Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index approach

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving the energy efficiency of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) provides notable economic and environmental benefits to society. Several studies have benchmarked the energy performance of WWTPs, but they did not take into account for differences in the wastewater treatment technologies they used, thus obscuring their relative efficiencies in removing harmful pollutants. To overcome this shortcoming, this study assessed and compared the energy efficiencies of five wastewater treatment technologies. To do so, the metafrontier approach was used in order to account for the technological differences among plants in removing pollutants. The results evidenced that energy efficiencies for WWTPs using attached-growth processes were higher than for WWTPs using suspended-growth technologies as secondary treatment. Moreover, higher pollutant removal efficiencies associated with biological removal of nutrients compensated for the higher energy requirements of this technology, making these WWTPs more energy efficient in the removal of pollutants. The results of this study provide essential information for improving the sustainability of current WWTPs and can support decision-making in the planning of new wastewater treatment facilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Specific characteristics of each wastewater treatment technology can be consulted at Sala-Garrido et al. (2011) and FAO (1992).

References

  • Alidrisi H (2014) Developing an input-oriented data envelopment analysis model for wastewater treatment plants. Life Sci J 11(8):875–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Aymerich I, Rieger L, Sobhani R, Rosso D, Corominas L (2016) The difference between energy consumption and energy cost: modelling energy tariff structures for water resource recovery facilities. Water Res 81:113–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battese GE, Prasada Rao DS, O’Donnell CJ (2004) A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J Prod Anal 21(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli M, Foladori P, Vaccari M (2013) Consumi elettrici ed efficienza energetica del trattamento delle acque reflue [Electrical consumption and energy efficiency in the water treatment]. Maggioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna (in Italian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellet L, Molinos-Senante M (2016) Efficiency assessment of wastewater treatment plants: a data envelopment analysis approach integrating technical, economic, and environmental issues. J Environ Manag 167:160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong X, Zhang X, Zeng S (2017) Measuring and explaining eco-efficiencies of wastewater treatment plants in China: an uncertainty analysis perspective. Water Res 112:195–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doraisamy P, Nandakumar NB, Maheswari M, Selvamurugan M (2013) Comparative performance of anaerobic reactors for treatment of sago industry wastewater. Clean Technol Environ Policy 15(2):391–394

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture - FAO irrigation and drainage paper 47. Rome (Italy)

  • Gu Y, Dong Y-N, Wang H, Keller A, Xu J, Chiramba T, Li F (2016) Quantification of the water, energy and carbon footprints of wastewater treatment plants in China considering a water-energy nexus perspective. Ecol Indic 60:402–409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gude VG (2015) Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power generation systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:52–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini A, Romano G, Leardini C, Martini M (2015) Measuring the efficiency of wastewater services through data envelopment analysis. Water Sci Technol 71(12):1845–1851

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayami H (1969) Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. Am J Agric Econ 51:564–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2011) Energy efficiency in Spanish wastewater treatment plants: a non-radial DEA approach. Sci Total Environ 409(14):2693–2699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kontolaimou A, Kounetas K, Mourtos I, Tsekouras K (2012) Technology gaps in European banking: Put the blame on inputs or outputs? Econ Model 29(5):1798–1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krampe J (2013) Energy benchmarking of South Australian WWTPs. Water Sci Technol 67(9):2059–2066

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu DY, Chiu CR, Liou JL (2017) Environmental performance measurement with technology heterogeneity: cross-region evidence. Energy Sources Part B 12(3):199–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longo S, d’Antoni BM, Bongards M, Chaparro A, Cronrath A, Fatone F, Lema JM, Mauricio-Iglesias M, Soares A, Hospido A (2016) Monitoring and diagnosis of energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants. A state of the art and proposals for improvement. Appl Energy 179:1251–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Chenel S, Marín-Navarro D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2015) Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs using the LCA + DEA method. Water Res 68:637–650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano-Vivas A, Pastor JM (2002) An efficiency comparison of european banking systems operating under different environmental conditions. J Prod Anal 18(1):59–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mamais D, Noutsopoulos C, Dimopoulou A, Stasinakis A, Lekkas TD (2015) Wastewater treatment process impact on energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Sci Technol 71(2):303–308

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marais GR, Ekama GA, Wentzel MC (2017) Application of the activated sludge model to aerated lagoons. Water SA 43(2):238–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marques RC, Berg S, Yane S (2014) Nonparametric benchmarking of Japanese water utilities: institutional and environmental factors affecting efficiency. J Water Resourc Plan Manag 140(5):562–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller LA, Ramaswami M, Ranjan R (2013) Contribution of water and wastewater infrastructure to urban energy metabolism and greenhouse gas emissions in cities in India. J Environ Eng 139(5):738–745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mizuta K, Shimada M (2010) Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci Technol 62(10):2256–2262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2015) The impact of privatization approaches on the productivity growth of the water industry: a case study of Chile. Environ Sci Policy 50:166–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2016) Cross-national comparison of efficiency for water utilities: a metafrontier approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(5):1611–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2014) Benchmarking in wastewater treatment plants: a tool to save operational costs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A, Sala-Garrido R (2015) Assessing the relative efficiency of water companies in the English and welsh water industry: a metafrontier approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(21):16987–16996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A, Sala-Garrido R (2017) Assessing the productivity change of water companies in England and Wales: a dynamic metafrontier approach. J Environ Manag 197:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naik KS, Stenstrom MK (2016) A feasibility analysis methodology for decentralized wastewater systems-energy-efficiency and cost. Water Environ Res 88(3):201–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell CJ, Fallah-Fini S, Triantis K (2017) Measuring and analysing productivity change in a metafrontier framework. J Prod Anal 47(2):117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panepinto D, Fiore S, Zappone M, Genon G, Meucci L (2016) Evaluation of the energy efficiency of a large wastewater treatment plant in Italy. Appl Energy 161:404–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala-Garrido R, Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F (2011). Comparing the efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies through a DEA metafrontier model. Chem Eng J 173:766–772

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala-Garrido R, Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M (2012) Assessing the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants in an uncertain context: a DEA with tolerances approach. Environ Sci Policy 18:34–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shabani A, Farzipoor Saen R, Torabipour SMR (2014) A new data envelopment analysis (DEA) model to select eco-efficient technologies in the presence of undesirable outputs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(3):513–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SISS (2015) Report about water and sewerage services in Chile. Available at: http://www.siss.gob.cl/586/w3-propertyvalue-6415.html

  • Tiedemann T, Francksen T, Latacz-Lohmann U (2011) Assessing the performance of German Bundesliga football players: a non-parametric metafrontier approach. CEJOR 19(4):571–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torregrossa D, Schutz G, Cornelissen A, Hernández-Sancho F, Hansen J (2016) Energy saving in WWTP: daily benchmarking under uncertainty and data availability limitations. Environ Res 148:330–337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2017) 2017 UN world water development report, wastewater: the untapped resource. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/. Accessed 2 July 2018

  • Wang H, Yang Y, Keller AA, Li X, Feng S, Dong Y-N, Li F (2016) Comparative analysis of energy intensity and carbon emissions in wastewater treatment in USA, Germany, China and South Africa. Appl Energy 184:873–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang L, Zeng S, Chen J, He M, Yang W (2010) Operational energy performance assessment system of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Sci Technol 62(6):1361–1370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng S, Chen X, Dong X, Liu Y (2017) Efficiency assessment of urban wastewater treatment plants in China: considering greenhouse gas emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl 120:157–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by CONICYT through Fondecyt 11160031 and REDI170223.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y Ambiental, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile

    María Molinos-Senante

  2. Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, El Comendador 1916, Santiago, Chile

    María Molinos-Senante

  3. Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable CONICYT/FONDAP/15110020, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile

    María Molinos-Senante

Authors
  1. María Molinos-Senante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Molinos-Senante.

Appendix: Individual energy efficiency scores

Appendix: Individual energy efficiency scores

See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Table 4 Energy efficiency scores with respect to the metafrontier and to the group frontier, technological gap ratio and potential energy saving of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using conventional activated sludge as secondary treatment
Full size table
Table 5 Energy efficiency scores with respect to the metafrontier and to the group frontier, technological gap ratio and potential energy saving of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using activated sludge with biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal as secondary treatment
Full size table
Table 6 Energy efficiency scores with respect to the metafrontier and to the group frontier, technological gap ratio and potential energy saving of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using aerated lagoon as secondary treatment
Full size table
Table 7 Energy efficiency scores with respect to the metafrontier and to the group frontier, technological gap ratio and potential energy saving of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using trickling filter as secondary treatment
Full size table
Table 8 Energy efficiency scores with respect to the metafrontier and to the group frontier, technological gap ratio and potential energy saving of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using rotating biological contactor as secondary treatment
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molinos-Senante, M. Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index approach. Clean Techn Environ Policy 20, 1819–1834 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1575-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1575-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation