Much research and development effort is directed towards advances in municipal wastewater treatment aiming at reducing the effluent content of micro-pollutants and pathogens. The objective is to further reduce the eco-toxicity, hormone effects and pathogenic effects of the effluent. Such further polishing of the effluent, however, involves an environmental trade-off: the reduction in eco-toxicity, hormone effects, etc. will happen at the expense of increased resource- and energy consumption. Obviously, at some point of further advances, there must be an 'environmental break-even'. This trade-off was investigated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology and based on a literature review of advanced treatment performance. The LCA evaluation comprised sand filtration, ozonation and MBRs and assessed the effect of extending existing tertiary treatment with these technologies on a variety of micro-pollutants being: heavy metals (Cd, Pb, Ni), endocrine disruptors (E2 and EE2), PAH, DEHP, and detergents (LAS & NPE). It was found, in some of the studied scenarios, that more environmental impact may be induced than removed by the advanced treatment. The study showed that for the 3 technologies, sand filtration has the best balance between prevented and induced impacts, and sand filtration proved to have a net environmental benefit under the assumptions used in the study. But the outcome of the study suggests that this is not always the case for ozonation and MBR.

As a consequence of the EU Water Framework Directive more focus is now on discharges of hazardous substances from wastewater treatment plants and sewers. Thus, many municipalities in Denmark may have to adopt to future advanced treatment technologies. This paper describes a holistic assessment, which includes technical, economical and environmental aspects. The technical and economical assessment is performed on 5 advanced treatment technologies: sand filtration, ozone treatment, UV exclusively for disinfection of pathogenic microorganisms, membrane bioreactor (MBR) and UV in combination with advanced oxidation. The technical assessment is based on 12 hazardous substances comprising heavy metals, organic pollutants, endocrine disruptors as well as pathogenic microorganisms. The environmental assessment is performed by life cycle assessment (LCA) comprising 9 of the specific hazardous substances and three advanced treatment methods; sand filtration, ozone treatment and MBR. The technical and economic assessment showed that UV solely for disinfection purposes or ozone treatment is the most advantageous advanced treatment methods if the demands are restricted to pathogenic microorganisms. In terms of sustainability, sand filtration is the most advantageous method based on the technical and environmental assessment due to the low energy consumption and high efficiency with regards to removal of heavy metals.

The various emissions to water, air and soil from the municipal wastewater treatment plant of Avedore Wastewater Service Company are accounted for and quantified in terms of the environmental impacts to which they contribute: global warming, acidification, eutrophication, space demand for controlled deposition of residues, as well as persistent toxicity, human toxicity and eco-toxicity. The impacts are expressed on the same scale, namely as fraction of the total per capita loads in a national scenario 1990, also called the person equivalent or PE1990. This provides a compact and informative overview of the environmental impacts and allows for a holistic prioritisation in the operation and management of the plant. The accounting shows that the resulting emissions per person in the catchment area of the plant correspond to 0.5-5.0% of the average Danish PE1990 for the impacts in question.

Environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA) was applied to evaluate three different water systems of the water sector in Copenhagen, Denmark, including technologies within water supply, facilities recycling water and treatment of sewer overflow. In these three water systems LCA was used to evaluate the environmental impacts of each of the processes involved. The overall conclusion was that LCA is suitable as a decision support tool in the water sector as it provides a holistic evaluation platform of the considered alternatives categorised in environmental impact categories. The use of LCA in the water sector of this region has limitations since it does not yet consider impact categories assessing freshwater scarcity and ecological sustainability.

No abstract