static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewDMU= decision making unit; ENEI= Environmental Net Eutrophication Impact Table S6 . DEA matrix for medium size (20,000-50,000 population

ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Dynamic environmental efficiency assessment for wastewater treatment plants

Yago Lorenzo-Toja1,2 • Ian Vázquez-Rowe1,3 • Desirée Marín-Navarro4 • Rosa M. Crujeiras5 • María Teresa Moreira1 • Gumersindo Feijoo1

Received: 7 October 2016 / Accepted: 28 March 2017

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Responsible editor: Almudena Hospido

1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Technology, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain2 Cetaqua, Water Technology Centre, Emprendia Building, Campus Vida, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain3 Peruvian LCA Network, Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 1801 Avenida Universitaria, San Miguel, Lima 32, Peru4 Cetaqua, Water Technology Centre, 08940 Cornellà de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain5 Department of Statistics, Mathematical Analysis and Optimization, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Santiago de Compostela, Campus Sur s/n, C.P. 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Yago Lorenzo-Toja

[email protected]; [email protected]

1

Section S1 – Data acquisition, data quality and average inventory data of each WWTP range

Data acquisition

Regarding chemical products, acrylonitrile manufacture was used as a substitute

of polyelectrolyte (polyacrylamide) production, as described in Rodriguez-García et al.

(2011). In the case of the powdered and granular activated carbon, the production

process was modelled following the inventories suggested by Muñoz et al. (2006).

Aluminium polychloride and sodium aluminate were both created based on a personal

communication (María José Amores, Cetaqua, personal communication, October 2015).

The remaining chemicals were directly selected from the ecoinvent® database: sodium

hypochlorite 15 %, iron sulphate, iron (III) chloride, sodium hydroxide 50 %,

aluminium sulphate and lime. For the transport of these chemicals, trucks (3.5-7.5 t)

EURO 4 were selected as standard transport from the ecoinvent® database.

Three different types of waste generated in the pre-treatment phase were

considered in the assessment: municipal solid waste (MSW), grit and grease. A

municipal waste incineration plant with energy recovery was considered as the

management solution for the MSW. Grit was considered to be disposed of at an inert

landfill and greases stabilized with lime and cement before disposal in a secure deposit.

The alternative for sludge management was in all cases stabilization and composting.

Data quality

Based on the previous eco-efficiency analysis performed by Lorenzo-Toja et al.

(2015), in which a total of 113 WWTPs were assessed using the LCA+DEA method, a

thorough collection of operational data was accomplished.

2

Thereafter, a new WWTPs selection process was performed in order to avoid

data gaps. Hence, plants with available data for all the years in the following fields were

selected: flow, electricity consumption, sludge generation, MSW generation, grit

generation, grease generation, chemical consumption and water quality data from both

the influent and the effluent (COD, TSS, TN and TP). After applying these filters, the

number of WWTPs was reduced from 113 to 63 complete inventoried facilities. In a

second iteration, a set of meetings were held between the authors and wastewater

treatment experts to evaluate the quality of the data in the remaining WWTPs. At this

point 16 facilities were discarded due to unreliable waste generation and water quality

data. Once again, in a similar way as detected in Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2015), the

shortage of data quality was mainly identified in small WWTPs that lack continuous

operational control.

3

Average inventories per WWTP size range

Table S1. Main average inventory data of the case study per 0-20,000 p.e size range (with standard deviations in brackets; values per m3 of treated water).

0-20,000 p.e

2009 2010 2011 2012

Influent

COD (g) 592 (262) 559 (258) 573 (271) 629 (306)

TSS (g) 272 (107) 254 (126) 225 (104) 257 (116)

TN (g) 55.9 (19.2)

50.2 (17.6)

52.4 (21.5) 57.9 (18.4)

TP (g) 8.45 (3.91)

7.42 (3.82)

8.50 (5.24) 9.08 (5.42)

Effluent

COD (g) 35.6 (16.5)

37.8 (27.6)

44.8 (50.9) 41.4 (36.9)

TSS (g) 11.8 (8.43)

11.6 (10.9)

11.2 (9.67) 10.6 (8.75)

TN (g) 16.6 (11.3)

13.1 (7.61)

12.4 (6.02) 13.4 (7.77)

TP (g) 2.84 (1.83)

2.56 (1.55)

2.52 (1.35) 2.51 (1.39)

Wastes

Sludge (kg) 1.30 (0.88)

1.11 (0.74)

1.11 (0.84) 1.21 (0.71)

U.S.W (g) 37.1 (43.3)

32.5 (46.4)

29.0 (38.9) 28.0 (47.9)

Grit (g) 7.39 (12.9)

9.06 (15.6)

9.41 (15.0) 10.6 (15.0)

Grease (g) 4.56 (10.3)

4.28 (10.0)

3.32 (8.68) 2.63 (7.07)

Electricity

From the grid (kWh) 0.79 (0.52)

0.72 (0.43)

0.73 (0.46) 0.77 (0.45)

Chemicals

Polyelectrolite (g) 1.88 1.88 1.90 2.13 (1.32)

4

(1.56) (1.15) (1.51)

FeCl3 (g) 5.51 (11.5)

1.82 (6.66)

3.31 (9.13) 2.34 (6.29)

NaClO (g) 1.45 (6.79)

1.46 (6.09)

1.32 (6.20) 0.24 (1.13)

Others (g) 0.03 (0.13)

0.46 (0.57) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)

COD= chemical oxygen demand; TSS= total suspended solids; TN= total nitrogen; TP= total phosphorus; U.S.W= urban solid waste.

5

Table S2. Main average inventory data of the case study per 20,000-50,000 p.e size range (with standard deviations in brackets; values per m3 of treated water).

20,000-50,000 p.e

2009 2010 2011 2012

Influent

COD (g) 732 (231) 699 (286) 644 (180) 618 (131)

TSS (g) 433 (231) 362 (165) 298 (89.9) 306 (82.9)

TN (g) 56.3 (16.9) 52.1 (13.4) 54.3 (21.6) 54.3 (9.11)

TP (g) 8.36 (2.44) 8.40 (6.69) 9.30 (8.52) 10.3 (6.32)

Effluent

COD (g) 58.9 (57.1) 53.2 (42.2) 49.3 (36.7) 41.1 (26.8)

TSS (g) 22.7 (48.9) 23.2 (28.6) 18.3 (16.5) 15.9 (13.5)

TN (g) 16.3 (12.7) 16.8 (11.6) 16.6 (13.4) 15.9 (8.66)

TP (g) 2.30 (1.13) 2.38 (1.93) 2.18 (1.74) 3.89 (6.53)

Wastes

Sludge (kg) 1.15 (0.36)

1.04 (0.28) 1.15 (0.31) 1.22 (0.33)

U.S.W (g) 22.2 (23.8)

17.3 (15.0) 24.2 (16.3) 19.1 (17.1)

Grit (g) 13.7 (16.7)

11.7 (11.5) 33.2 (47.7) 10.2 (12.4)

Grease (g) 6.85 (9.25)

6.1 (8.10) 2.91 (4.48) 3.42 (4.41)

Electricity

From the grid (kWh) 0.48 (0.11)

0.44 (0.11) 0.46 (0.10) 0.49 (0.10)

Chemicals

Polyelectrolite (g) 1.59 (0.78)

1.90(0.93) 2.01 (0.81) 2.36 (1.15)

FeCl3 (g) 9.07 (21.6) 3.60 (8.72) 3.19 (7.79) 3.12 (7.64)

NaClO (g) 0.03 0.04 (0.09) 0.03 (0.07) 0.01 (0.03)

6

(0.07)

Others (g) 0.55 (0.86) 5.35 (12.5) 3.79 (8.79) 5.70 (13.9)


7

Table S3. Main average inventory data of the case study per >50,000 p.e size range (with standard deviations in brackets; values per m3 of treated water).

>50,000 p.e

2009 2010 2011 2012

Influent

COD (g) 711 (301) 676 (281) 728 (290) 748 (270)

TSS (g) 353 (148) 300 (104) 320.6 (118) 352 (156)

TN (g) 53.0 (20.0) 54.9 (22.1) 58.5 (22.7) 60.7 (23.9)

TP (g) 7.23 (3.0) 6.82 (3.52) 8.20 (4.68) 8.43 (4.36)

Effluent

COD (g) 88.0 (93.6) 54.7 (24.5) 62.8 (43.1) 56.4 (26.7)

TSS (g) 20.5 (23.7) 17.3 (14.4) 19.3 (21.0) 16.6 (14.3)

TN (g) 27.2 (15.2) 28.4 (14.1) 31.2 (15.3) 30.4 (14.5)

TP (g) 2.26 (1.24) 1.96 (1.01) 2.19 (1.04) 2.38 (1.01)

Wastes

Sludge (kg) 107 (0.48) 1.06 (0.54) 1.06 (0.47) 1.07 (0.44)

U.S.W (g) 30.9 (27.1) 23.0 (19.4) 27.1 (17.83) 28.0 (17.8)

Grit (g) 38.1 (36.9) 32.3 (31.7) 33.09 (34.9) 34.5 (30.5)

Grease (g) 2.30 (3.12) 2.25 (2.76) 2.05 (2.74) 1.31 (1.94)

Electricity

From the grid (kWh) 0.44 (0.30) 0.42 (0.30) 0.40 (0.28) 0.40 (0.26)

Chemicals

Polyelectrolite (g) 3.70 (4.28) 2.06(1.0) 2.13 (0.98) 2.46 (1.81)

FeCl3 (g) 31.3 (64.6) 13.8 (20.4) 13.7 (19.4) 15.0 (19.4)

NaClO (g) 2.63 (6.03) 2.76 (6.32) 2.14 (6.28) 1.99 (6.33)

Others (g) 0.24 (0.40) 9.55 (23.3) 4.26 (14.7) 4.93 (17.2)


8

Section S2 – Eutrophication Net Environmental Indicator (ENEI) calculation

Table S4. WWTPs theoretical effluents based on the environmental qualification of the discharge area and the plant size.

Plant Size (p.e) Discharge pointArea

Environmental status

Theoretical effluent EP·10-2

(kg PO4-3 eq/m3)

Small plantsWWTP 2 7352 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 5 10,182 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 7 5800 River Normal 3.76WWTP 8 2349 River Normal 4.23WWTP 24 5881 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 25 4395 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 30 8779 River Normal 5.29WWTP 32 10,737 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 40 12,997 River Normal 1.55WWTP 45 3200 River Normal 3.66WWTP 47 4622 Ocean Normal 4.48WWTP 50 4767 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 51 2098 River Normal 2.53WWTP 53 6622 River Sensitive 1.73WWTP 65 6179 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 75 1773 River Normal 6.16WWTP 84 11,908 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 90 15,692 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 93 14,846 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 98 11,580 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 99 11,331 River Normal 4.02WWTP 113 14,813 River Normal 1.52

9

Table S4 (cont). WWTPs theoretical effluents based on the environmental qualification of the discharge area and the plant size.

Plant Size (p.e) Discharge pointArea

Environmental status

Theoretical effluent EP·10-2

(kg PO4-3 eq/m3)

Medium plantsWWTP 6 21,588 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 10 34,289 Ocean Normal 4.13WWTP 15 20,359 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 31 26,219 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 35 33,837 River Normal 5.05WWTP 49 25,653 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 58 33,476 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 62 37,443 River Normal 7.46WWTP 63 21,099 River Normal 2.63WWTP 81 26,490 Ocean Normal 4.28WWTP 85 22,494 River Sensitive 1.52WWTP 111 41,131 River Sensitive 1.52

Large plantsWWTP 21 191,005 River Normal 2.34WWTP 37 474,714 River Sensitive 1.00WWTP 66 136,121 River Sensitive 1.00WWTP 69 495,047 River Normal 2.76WWTP 70 211,193 River Normal 3.51WWTP 74 60,015 River Normal 3.09WWTP 76 167,420 River Sensitive 1.00WWTP 79 170,733 Ocean Sensitive 1.00WWTP 95 402,833 River Normal 3.12WWTP 100 117,766 Ocean Normal 4.68WWTP 103 128,668 River Sensitive 1.00WWTP 104 208,488 River Normal 5.79WWTP 107 120,355 River Sensitive 1.00

10

Section S3 – DEA matrices

Table S5. DEA matrix for small size (<20,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT

Year DMU Electricity(kWh/m3)

Chemical Consumption

(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production

(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4

-3 eq/m3)

2009 2 0.1913 8.84·10-4 0.2393 1.31155 0.9071 3.83·10-3 2.2885 1.14837 0.9055 1.51·10-4 1.3769 1.60658 0.4769 7.30·10-5 0.2281 2.4819

24 1.2287 5.00·10-4 2.0239 0.903625 0.4756 2.08·10-4 0.8386 0.467230 2.2707 3.27·10-3 1.4775 2.287132 0.9116 3.83·10-3 2.0896 1.170040 0.3715 3.29·10-3 0.5250 2.221745 0.4118 2.11·10-4 1.0841 2.532447 0.5913 4.04·10-4 1.2788 1.718050 0.5515 3.55·10-4 0.9642 1.257151 0.6871 1.17·10-4 0.6929 1.514753 1.9645 2.93·10-4 0.8891 0.837065 0.3334 2.58·10-4 0.5122 1.088975 0.4816 9.21·10-6 3.5435 2.620484 0.8409 3.16·10-3 1.5515 1.135990 0.4273 3.57·10-4 1.0666 1.049493 0.7506 1.06·10-3 1.5255 1.053798 0.5915 1.40·10-4 0.9363 1.035799 0.5935 1.76·10-4 0.3064 1.5602113 1.3440 8.13·10-4 3.1369 2.0128

2010 2 0.1882 6.82·10-5 0.1956 1.23565 0.8989 8.14·10-4 2.4903 1.14007 1.0528 2.11·10-4 1.6128 1.62508 0.3339 4.57·10-5 0.1857 3.2056

24 1.2139 5.62·10-4 2.2227 0.964725 0.4539 1.78·10-4 0.7176 1.203930 1.7588 3.39·10-3 1.9960 1.684932 0.8476 4.41·10-4 1.5242 1.132240 0.2694 2.98·10-3 0.4409 2.313245 0.3921 2.84·10-4 0.7069 2.224047 0.6493 3.26·10-4 0.9838 1.424250 0.7053 3.62·10-4 0.8726 1.976851 0.6312 3.21·10-4 0.3802 1.364753 1.7396 7.05·10-4 1.5859 0.922565 0.3127 1.16·10-4 0.4992 1.020775 0.4527 2.61·10-4 0.6911 2.556984 0.8143 6.37·10-4 1.5359 1.127590 0.5210 1.31·10-3 1.2018 1.0403

DMU= decision making unit; ENEI= Environmental Net Eutrophication Impact

11

Table S5 (Cont.). DEA matrix for small size (<20,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4-3

eq/m3)

2010 93 0.5651 4.67·10-3 1.3321 1.046198 0.3787 1.11·10-4 0.4931 1.108699 0.5404 1.40·10-4 0.2657 1.6486

113 1.0861 6.77·10-4 2.5185 1.83882011 2 0.1849 6.15·10-5 0.2127 1.0307

5 0.8465 7.76·10-4 2.1708 1.12127 0.9736 1.55·10-4 1.3731 1.63048 0.4004 1.13·10-4 0.4411 3.126524 1.0605 5.36·10-4 1.5925 1.034525 0.4151 2.06·10-4 0.8036 1.096130 1.9871 4.15·10-3 3.3071 1.987832 0.8781 3.86·10-4 1.7501 1.123140 0.2511 2.96·10-3 0.4457 2.589545 0.4602 3.60·10-4 0.8631 2.253047 0.6361 2.22·10-4 0.9192 2.204850 0.4602 2.73·10-4 0.6019 2.135151 0.5766 1.79·10-4 0.2861 1.650253 1.7888 2.57·10-4 1.3307 0.940365 0.4709 5.04·10-5 0.2365 0.819275 0.5024 2.29·10-4 0.5484 2.619084 0.8107 6.21·10-4 1.7420 1.110490 0.5282 2.35·10-3 1.2086 1.089693 0.4696 2.11·10-3 1.1539 1.164598 0.4345 1.57·10-4 0.5593 1.032299 0.7068 1.14·10-4 0.1768 1.7628

113 1.2662 1.15·10-3 2.7185 1.65632012 2 0.1935 6.82·10-5 0.4002 1.1357

5 0.8069 7.64·10-4 2.2770 1.16427 1.1909 1.90·10-4 1.5779 1.82168 0.4647 0.00 0.5364 3.024324 1.1147 4.70·10-4 1.5864 1.005125 0.5737 3.17·10-4 0.9178 1.087630 2.1237 1.57·10-3 2.8606 1.872832 0.9202 5.78·10-4 1.9349 1.136140 0.2353 6.42·10-4 0.4623 2.213345 0.5581 3.74·10-1 0.9575 2.1659


12

Table S5 (Cont.). DEA matrix for small size (<20,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4-3

eq/m3)

2012 47 0.6213 2.96·10-4 1.0262 2.335450 0.6378 6.86·10-4 0.8352 1.651351 0.4692 1.65·10-4 0.1841 2.075153 1.7259 3.15·10-4 1.9815 0.901665 0.4683 1.47·10-4 0.5931 0.751975 0.7833 4.45·10-4 1.1559 2.661484 0.8090 5.96·10-4 1.9222 1.144390 0.5581 2.66·10-3 1.3540 1.103893 0.5030 2.49·10-3 1.2524 1.197498 0.6642 1.31·10-4 0.9095 1.099699 0.6327 1.42·10-4 0.1997 1.9380

113 0.8013 8.12·10-4 1.6853 1.7661DMU= decision making unit; ENEI= Environmental Net Eutrophication Impact

13

Table S6. DEA matrix for medium size (20,000-50,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production

(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4

-3 eq/m3)

2009 6 0.54074 4.31·10-4 1.65906 1.0363410 0.52763 3.02·10-4 1.31356 1.3157415 0.28655 2.15·10-4 1.01636 1.0402731 0.69085 1.93·10-4 0.88473 0.8842935 0.64593 1.02·10-3 1.46518 2.1811449 0.43875 2.22·10-4 1.33571 1.1582358 0.54940 4.61·10-4 1.28093 0.9222862 0.55239 3.13·10-4 0.77663 2.2013263 0.47597 2.22·10-4 0.86806 2.1933481 0.44385 5.25·10-4 0.70648 2.1038785 0.44308 6.35·10-3 0.76044 1.21269111 0.19730 7.66·10-5 0.65029 0.87343

2010 6 0.50016 2.51·10-3 1.44497 1.0614310 0.57659 4.12·10-4 1.49393 1.5068715 0.22971 1.71·10-4 0.93077 1.0143531 0.57771 1.57·10-4 0.76458 0.9119335 0.59946 1.08·10-3 1.23613 2.0188049 0.34798 1.97·10-4 1.11933 1.2549158 0.51147 5.83·10-4 1.21117 0.9860362 0.50063 3.43·10-4 0.72010 2.7721863 0.45970 2.18·10-4 0.85064 1.8274581 0.34564 5.21·10-4 0.67822 1.3900585 0.38804 1.34·10-2 0.84866 1.28655111 0.19603 6.21·10-5 0.47467 0.06888

2011 6 0.54271 2.72·10-3 1.33536 1.1677410 0.53727 4.11·10-4 1.23644 1.5082315 0.25090 4.66·10-4 0.86149 1.1508331 0.48943 1.19·10-3 0.75819 0.9531635 0.56366 1.13·10-3 1.16878 2.0741849 0.51623 2.80·10-4 1.72427 1.0824558 0.49124 4.67·10-4 1.08683 1.0125662 0.54167 3.57·10-4 0.88853 3.2454363 0.58786 3.44·10-4 1.13708 2.3075781 0.37394 8.28·10-4 1.14775 1.7576685 0.35338 9.15·10-3 0.80030 1.26515111 0.20581 7.18·10-5 0.52120 0.56872


14

Table S6 (Cont.). DEA matrix for medium size (20,000-50,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production

(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4

-3 eq/m3)

2012 6 0.52647 2.40·10-3 1.56625 1.1465710 0.66817 4.97·10-4 1.51333 1.4488915 0.31018 1.31·10-4 0.90094 1.0488931 0.52238 1.22·10-3 0.94114 0.9301535 0.62234 1.17·10-3 1.23055 2.2579249 0.43222 2.10·10-4 1.41597 0.2390958 0.48882 5.55·10-4 1.16708 1.0939462 0.51041 2.00·10-4 0.79626 2.6303963 0.63158 3.10·10-4 1.18492 2.7099181 0.41742 6.22·10-4 1.10985 1.9272585 0.41844 1.50·10-2 0.88641 1.20814111 0.22419 8.26·10-4 0.66590 0.76015


15

Table S7. DEA matrix for large size (>50,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production

(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4

-3 eq/m3)

2009 21 0.2832 1.89·10-3 1.1297 0.846937 0.4244 2.37·10-4 0.3390 1.081066 0.3811 4.88·10-4 1.1588 0.905169 0.4344 2.31·10-3 1.1026 1.401670 0.4914 6.19·10-4 1.4891 1.335374 0.3380 3.83·10-3 0.7879 1.272776 0.1944 1.04·10-3 0.6655 0.786679 0.2080 5.43·10-3 0.2932 0.628895 0.3401 8.99·10-4 1.2108 1.6816100 0.4105 5.26·10-4 1.3437 1.7382103 1.3745 7.46·10-3 1.1502 0.7319104 0.3520 2.18·10-3 1.1351 1.7279107 0.5280 3.51·10-2 2.1090 1.0132

2010 21 0.3099 2.35·10-3 1.1310 1.071237 0.3390 1.90·10-4 0.5307 0.942766 0.3160 3.64·10-4 0.7248 0.886869 0.3563 2.10·10-3 0.7995 1.484070 0.4621 7.35·10-3 1.3299 1.436474 0.2768 2.99·10-3 0.5686 1.495976 0.1915 8.74·10-4 0.5200 0.901179 0.2238 6.24·10-3 0.4620 0.889995 0.3387 8.81·10-4 1.3188 1.4374100 0.3831 3.30·10-4 1.2923 1.7249103 1.3533 7.63·10-3 2.0211 0.8693104 0.3476 2.84·10-4 1.0637 1.6745107 0.6037 9.98·10-3 2.0388 0.7437

2011 21 0.2601 1.80·10-3 1.2665 1.066537 0.3215 2.01·10-4 0.5763 0.916866 0.2492 1.71·10-3 0.9321 0.882569 0.3355 1.20·10-3 0.7415 1.882670 0.4496 7.24·10-3 1.3483 1.406974 0.2906 1.81·10-3 0.5597 1.394076 0.1682 9.28·10-4 0.5631 0.829879 0.2611 6.22·10-3 0.7164 0.554195 0.2963 9.49·10-4 1.0925 1.4344100 0.3719 3.02·10-4 1.2927 1.8557103 1.2494 1.54·10-2 1.8570 0.8666104 0.3885 2.80·10-4 0.9111 1.6411107 0.6093 9.90·10-3 1.9872 0.7773


16

Table S7 (Cont.). DEA matrix for large size (>50,000 population equivalent) wastewater treatment plants – WWTP (Data referred to 1 m3 of treated water).

INPUTS OUTPUT



(Pt/m3)

Sludge Production

(kg sludge/m3)

ENEI (kg PO4

-3 eq/m3)

2012 21 0.2343 1.96·10-3 1.4317 1.004837 0.3530 2.49·10-4 0.6216 0.864666 0.3686 2.80·10-3 1.0926 0.831769 0.2880 1.13·10-3 0.7932 1.805870 0.3763 1.88·10-3 1.1819 1.598474 0.2954 2.15·10-3 0.6537 1.695476 0.1844 1.07·10-3 0.6531 0.797079 0.2680 5.93·10-3 0.5496 0.560895 0.2774 8.93·10-4 1.0803 1.4974100 0.3812 2.65·10-4 1.3769 1.9344103 1.2015 7.80·10-3 1.5163 0.8603104 0.3919 4.08·10-4 0.9261 1.4892107 0.6292 5.95·10-3 2.0407 0.7951


17

Section S4 – Efficiency score results under window 1 (i.e p=1)

Table S8. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual small WWTPs (Window 1).

Small WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 2 100.00 68.39 71.29 85.26 81.24 ±14.52

DMU 5 18.66 13.21 16.67 19.20 16.93 ±2.71

DMU 7 33.39 16.07 38.02 22.91 27.60 ±9.95

DMU 8 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ±0.00

DMU 24 12.82 8.28 12.42 12.96 11.62 ±2.24

DMU 25 16.97 27.62 33.61 26.72 26.23 ±6.89

DMU 30 18.08 9.98 12.20 12.22 13.12 ±3.47

DMU 32 18.93 13.91 16.31 17.21 16.59 ±2.09

DMU 40 87.25 89.43 100.00 100.00 94.17 ±6.79

DMU 45 100.00 59.07 61.84 45.04 66.49 ±23.52

DMU 47 48.27 22.84 44.30 53.58 42.25 ±13.48

DMU 50 38.99 29.19 58.90 36.04 40.78 ±12.76

DMU 51 41.74 22.52 71.03 100.00 58.82 ±33.93

DMU 53 8.65 5.52 13.18 8.00 8.84 ±3.19

DMU 65 56.30 33.99 58.65 23.47 43.10 ±17.17

DMU 75 100.00 58.82 67.30 47.77 68.47 ±22.49

DMU 84 20.14 14.42 17.31 19.40 17.82 ±2.56

DMU 90 39.66 20.79 23.66 21.03 26.29 ±9.01

DMU 93 22.68 19.28 28.42 25.31 23.92 ±3.89

DMU 98 32.02 30.49 30.36 24.64 29.38 ±3.24

DMU 99 49.96 35.94 100.00 95.94 70.46 ±32.32

DMU 113 24.71 17.63 16.46 29.06 21.97 ±5.97

Average 44.96 32.61 45.09 42.08 41.19 ±10.55

18

Table S9. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual medium WWTPs (Window 1).

Medium WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 6 41.05 38.32 35.91 42.26 39.39 ±2.84

DMU 10 53.89 47.20 46.85 42.08 47.50 ±4.85

DMU 15 77.90 79.74 76.55 65.62 74.95 ±6.36

DMU 31 45.35 69.29 34.42 34.55 45.90 ±16.41

DMU 35 71.24 60.82 61.42 70.40 65.97 ±5.62

DMU 49 57.20 77.51 42.50 10.73 46.98 ±28.11

DMU 58 35.89 34.81 34.40 43.42 37.13 ±4.24

DMU 62 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ±0.00

DMU 63 100.00 100.00 73.74 83.26 89.25 ±13.01

DMU 81 100.00 72.63 78.45 89.59 85.17 ±12.14

DMU 85 57.74 59.87 59.75 56.03 58.35 ±1.83

DMU 111 100.00 13.23 87.07 65.79 66.52 ±38.23

Average 70.02 62.79 60.92 58.64 63.09 ±11.14

19

Table S10. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual large WWTPs. (Window 1).

Large WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 21 60.48 66.30 73.05 68.41 67.06 ±5.21

DMU 37 100.00 100.00 87.18 88.30 93.87 ±7.09

DMU 66 57.88 72.65 63.10 36.00 57.41 ±15.53

DMU 69 76.09 88.46 100.00 100.00 91.14 ±11.41

DMU 70 66.47 57.52 55.76 67.75 61.88 ±6.11

DMU 74 93.22 100.00 98.10 100.00 97.83 ±3.20

DMU 76 82.06 93.42 87.93 68.96 83.09 ±10.50

DMU 79 96.22 73.59 37.82 39.34 61.74 ±28.30

DMU 95 100.00 86.23 87.58 89.81 90.91 ±6.24

DMU 100 100.00 93.41 100.00 100.00 98.35 ±3.30

DMU 103 20.61 18.14 18.38 21.88 19.75 ±1.80

DMU 104 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ±0.00

DMU 107 38.80 22.80 22.73 20.16 26.12 ±8.54

Average 76.29 74.81 71.66 69.28 73.01 ±8.25

20

Section S5 – Efficiency score results under window 4 (i.e p=4)

Table S11. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual small WWTPs (Window 4).

Small WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 2 69.41 68.29 57.98 61.03 64.18 ±5.56

DMU 5 12.85 13.14 13.73 14.95 13.67 ±0.93

DMU 7 18.47 16.07 17.44 15.93 16.98 ±1.21

DMU 8 63.03 100.00 81.25 100.00 86.07 ±17.72

DMU 24 7.65 8.26 10.14 9.37 8.85 ±1.11

DMU 25 10.21 27.58 27.44 19.69 21.23 ±8.22

DMU 30 10.43 9.86 10.29 9.15 9.93 ±0.58

DMU 32 13.03 13.88 13.30 12.82 13.26 ±0.46

DMU 40 59.20 83.92 100.00 96.37 84.87 ±18.45

DMU 45 63.89 58.85 50.78 37.76 52.82 ±11.40

DMU 47 30.15 22.79 36.05 39.06 32.01 ±7.17

DMU 50 23.66 29.12 48.18 26.81 31.94 ±11.05

DMU 51 22.96 22.47 33.42 65.28 36.03 ±20.14

DMU 53 5.45 5.51 5.47 5.44 5.47 ±0.03

DMU 65 33.88 33.94 22.07 16.70 26.65 ±8.67

DMU 75 78.41 58.66 54.18 35.29 56.63 ±17.70

DMU 84 13.75 14.36 14.21 14.68 14.25 ±0.39

DMU 90 25.47 20.48 20.91 20.01 21.72 ±2.53

DMU 93 14.50 18.33 25.13 24.06 20.51 ±4.99

DMU 98 18.23 30.46 24.71 17.24 22.66 ±6.17

DMU 99 29.50 35.94 57.75 56.23 44.85 ±14.27

DMU 113 15.55 17.58 13.56 22.83 17.38 ±3.99

Average 29.08 32.25 33.54 32.76 31.91 ±7.40

21

Table S12. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual medium WWTPs (Window 4).

Medium WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 6 31.99 35.42 35.91 36.35 34.92 ±1.99

DMU 10 43.60 43.62 46.85 36.19 42.57 ±4.52

DMU 15 60.59 73.70 76.55 64.42 68.81 ±7.54

DMU 31 34.92 44.27 33.66 29.72 35.64 ±6.16

DMU 35 56.36 56.21 61.42 60.55 58.63 ±2.74

DMU 49 47.91 63.27 37.28 10.16 39.65 ±22.37

DMU 58 28.02 32.18 34.40 37.35 32.99 ±3.93

DMU 62 77.20 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.30 ±11.40

DMU 63 85.56 73.48 68.15 78.55 76.43 ±7.42

DMU 81 80.58 67.12 78.45 77.06 75.80 ±5.97

DMU 85 45.68 55.34 59.75 48.19 52.24 ±6.47

DMU 111 86.90 8.45 60.36 56.59 53.08 ±32.66

Average 56.61 54.42 57.73 52.93 55.42 ±9.43

22

Table S13. Efficiency scores (Φ0) and standard deviations per individual large WWTPs. (Window 4).

Large WWTPs

DMU 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average SD

DMU 21 47.71 55.14 65.40 68.41 59.17 ±9.52

DMU 37 100.00 89.34 81.37 67.74 84.61 ±13.59

DMU 66 47.03 63.75 56.49 36.00 50.82 ±12.02

DMU 69 53.26 72.69 100.00 100.00 81.49 ±22.80

DMU 70 54.00 49.58 49.92 67.75 55.31 ±8.53

DMU 74 64.30 100.00 94.17 100.00 89.62 ±17.10

DMU 76 64.54 75.51 78.72 68.96 71.93 ±6.39

DMU 79 76.78 73.28 33.91 38.77 55.69 ±22.47

DMU 95 85.29 73.40 80.63 89.81 82.28 ±7.01

DMU 100 81.66 89.63 98.69 100.00 92.49 ±8.57

DMU 103 20.22 15.57 16.87 19.88 18.14 ±2.28

DMU 104 78.31 100.00 100.00 86.17 91.12 ±10.74

DMU 107 30.61 19.65 20.35 20.16 22.69 ±5.29

Average 61.82 67.50 67.42 66.44 65.80 ±11.25

23

References

Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Chenel S et al (2015) Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs using the LCA+DEA method. Water Res 68:651–666

Muñoz I (2006) Life cycle assessment as a tool for green chemistry: application to different advanced oxidation processes for wastewater treatment

Rodriguez-Garcia G, Molinos-Senante M, Hospido a, et al (2011) Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Res 45:5997–6010

24

Documents

static-content.springer.com10.1007... · Web viewDMU= decision making unit; ENEI= Environmental Net Eutrophication Impact Table S6 . DEA matrix for medium size (20,000-50,000 population