and proved its cost-effectiveness compared to septic systems. It
was found that only 50% of the WWTP capacity was utilized when the
SBS was implemented. Nawrot (2010) focused on the financial aspect of
the SBS system installed in Poland compared to the CGS and pressurized
systems. Based on capital and operating costs, it was found that the SBS
system was three times less costly than the other systems. A similar
research was conducted in Botswana to scrutinize the feasibility of re-
placing the CGS system with either SBS or vacuum sewers (Little,
2004). The study concluded that both alternatives were more cost-ef-
fective than the conventional system. Moreover, Abdul Alim (1997)
discussed the successful implementation of SBS in a 15,000-inhabitant
village in Egypt. The results showed that the SBS system was 34% more
cost-effective than the conventional system. On the other hand, Norman
et al. (2011) discussed the performance of the SBS system installed in
Dakar, Senegal. The outcomes of the project were unsatisfactory due to
poor management of the construction activities.
Although there are few studies that covered the technical and eco-
nomic aspects of SBS, the research conducted on its environmental
impacts has been limited. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is frequently
utilized in evaluating environmental impacts of conventional waste-
water systems and comparing various alternative solutions in terms of
estimated environmental loads (Nogueira et al., 2009; Tomei et al.,
2016). Existing LCA studies of sanitation systems primarily focused on
gravity sewer networks and treatment plants. For example, Risch et al.
(2015) assessed the environmental performance of the construction and
operation of sewer systems and WWTPs, including pipe materials, civil
works, and road rehabilitation. Results indicated that construction of
the sewer infrastructure was more damaging to the environment than
the construction and operation of the WWTP. Few LCA studies have
been conducted on the CGS system in comparison to other wastewater
collection systems. For example, black water separation systems were
found to cause less environmental impacts than the conventional
system on the short- and long-terms (Lundin et al., 2000; Remy, 2010).
Another study reported the LCA results obtained using comprehensive
life cycle inventories for the construction and renovation of sewers
(Morera et al., 2016). The results suggested that material type and
lifespan, site-specific characteristic such as soil conditions, and civil
works such as pipe laying and backfilling demonstrated the largest in-
fluence on the environment. Few studies analyzed different pipe ma-
terials used in the construction of sewer networks. For example, Akhtar
et al. (2014) compared concrete, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), vitrified
clay, and ductile iron (DI). The study concluded that PVC pipes de-
monstrated the maximum sustainability in terms of both environmental
2
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378
and economic aspects. Another study developed a model to assess the
life cycle cost and environmental impacts of DI and PVC pipe materials.
It was found that DI is more cost effective and environmentally sus-
tainable (Thomas et al., 2016). A similar study analyzed the environ-
mental impacts of various pipe materials (concrete, high-density poly-
ethylene (HDPE), and PVC) embedded in different trench designs (Petit-
boix et al., 2016). The concrete pipes in granular trenches were found to
cause the lowest impact on global warming potential and cumulative
energy demand. Other studies have analyzed the life-cycle environ-
mental impacts of wastewater treatment plants (Corominas et al., 2013;
Réka et al., 2019; Rodriguez-Garcia et al., 2011). Raghuvanshi et al.
(2017) reported that the electricity required for the treatment pro-
cesses, including collection, sludge activation, treatment, purification,
and re-distribution had the highest environmental impact. Another
study suggested that the effluent quality and electricity consumption
during the operation phase had the most negative environmental im-
pact (Li et al., 2013). Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2015) noted that although
large WWTPs demonstrated higher performance levels, poor environ-
mental profile was observed compared to small or medium WWTPs
Petit-Boix et al. (2018) examined the combined financial and environ-
mental impacts of wastewater using eco-efficiency framework. Based on
the eco-efficiency indicators, an optimum location of the WWTP has
been selected. Other studies have also explored economic and en-
vironmental impacts of small, decentralized plants, as well as waste to
energy technologies and sludge stabilization activities in WWTPs (Mills
et al., 2014; Nogueira et al., 2009; Tomei et al., 2016).
It is clear that the existing wastewater management practices, par-
ticularly STT and CGS systems, in the UAE do not always provide the
optimum solution due to financial, environmental and/or sanitary
limitations. Based on many successful international experiences, the
SBS system seems to be a potential alternative that needs further in-
vestigation under local operating conditions compared to current sys-
tems. To date, the life-cycle cost and environmental impacts of the SBS
system have not been addressed in previous studies. The present study
presents the first cost-integrated LCA for the SBS system as part of an
integrated wastewater management strategy. This research compara-
tively analyzes the techno-economic and environmental life-cycle as-
pects of three integrated wastewater management strategies involving
the STT, CGS, and SBS systems. The study assesses the applicability of
SBS in the UAE compared to current systems, each as part of a com-
prehensive wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal strategies.
The assessment is conducted on a residential development in Sharjah,
the third most populous emirate in the UAE after Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
A customized version of the SBS design criteria is established based on
local CGS standards and international SBS guidelines. A modelling
software for gravity sewers is used for the hydraulic analysis of the CGS
and SBS networks. The life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and LCA are
carried out according to the ISO guidelines 14040 and 14044 in order to
provide a thorough financial and environmental evaluation of the ex-
amined strategies. Furthermore, the environmental and financial as-
pects of the three sanitation strategies were combined under the eco-
efficiency assessment framework based on ISO guidelines 14045. This
study is intended to enrich the literature on unconventional wastewater
management systems, particularly in developing countries, towards
improved sanitation and sustainable development. The findings support
stakeholders in making environmentally conscious decisions about cost-
effective wastewater management systems for unserved communities.
2. Methodology
This section describes the examined wastewater management stra-
tegies, current and proposed design guidelines, design of the collection
and treatment systems, as well as the LCCA and LCA procedures.
M. Abdallah, et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the examined wastewater management strategies: a) septic
tanks and tankers (STT), b) conventional gravity sewers (CGS), and c) small-
bore sewers (SBS).
2.1. Wastewater management strategies
In order to adequately compare the SBS with existing collection
systems in the UAE, three waste management strategies were studied.
As shown in Fig. 1, the first strategy (STT) comprised septic tanks,
sewage tankers, and a WWTP. The second strategy (CGS) constituted a
conventional gravity sewer system discharging directly to a WWTP,
while the third strategy (SBS) included a small-bore sewer system fol-
lowed by a simplified WWTP.
2.2. Design of Selected Strategies
A proposed 2100-ha residential development in the emirate of
Sharjah was selected as the study area. At a 40-year design period, the
projected population was 121,500 equivalent persons. The population
density is expected to reach around 58 capita per hectare, and the urban
structure is planned to be mostly composed of large residential villas, in
addition to few commercial and institutional buildings. The potable
water demand of various user categories (including non-residential and
domestic uses) were obtained from local standards, and the sewage
generation rates were assumed to be 80% of the water demand (Kumar
et al., 2013). Accordingly, the average wastewater flow of the study
area was computed at 34,000 m3/day. The study area is remotely lo-
cated from the urban center of the city, and is about 32 km away from
the central WWTP.
2.2.1. Sewer systems
A specialized modelling software, SewerCAD (by Bentley), was
utilized to conduct the hydraulic analysis of conventional sewers
compared to SBS. The technical results of the hydraulic analysis in-
cluding the network components and pipe sizing are presented in sec-
tion 3.1 of the discussion. Due to the lack of local design criteria, a
customized set of guidelines for SBS was proposed by examining the
various existing standards in different parts of the world (Table 1). The
proposed criteria were selected to suit the general soil, climate and
operating specifications prevalent in the region. Table 1 shows that the
suggested values encompass the accepted ranges throughout the world,
while being consistent with local CGS guidelines. The hydraulic re-
tention time of sewage in the septic tanks was a maximum of 24 h in all
examined criteria which corroborated with the existing practices in
UAE.
2.2.2. Septic tanks
The specifications of septic tanks and sewage tankers were based on
3
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378
actual data collected from Sharjah Municipality. The septic tanks,
currently used throughout the UAE, are constructed using HDPE, re-
inforced concrete, or glass reinforced plastic (GRP). Its typical capacity
is around 5600 L equally divided into three compartments, with total
dimensions of 3.50 m length, 1.10 m width, and 1.45 m depth. In
general, the septic tanks function as storage units and are emptied on a
daily basis, i.e., hydraulic retention period of 24 h. In the SBS strategy,
the septic tanks provide primary sedimentation and biological treat-
ment, and thus typically require desludging only every few years; as-
sumed as 5 years as per Otis and Duncan Mara (1985).
2.2.3. Wastewater treatment plant
The comparative analysis included the wastewater treatment re-
quirements downstream the selected collection systems. Detailed design
of the WWTP units was carried out according to standard practices in
the literature (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004). The assumptions and design
requirements of each WWTP are shown in Table 2. The suggested
WWTPs of the CGS and STT strategies consisted of preliminary, pri-
mary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units. The preliminary phase
included mechanical screens and grit chambers to remove large objects
and grit, while the primary treatment comprised of clarifiers where
physical sedimentation takes place. A sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
represented the secondary treatment unit, followed by tertiary treat-
ment by means of multimedia filters and chlorination basins. On the
other hand, the septic tanks in the SBS strategy performed primary
treatment resulting in reduced TSS and BOD levels, thereby allowing
the elimination of preliminary and primary treatment units from its
WWTP (Otis and Duncan Mara, 1985). Therefore, in the CGS and STT
strategies, the influent TSS and BOD were assumed to be 240 mg/L and
200 mg/L, respectively, whereas, both parameters were reduced to
100 mg/L in the SBS strategy (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004; USEPA, 2000).
2.3. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
The LCCA is used to determine the total cost of the examined
wastewater management systems throughout their lifetime. The dif-
ferent cost categories covered in the present study are as follows: 1)
capital costs: include the initial investment, supply and installation of
sewer pipes, manholes, cleanouts, septic tanks, and treatment units, as
well as borrowing capital; 2) operation and maintenance (O&M) costs:
cover the expenses incurred to ensure normal functioning of sewer
systems and WWTPs during their lifespan, and 3) rehabilitation costs:
include the investments needed during the project lifespan. The LCCA
was conducted in the present study through multiple financial assess-
ment parameters, namely the net present value, payback period, in-
ternal rate of return, and profitability index. The analyses of all systems
were conducted over a 40-year design period at a discount rate of 3%.
Based on local experiences, the lifespan of pipes and tanks were as-
sumed to surpass the design period, whereas the wastewater tankers
will have to be replaced halfway through the design period. The ma-
terial and construction costs of the various sewer network components
were obtained from local suppliers. The annual O&M costs were esti-
mated as 2% of the capital cost for the CGS network and 1% for the SBS
network (COWI, 2006). The capital and O&M costs of the septic tanks
and sewage tankers were acquired from the municipality and local
service companies. The life-cycle costs incurred in the construction and
O&M of the WWTP in each strategy were obtained using CapdetWorks
software (by Hydromantis). The unit cost method was used for cost
estimation based on U.S September 2007 database. On the other hand,
the only cash inflow stream in this financial assessment was the sew-
erage service charge collected by the municipality at a rate of 0.40
USD/m3 of collected wastewater. The computations of the selected
LCCA parameters are presented as follows:
2.3.1. Net present value (NPV)
The NPV represents the balance of all cash inflows and outflows
 M. Abdallah, et al.

Table 1
Design criteria of small-bore sewers around the world.
a
Criteria UAEb Africa Australia N. America S. America Asia World Bank

CGS SBS Ethiopia Botswana S. Africa Zambia Canada USA Columbia Indonesia India

House Connection Diameter (mm) 100 100 100 75–100 100 100–150 100–150 75–100 100 76–90
Cover (m) 0.7 0.7 0.75 1
Gradient (%) 1–3 1–3 1.7 1–3 1 1 1
Material uPVC HDPE PVC PVC PVC DWC, HDPE
Conduits Peak factor ≤6 2 2 2 3 1–4 1–4 2 2
Material c uPVC, GRP, HDPE PVC uPVC PVC PVC PVC uPVC, DWC HDPE PVC, VC
HDPE
Minimum velocity 0.75 0–0.5 0.3 0.5 0.15 0.3 0.46 0.30–0.45 0.30–0.45 0 0.3 0.15–0.3
(m/s)
Maximum velocity 3 3 4–5 5 3 3
(m/s)
Gradient (%) 0.5–10 0–1 0.5 0.4 0 0.1–0.7

4
Minimum cover (m) 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.5–0.75 0.75 0.75 0.9–2
Capacity (%) 75 100 80 50 100 100
Minimum diameter 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 100 100 100
(mm)
Cleanouts interval 120 150–200 150–200 120 120–300 120–300 200 100 150–200
(m)
Septic Tanks Retention time (hr) N/A 24 24 24 12–24 24 12–24
Geometry (L: B) Rectangular Rectangular > 5000 L Rectangular Rectangular Rectangular
3:1 2:1 2:1 2:1
Liquid depth (m) 1.45 1.22–1.83 1.2 0.9–2
Compartment 3 1 1 5 ≥2 1–2 1
Extra fixtures Inlet and outlet Vertical baffle Inlet and Vertical baffle Baffles and scum Inlet and outlet
baffles outlet baffles board baffles

a
The SBS design criteria are obtained from World Bank (2006); LN Malviya Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2017); Hailu (1988); Little (2004); Otis and Duncan Mara (1985); Palmer et al. (2010); Hass (2007); Van Zyl and Van
Dijk (2011).
b
Current design guidelines of CGS (Kumar et al., 2013) and proposed design criteria for SBS in the UAE.
c
DWC: double wall corrugated, VC: vitrified clay.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378
M. Abdallah, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

Table 2
Design of treatment facilities for the examined strategiesa.
Treatment Level Components Criteria CGS/STT Systems SBS System

Preliminary Mechanical Screen Velocity between bars (m/s) 0.7 N/R

No. of screens 2
Grit Chamber Time (min) 3 N/R
No. of chambers 2
Air supply flow rate (m3/s) 0.04
Quantity of grit (m3/d) 6.84
Primary Clarifier No. of tanks 2 N/R
Overflow rate (m3/m2/d) 40
Secondary Sequencing Batch Reactor Aeration time (hr) 4 1
Settling time (hr) 1 0.5
Decant time (hr) 1 0.5
Air supply flow rate (SCMM) 180.7 144.8
Influent BOD (mg/L) 200 100
Influent TSS (mg/L) 240 100
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 30 30
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 30 30
Tertiary Multimedia Filter No. of tanks 4 4
Filtration rate (m3/m2/d) 400 400
Disinfection Time (min) 40 40
No. of tanks 20 20

a
The treatment facilities in all strategies were designed to handle the same sewage flow of 34,000 m3/day.

throughout the study period at the present time, and has a major role in
financially assessing any project; a positive NPV represents a profitable
project. The NPV was calculated as follows (Zhao et al., 2016):
NPV = ∑ (CIt –COt ) × (1 + i)−t (1)
Where NPV is the net present value (USD), CIt is the cash inflow in year
t (USD), COt is the cash outflow in year t (USD), t is the economic life of
the project (years), and i is the discount rate (%).
2.3.2. Payback period (PP)
The PP is the number of years required to recover initial investment,
which makes it a powerful indicator to assess and compare the projects
in terms of financial recovery for the municipality. The PP was identi-
fied by plotting a graph between the cumulative NPV along the entire
period of the project (Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2017). The intersection point
between the plotted curve and the zero cumulative NPV line represents
the PP value.
2.3.3. Internal rate of return (IRR)
The IRR is the interest rate at which the net present value of all cash
flows equals zero. The IRR is a direct indicator of the profitability of a
project, such that an IRR larger than the discount rate indicates a
profitable project. Computation of the IRR is a complicated process;
however, Microsoft Excel has a built-in function that computes the IRR
given the annual cash flows.
2.3.4. Profitability index (PI)
The PI is the ratio between the present value of the projected future
cash flows throughout the assessment period and the initial investment.
This parameter indicates the profitability of the project based on the
initial investments only, i.e., it does not incorporate all cash flows. The
PI was calculated as follows (Hadidi and Omer, 2017):
n (OPEXt )
PVP − ∑t = 1
(1 + i)t
PI =
CAPEX (2)
Where PI is the profitability index (unitless), PVP is the present value
of positive cash flow (USD), n is the economic life of the project (years),
i is the discount rate (%), OPEXt is the operation and maintenance cost
in year t (USD), i is the discount rate (%), n is the project economic life
(years), and CAPEX is the total capital costs at year 0 (USD).
2.4. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
In order to thoroughly compare between the selected strategies, it
was necessary to explore beyond the technical and financial aspects. A
cradle-to-grave LCA was implemented to assess the environmental im-
pacts generated from the construction, operation and decommissioning
of the three strategies. The LCA followed the typical stages of the ISO
14040 and 14044 standard guidelines: 1) goal and scope definition, 2)
life cycle inventory analysis, 3) life cycle impact assessment, and 4)
interpretation (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006) as discussed below.
2.4.1. Goal and scope definition
The specific goal of this study is to compare the environmental as-
pects of the three wastewater management strategies. The functional
unit of this study was specified as the collection and treatment of 1 m3
of wastewater during the estimated useful lifespan of each strategy. The
system boundaries established in this analysis are shown in Fig. 2. For
the STT and SBS strategies, the upstream system boundary was set
where raw sewage flows into the septic tank, while for the CGS strategy,
it was set to raw sewage flowing into the sewers. The downstream
system boundary was defined for all strategies as the recycling or dis-
posal of sewage treatment by-products and construction wastes. The
treated effluent of WWTPs is reused for irrigation or discharged into the
sea. The infrastructure development inventory included the materials
and resources, civil works (including excavation for the sewer systems
and septic tanks as well as related machinery), energy consumption
during material production and WWTP operation, and transportation
activities. The air pollution emissions, including carbon dioxide, me-
thane, and ammonia, released during the operation phase were also
incorporated in the analysis. The end of life phase included the re-
cycling of sewer components such as HDPE pipes and cast-iron manhole
covers. On the other hand, contaminated construction materials, e.g.,
concrete, were transported to landfills for final disposal as per the
common practices in the UAE.
As shown in Fig. 2, the system boundary excluded the common
processes between the examined strategies due to similar environ-
mental footprints. For example: 1) the pumps needed to operate the
treatment systems as well as the reuse/disposal of the treated effluent to
sea, and 2) chlorine disinfection in the WWTPs. Moreover, as the study
area is yet to be constructed, road reinstatement works required after
the installation of the wastewater systems were not accounted for.
Other system processes were not included due to limited data or

5
M. Abdallah, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

Fig. 2. System boundary for life cycle inventory of the examined strategies.

Table 3 8 Ca Hb Oc Nd Se + (8a − 2b − 4c + 6d + 4e)H2 O

Summary of inventory data for the examined strategies a.
→ (4a − b + 2c + 3d + 2e) CO2 + (4a + b − 2c − 3d − 2e)CH 4 + 8d
Inventory Items STT CGS SBS
NH3 + 8e H2 S (3)
Sewer Network HDPE pipe (kg) N/R 31.70 14.29
The methane emissions generated within gravity sewers were
Cast-iron manhole covers (kg) 2.92 N/R
Cast-iron cleanout covers (kg) N/R 0.09 computed using the following model (Chaosakul et al., 2014):
Concrete (m3) 0.64 N/R
Excavation (m3) 18.19 14.53
MCH4 = 6 × 10−5 × 1.05 (T − 20) × (A/ V ) × HRT + 0.0015 (4)
Methane (kg) 0.11 0.07
where MCH4 is the methane emission per unit volume of wastewater
Ammonia (kg) 0.03 0.02
Carbon dioxide (kg) 0.17 0.12 (kg/m3), T is the average temperature of sewer wastewater (°C), A/V is
Septic Tank Concrete (m3) 0.38 N/R 0.38 the wetted surface area to volume ratio of sewer (1/m), and HRT is the
Excavation (m3) 0.63 0.63 wastewater retention time in sewer (hr). Subsequently, the amounts of
Methane (kg) 0.10 0.04
carbon dioxide and ammonia generated within the conduits were cal-
Ammonia (kg) 0.02 0.01
Carbon dioxide (kg) 0.16 0.07
culated using estimated ratios of 1.7:1 for CH4 to CO2 and 4.25:1 for
Sludge production (kg) 0.10 0.05 CH4 to NH3 (from Eq. (3)). Additionally, the amount of carbon dioxide
WWTP Concrete (m3) 0.08 0.08 0.03 released during aerobic treatment in SBR was calculated using the
Electricity (kWh)b 0.02 0.02 0.01 modified Eq. (5) from (Vijayan et al., 2017) and (IPCC, 2008).
Carbon dioxide (kg) 0.08 0.08 0.03
Sludge production (kg) 2.45 4.12 0.23 MCO2 = OD × EffOD × CFCO2 (5)
a 3
per the functional unit (1m of managed wastewater). where MCO2 is the carbon dioxide emission rate (kg/h), OD is the
b
obtained from CapdetWorks. oxygen demand of influent determined as BOD or COD (kg/m3), EffOD is
the oxygen demand removal efficiency of the biological treatment unit
minimal environmental impact compared to other processes, such as: (%), and CFCO2 is the conversion factor for CO2 generation per unit of
mechanical/electrical equipment of WWTP, excavation during WWTP oxygen demand (default value = 1.375). Based on the compiled data
construction, manufacturing of sewage tankers, and maintenance of and computations, the key inventory data relative to the functional unit
sewers (Foley et al., 2010; Lim and Moon, 2009; Risch et al., 2015). are illustrated in Table 3. Moreover, that material and energy balances
Furthermore, the emissions generated from the transportation of sludge obtained from the LCA software for the examined strategies are pre-
in the SBS strategy was assumed to be negligible and hence was ex- sented in the supplementary Figs. A.2 through A.7.
cluded from the analysis.
2.4.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The impact assessment technique selected for the present study is
2.4.2. Life cycle inventory analysis the CML 2015 as it restricts quantitative modelling to early stages in the
The LCA of the examined strategies was performed using GaBi ts 8.7 cause-effect chain to limit uncertainties (Jolliet et al., 2003). In this
(by Thinkstep), and included the materials, resources and energy inputs method, midpoint indicators are used to quantify the relative im-
entailed in the construction, operation and decommissioning of the portance of emissions resulting from human activities in terms of re-
systems. The life cycle inventory (LCI) data used to model the waste- ference substances (Risch et al., 2015). Results are grouped into 11
water systems were obtained from various published technical reports, midpoint impact categories including global warming potential (GWP,
literature, municipality, local suppliers, and software databases such as kg CO2-eq.), acidification potential (AP, kg SO2-eq.), eutrophication
Ecoinvent. The formulas defined herein were used to quantify the potential (EP, kg P-eq.), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP, kg R11-
amount of methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia emissions during the eq.), abiotic depletion of elements (ADE, kg Sb-eq.), abiotic depletion
life cycle of the alternatives. The gas emissions released during anae- fossil (ADF, MJ), freshwater aquatic eco-toxicity potential (FAETP, kg
robic digestion in septic tanks were calculated as follows (Metcalf and DCB-eq.), human toxicity potential (HTP, kg DCB-eq.), marine aquatic
Eddy, 2004): eco-toxicity potential (MAETP, kg DCB-eq.), photochemical ozone
creation potential (POCP, kg Ethene-eq.), and terrestrial ecotoxicity

6
M. Abdallah, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

potential (TETP, kg DCB-eq.). Table 5

Breakdown of capital costs (in USD) for the examined collection systems.
2.4.4. Eco-efficiency assessment Components CGS STT SBS
The eco-efficiency assessment has been developed to link the fi-
nancial and environmental aspects of products and systems. In this Pipes 29,502,300 – 18,982,100
Manholes/ Cleanouts 7,736,600 – 619,700
study, an eco-efficiency assessment is used to combine the environ- Septic tanks – 5,628,800 5,628,800
mental footprint and overall costs of the selected wastewater manage- Excavation 7,004,200 240,000 6,078,200
ment systems. In compliance with ISO guidelines 14045, the assessment Sewage tankers – 10,841,600 –
intends to quantify the eco-efficiency based on the ratio of the system Total 44,243,100 16,710,400 31,308,800
cost to the total environmental impact (ISO14045, 2012). The assess-
ment aggregates the results of the carbon footprint from the LCA and
CGS (518,800 m3). Moreover, replacing the costly manholes with
the net present worth from the LCCA in order to comparatively assess
cleanouts was a major contributing factor to the cost reduction (92%).
the eco-efficiency of the examined strategies.
The septic tanks amounted to around 18% of the total capital costs of
SBS system, which can be eliminated in existing developments where
3. Results & discussion
septic tanks are already installed. The analysis confirmed that the
construction of the SBS system ($31,308,800) is 30% less costly than
3.1. Technical assessment
the conventional system ($44,243,100). This corroborates closely with
the findings reported in the study by Abdul Alim (1997) which stated
The hydraulic analysis was carried out using the same network
that SBS increased the cost-savings by about 34% compared to the
layout for the CGS and SBS strategies (shown in the supplementary Fig.
conventional alternative. On the other hand, the STT system was found
A.1). The total length of the network was approximately 157 km, with
to be relatively inexpensive as it only included the purchase cost of
pipe diameters ranging from 200 to 1000 mm for the conventional
tankers as well as septic tanks ($16,710,400). However, the STT
system which decreased to a range of 100 to 800 mm for the SBS
strategy included recurring capital costs for the repurchase of tankers
system. The maximum depth of the CGS network was 10 m, while it
after 20-years due to expected depreciation. It is worth mentioning that,
dropped to 8 m in the SBS system. This is due to the full-flow capacity
in case of developed areas, the capital costs of the sewer-based systems
and milder slopes of the SBS system compared to conventional sewers,
shall increase to account for road cuts and reinstatements. However, the
which corroborates with the literature (Bakir, 2001; Little, 2004). It
SBS is expected to remain more cost-effective than CGS as the network
should be noted that in the case study area, no lift stations were ne-
is typically shallower, hence requires narrower trenches.
cessary which would have been an added advantage for the SBS net-
Table 6 summarizes the life-cycle costs of the examined wastewater
work if the terrain was not favorably sloped.
management strategies over a 40-year period. The O&M costs in the
A summarized design of the treatment units of each system is shown
first year for the SBS collection system ($313,100) was 65 and 83% less
in Table 4. The area of the WWTP has been significantly reduced by
than its conventional counterpart ($884,900) and STT system
67% in the SBS strategy compared to the STT and CGS, as the pre-
($1,847,700), respectively. In general, the SBS requires minimal
liminary and primary treatment units were eliminated. Moreover, the
maintenance due to the absence of solids; the only significant main-
size of the secondary treatment units (SBR), which largely contributed
tenance required is the septic tank desludging every few years com-
to the size of the WWTPs for the analyzed systems, was significantly
pared to daily emptying of STT septic tanks. The STT system had the
reduced. This finding is in agreement with Hass (2007) who found that
highest O&M costs as it included fueling and maintenance of tankers.
the capacity of WWTP could be reduced by 50% when SBS was im-
The results indicated that the total present value (O&M and capital
plemented.
costs) of the STT, CGS, and SBS collection systems at the end of the
design period increased to $72,109,200, $65,581,400, and
3.2. Financial assessment
$45,329,100, respectively.
The analysis results indicated a 37% reduction in capital cost for the
The cost analyses of the three collection systems are presented in
WWTP of the SBS strategy ($5,585,500) compared to that of the ex-
Table 5. In the sewer-based systems, the capital cost of pipes was re-
isting strategies ($8,864,400). The total annual O&M costs were also
duced by approximately 36% for SBS as only smaller diameter were
higher for the CGS and STT strategies ($152,100) than those for SBS
required compared to CGS. The mild slopes of the SBS system, along
($80,100) mainly due to the presence of preliminary and primary
with small diameter pipes, have resulted in a 17% decrease of the ex-
treatment units which were eliminated in the SBS strategy. Moreover,
cavation volume required for installation (432,500 m3) compared to
the reduced concentration of pollutants in the SBS's WWTP influent was
significantly lower leading to reduced O&M costs. As shown in Table 6,
Table 4
the 40-year present value increased to $12,532,300 for the existing
Design elements of the treatment units for the examined strategies.
strategies with a 40% reduction in case of implementing the alternative
Treatment Level Components Dimensionsa

STT and CGS Strategies SBS Strategy Table 6

Life cycle costs of the examined management strategies.
Preliminary Screen 2 × 4 × 0.4 × 1 N/R
Components Present Value CGS STT SBS
Grit chamber 2×4×3×3 N/R
Primary Clarifier 2 (no.) × 23.5 N/R
Collection Capital cost ($) 44,243,100 31,577,554 31,308,800
(diameter)
System Annual O&M cost 21,338,266 44,557,137 14,020,290
Secondary SBR 2 × 71 × 71 × 6 2 × 41 × 41 × 6
($)
Tertiary Filter 4×5×5×4 4×5×5×4
Sub-Total ($) 65,581,400 72,109,122 45,329,100
Disinfection 2 × 15 × 8 × 4 2 × 15 × 8 × 4
WWTP Capital cost ($) 8,864,400 8,864,400 5,585,500
Total Area (hectare) b 1.70 0.55
Annual O&M cost 3,667,857 3,667,857 1,931,593
a ($)
Unless otherwise noted, dimensions are stated as follows: Number of units Sub-Total ($) 12,532,300 12,532,300 7,517,100
(no.) × length (m) × width (m) × depth (m). Sewerage service charge ($) 81,543,400
b
Total area includes an additional 50% land space for auxiliary units, sup- Total 3,429,736 −3,098,011 28,697,291
porting facilities and access roads.

7
M. Abdallah, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

STT SBS CGS

30
20
10

NPV (million $)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Time (year)

Fig. 3. Payback analysis for the examined wastewater management strategies.

STT SBS

TETP
POCP
MAETP
HTP
FAETP
ADF
ADE
ODP
EP
AP
GWP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Impact (%)

Fig. 4. Life cycle impact assessment using CML 2015 midpoint indicators for the examined strategies.

SBS strategy ($7,517,100).
Taking into account the entire wastewater management system, i.e.,
collection and treatment systems, the SBS strategy was found to have
the highest NPV of $28,697,291 followed by the CGS and STT systems
with an NPV of $3,429,736 and -$3,098,011, respectively. The PI of the
three strategies was computed at 1.78, 1.06, and 0.91 for the SBS, CGS,
and STT, respectively. Moreover, the profitability of the SBS strategy
was further confirmed with an IRR of 7.67%, which is almost double
the discount rate used in the present study. The CGS and STT strategies
had an IRR of 3.41 and 2.46%, respectively. Therefore, based on the
input data, assumptions, and local operating conditions of the present
study, the SBS strategy was proven to be the most economical alter-
native. Fig. 3 depicts the payback periods of the examined strategies.
The payback periods for the SBS and CGS strategies were found to be
around 16 and 35 years, respectively, while the STT strategy had no
payback period as the capital costs were not replayed over the 40-year
period. It should be noted that the drop in the cumulative NPV for the
STT strategy in the 20th year was due to the recurring capital costs
invested during the same year.
3.3. Environmental assessment
The assessment showed that the CGS system posed a greater risk to
the environment compared to the other strategies in all the categories
considered. These results are based on the 11 midpoint impact
categories from the CML 2015 method. Hence, using CGS as the base-
line strategy, the relative LCA results of the STT and SBS wastewater
management strategies were illustrated in Fig. 4. The STT strategy
imparted a marginally higher environmental impact than SBS in six
categories, particularly ODP, ADE, FAETP, HTP, MAETP and TETP. On
the other hand, implementation of SBS had more detrimental effects on
the GWP, AP, EP, ADF and POCP compared to the STT system.
As shown in Fig. 5 and the supplementary Table A.1, concrete
production was found to be a leading contributing factor to GWP, AP,
EP, ODP, and ADE in all strategies. The HDPE pipe production within
the CGS and SBS strategies largely contributed to ADF and POCP. On
the other hand, the excessive transportation activities in the STT
strategy yielded negligible POCP impacts on the environment compared
to the CGS and SBS strategies which were 66% and 33% higher than
STT, respectively. Another major contributor was the landfill disposal
of construction waste (at the end-of-life phase) which affected the
FAETP, HTP, MAETP, and TETP. The overall life-cycle impacts of the
SBS strategy were the lowest which can be attributed to the fact that
CGS and STT contained additional concrete structures (treatment units
and/or manholes) which were eliminated in SBS; this in turn generated
larger quantities of concrete waste at the end-of-life phase. Despite the
high sludge production rate in the CGS and STT strategies compared to
SBS due to the anaerobic digestion of settled solids in septic tank, the
environmental impacts arising from landfill disposal of biodegradable
materials were minor.

8
M. Abdallah, et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378

1) STT CGS SBS

3000

2500

HTP (kg DCB-eq.)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Concrete Production Landfilling HDPE Pipe Production Manhole Cover Other
Production

2) STT CGS SBS

40

35

30
TETP (kg DCB-eq.)

25

20

15

10

0
Concrete Production Landfilling Diesel in Refinery Manhole Cover Other
Production

3) STT CGS SBS

250

200
FAETP (kg DCB-eq.)

150

100

50

0
Concrete Landfilling HDPE Pipe Diesel in Refinery Manhole Cover Other
Production Production Production

Fig. 5. Environmental impacts of processes contributing to 1) HTP, 2) TETP, and 3) FAETP for the examined strategies.

9
M. Abdallah, et al.
Fig. 6. Eco-efficiency assessment for the construction and operation phases of the SBS, STT, and CGS systems.
The LCA results revealed that methane, ammonia and carbon di-
oxide emissions released from the septic tanks, sewers, and WWTPs had
no significant impacts on the overall environmental footprint. In all
three management strategies, the emissions released amounted to less
than 5% of the total impact for the categories of GWP, AP, EP, and
POCP. A similar observation was made by Risch et al. (2015) in their
study which stated that direct sewer emissions were insignificant
compared to the overall environmental impacts. However, the re-
searchers identified the construction of sewer infrastructure as the
major contributing factor of the wastewater system which is different
from the results obtained in the present study which indicated that raw
material production and landfill disposal of contaminated concrete
were the major contributors. It is worth mentioning that the results
obtained in LCA studies are largely influenced by the functional unit as
well as the impact assessment technique utilized in the study. More-
over, lack of existing studies on LCA of STT and SBS make it difficult to
corroborate the obtained results with the literature. Overall, compared
to the existing strategies, and based on the defined system boundary
and limitations, it is evident that the SBS strategy poses the least threat
to the environment and general public.
3.4. Eco-efficiency assessment
Fig. 6 depicts an eco-efficiency portfolio of the examined strategies,
where the construction and operation phases of each system have been
separately plotted. The top right quartile represents the highest system
cost and highest environmental impact, while the bottom left quartile
demonstrates the most optimum strategies with the lowest costs and
environmental impacts. Overall, the operation phase had significantly
low environmental and economic impacts, and the performance of the
three strategies was in close proximity with the STT system being the
least eco-efficient. The construction of the STT system scored the least
eco-efficiency, followed by the CGS system. As shown in Fig. 6, the eco-
efficiency index showed that, by combining the environmental and
economic aspects, the SBS strategy was the most favored among the
examined strategies.
3.5. Challenges and limitations
The present assessment proved that the SBS can be a potentially
viable alternative to conventional wastewater management strategies.
Its benefits can be further maximized in cases of offshore islands, rocky
terrains and areas where the groundwater level is high. However,
10
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378
various factors can hinder the successful installation of SBS in the UAE,
including: (1) lack of local standards and design guidelines for appro-
priate design of the system, (2) limited regional experiences in the Gulf
Corporation Council (GCC) area, (3) improper management as well as
the behavior of the general public can lead to complications within the
system such as clogging of septic tanks, and (4) illegal connections to
the sewer network can lead to overloading and/or clogging in sewerage
networks. It should be noted that the various environmental impacts
computed in this study are strictly comparative among the assessed
waste management systems. Due to the common processes excluded
from the system boundaries, the results do not indicate the total
emissions of the entire strategies, but rather their relative environ-
mental performance.
4. Conclusions
Sanitation is a critical element that affects the environment and
well-being of the society. In order to cope with the ever-increasing
wastewater production, alternative management systems must be ex-
plored and evaluated from technical, financial, and environmental
perspectives. The present research proposed a comprehensive feasibility
study comprising of design, life-cycle costing and environmental life-
cycle analysis of three major wastewater strategies based on septic
systems, conventional networks, and small-bore sewers. The SBS system
was found to be a practical improvement to the current systems being
45 and 36% more cost-effective than the STT and CGS systems, re-
spectively. In addition to the financial viability, the SBS system was
found to be a better alternative to the current strategies in terms of
various environmental impacts. While the STT strategy was the least
financially feasible, the CGS had the largest environmental footprint of
the examined strategies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the support and data provided by
Sharjah Municipality. The authors extend their gratitude to Clearford
Water Systems Inc. (Ottawa, Canada) for their valuable support and
M. Abdallah, et al.
shared data about the construction and operation of small-bore sewer
systems. Any opinions or positions expressed in this paper are those of
the authors only, and do not reflect any opinions or positions of the
Municipality or the Company.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106378.
References
Abdul Alim, F., 1997. Wastewater Management in Egypt. Unpubl. Rep. Present. WHO/
CEHA Multi-national Train. course low-cost Technol. on-site wastewater Treat.
Amman Sept. 1997.
Akhtar, S., Reza, B., Hewage, K., 2014. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for
selection of sewer pipe materials. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 17, 973–992. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0849-x.
Bakir, H.A., 2001. Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in the
Middle East and North Africa. J. Environ. Manag. 61, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.
1006/jema.2000.0414.
Butler, D., Payne, J., 1995. Septic tanks: problems and practice. Build. Environ. 30,
419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1323(95)00012-U.
Chaosakul, T., Koottatep, T., Polprasert, C., 2014. A model for methane production in
sewers. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. - Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 49,
1316–1321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2014.910071.
Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsen, H.F., Morera, S., Shaw, A., 2013.
Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res. 47,
5480–5492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.06.049.
COWI, 2006. Appendix 3 : Documentation of Expenditure Functions - Wastewater
Wastewater. pp. 1–7.
Foley, J., De Haas, D., Hartley, K., Lant, P., 2010. Comprehensive life cycle inventories of
alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 44, 1654–1666. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.11.031.
Ghulam, M.B.T., Hassan, N.A., Kiran, T.I.H., 2017. Morphology tailored synthesis of C-
WO 3 nanostructures and its photocatalytic application. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym.
Mater. 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-017-0720-8.
Hadidi, L.A., Omer, M.M., 2017. A financial feasibility model of gasification and anae-
robic digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste Manag. 59,
90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.030.
Hailu, S., 1988. Applicability of Small Bore Gravity Sewers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int.
Ref. Cent. Community Water Supply Sanit. 47.
Harindi, F.T., Kamil, I.M., 2011. Application of Small Bore Sewer System in Kecamatan
Jatinangor, Kabupaten Sumedang Penerapan System Small Bore Sewer Di
Kecamatan. Engineering. pp. 1–12.
Hass, J.L., 2007. The evolution of the small diameter variable gradient sanitary collection
system into the small bore sewer. Water Pract. 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2175/
193317707X269726.
Hass, J.L., 2008. Innovative Sanitary Collection System. The Small Bore SewerTM, New
York, pp. 384–400.
IPCC, 2008. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories – A primer,
Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme,. Intergov. Panel
Clim. Chang. Natl. Greenh. Gas Invent. Program. 20.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and
framework 14040.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements
and guidelines Management.
ISO14045, 2012. International Organization for Standardization. Environ. Manag. Assess.
Prod. Syst. Requir. Guidel. 2006, 13.
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., 2003. Presenting a
New Method IMPACT 2002 + : A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 8 (6), 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505.
Kumar, S., Kassim Kunju, A., Kalra, J., 2013. DS185 Sewerage, Drainage & Irrigation
Master Plan for Document No . TN-DS185-08. Munic, Dubai.
Li, Y., Luo, X., Huang, X., Wang, D., Zhang, W., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a municipal
wastewater treatment plant: a case study in Suzhou. China. J. Clean. Prod. 57,
221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.035.
Lim, S., Moon, J., 2009. Environmental impact minimization of a total wastewater
treatment network system from a life cycle perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 90,
1454–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.09.005.
Little, C.J., 2004. A comparison of sewer reticulation system design standards gravity,
vacuum and small bore sewers. Water SA 30, 685–692. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.
v30i5.5184.
LN Malviya Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2017. Environmental and Social Assessment for the
Development of Sewerage Network and Sewage Treatment Plant at Nasrullaganj.
Madhya Pradesh Urban Development Company Limited, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
Lorenzo-Toja, Y., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Chenel, S., Marı’n-Navarro, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo,
G., 2015. Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs using the LCA + DEA method.
11
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 82 (2020) 106378
Water Res. 68, 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.040.
Lundin, M., Bengtsson, M., Molander, S., 2000. Life cycle assessment of wastewater
systems: influence of system boundaries and scale on calculated environmental loads.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978823.
Metcalf, Eddy, 2004. Wastewater Engineering - Treatment and Reuse, 4th edition.
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Mills, N., Pearce, P., Farrow, J., Thorpe, R.B., Kirkby, N.F., 2014. Environmental & eco-
nomic life cycle assessment of current & future sewage sludge to energy technologies.
Waste Manag. 34, 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.08.024.
Morera, S., Remy, C., Comas, J., Corominas, L., 2016. Life cycle assessment of con-
struction and renovation of sewer systems using a detailed inventory tool. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21, 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1078-9.
Nawrot, T., 2010. Economic Analysis of Small Diameter Gravity Sewers Compared to
other Sewerage Systems. Teka Kom. Ochr. Kszt. Środ. Przyr. pp. 272–279.
Nogueira, R., Brito, A.G., Machado, A.P., Janknecht, P., Salas, J.J., Vera, L., Martel, G.,
2009. Economic and environmental assessment of small and decentralized waste-
water treatment systems. Desalin. Water Treat. 4, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.5004/
dwt.2009.349.
Norman, G., Scott, P., Pedley, S., 2011. The PAQPUD settled sewerage project (Dakar,
Senegal): problems arising, lessons learned. Habitat Int. 35, 361–371. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.11.004.
Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ayodele, T.R., Alao, M.A., 2017. Electricity generation from mu-
nicipal solid waste in some selected cities of Nigeria: an assessment of feasibility,
potential and technologies. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 80, 149–162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.177.
Otis, R., Duncan Mara, D., 1985. The Design of Small Bore Sewer Systems., in: United
Nations Development Programme. Technology Advisory Group (TAG).
Palmer, N., Lightbody, P., Fallowfield, H., Brian, H., 2010. Australia’s Most successful
alternative to sewerage : South Australia’ S septic tank effluent disposal scheme.
Environ. Health 8.
Petit-boix, A., Roigé, N., De Fuente, A., Pujadas, P., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., Josa, A.,
2016. Integrated structural analysis and life cycle assessment of equivalent trench-
pipe systems for sewerage. Water Resour. Manag. 30, 1117–1130. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11269-015-1214-5.
Petit-Boix, A., Arnal, C., Marín, D., Josa, A., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., 2018.
Addressing the life cycle of sewers in contrasting cities through an eco-efficiency
approach. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 1092–1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12649.
Raghuvanshi, S., Bhakar, V., Sowmya, C., Sangwan, K.S., 2017. Waste water treatment
plant life cycle assessment: treatment process to reuse of water. Procedia CIRP 61,
761–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.170.
Réka, C., Štefan, S., Mária, D., 2019. Usage of the life cycle assessment method for en-
vironmental impact assessment of wastewater treatment plant. Pollack Period. 14.
Remy, C., 2010. Life cycle assessment of conventional and source separation systems for
urban wastewater management. Tech. Univ. Berlin 340.
Risch, E., Gutierrez, O., Roux, P., Boutin, C., Corominas, L., 2015. Life cycle assessment of
urban wastewater systems: quantifying the relative contribution of sewer systems.
Water Res. 77, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.03.006.
Rodriguez-Garcia, G., Molinos-Senante, M., Hospido, A., Herna, F., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo,
G., 2011. Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of wastewater
treatment plants. Water Res. 45, 5997–6010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.
08.053.
Szabo, S., 2011. The Water Challenge in the UAE. Dubai School of Government.
Tahir, M.B., Sagir, M., 2019. Separation and Puri fi cation Technology Carbon nanodots
and rare metals ( RM = La , Gd , Er ) doped tungsten oxide nanostructures for
photocatalytic dyes degradation and hydrogen production. Sep. Purif. Technol. 209,
94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.07.029.
Thomas, A., Mantha, B.R.K., Menassa, C.C., 2016. A Framework to Evaluate the Life Cycle
Costs and Environmental Impacts of Water Pipelines. pp. 1721–1731.
Tilley, E., Lüthi, C., Morel, A., Zurbrügg, C., Schertenleib, R., 2014. Compendium of sa-
nitation systems and technologies. Eawag 180 https://doi.org/SAN-12.
Tomei, M.C., Bertanza, G., Canato, M., Heimersson, S., Laera, G., Svanström, M., 2016.
Techno-economic and environmental assessment of upgrading alternatives for sludge
stabilization in municipal wastewater treatment plants. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
3106–3115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.017.
USEPA, 2000. Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet: Small Diameter Gravity
Sewers. Agency, United States Environmental Protection.
USEPA, 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
pp. 1–367.
Van Zyl, J., Van Dijk, M., 2011. Waterborne Sanitation Operations Guide, in:
Development of a South African Guide for the Design and Operation of Waterborne
Sewerage Systems. WRC Project.
Vijayan, G., Saravanane, R., Sundararajan, T., 2017. Carbon Footprint Analyses of
Wastewater Treatment Systems in Puducherry. Comput. Water, Energy, Environ. Eng.
06, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.4236/cweee.2017.63019.
World Bank, 2006. India - Punjab Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project (English).
World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank, 2018. World Development Indicators [WWW Document]. URL https://
www.worldbank.org/ (accessed 4.3.17).
Zhao, Gang, X., Jiang, Wu, G., Li, A., Wang, L., 2016. Economic analysis of waste-to-
energy industry in China. Waste Manag. 48, 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.10.014.