Validation of an evidence-based methodology to support regional carbon footprint assessment and decarbonisation of wastewater treatment service in Italy

Impact of solar energy generation on carbon footprint: Evidence from China

“…In terms of the geographical scope of the carbon footprint study, it involves global (Shi & Yin, 2021), countries (Jack & Ivanova, 2021;Marinelli et al, 2021;Yan et al, 2022;F. Yu, Dong, et al, 2022;J.…”

Integrating Reactive Chlorine Species Generation with H2 Evolution in a Multifunctional Photoelectrochemical System for Low Operational Carbon Emissions Saline Sewage Treatment

“…7,8 The wastewater sector is responsible for 3% of global carbon emissions, while this value is much higher in many European countries (3−10%) because of implementing more stringent effluent standards. 9,10 Direct emissions from the fugitive greenhouse gases (GHGs, including CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O) are the primary sources in WWTPs, of which CH 4 and N 2 O are critical sources due to their high global warming potential (25 and 298 times that of CO 2 for CH 4 and N 2 O). 11,12 processes, increasing treatment cost and causing secondary pollution.…”

“…(i) WWTPs are powerless to remove non-biodegradable emerging organic pollutants (EOPs). , As a result, EOPs have been frequently detected in surface water and groundwater, adversely affecting human and animal health via long-term exposure because most EOPs are persistent in the environment and carcinogenic. (ii) WWTPs suffer high operational carbon emissions, restraining the global decarbonization process. , The wastewater sector is responsible for 3% of global carbon emissions, while this value is much higher in many European countries (3–10%) because of implementing more stringent effluent standards. , Direct emissions from the fugitive greenhouse gases (GHGs, including CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O) are the primary sources in WWTPs, of which CH 4 and N 2 O are critical sources due to their high global warming potential (25 and 298 times that of CO 2 for CH 4 and N 2 O). , (iii) Specific chemicals are required to be added in activated sludge and disinfection processes, increasing treatment cost and causing secondary pollution. There is an urgent need to develop novel wastewater treatment technologies to address the above limitations.…”

Assessment of energy performance and GHG emissions for the urban water cycle toward sustainability

“…CFCT (Gustavsson & Tumlin 2013), CF-TOOL CTRL (Baeza et al 2017), CHEApet (2011), BSM2G (Flores-Alsina et al 2012) and BSM2-e (Sweetapple et al 2013) models are applicable to WWTPs, whereas DEEM and ASMN (Guo et al 2012) are used to estimate CF from biological wastewater treatment units. WESTWeb (2022), Energy Performance and Carbon Emissions Assessment and Monitoring (ECAM; WaCCliM 2022) and WWEECarb (Marinelli et al 2021) tools address urban water and wastewater services for the assessment of carbon emissions. There are several studies for the application of the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to estimate CF of water and wastewater services, such as for Pamplona, Columbia (Ortiz-Rodriguez et al 2020), Ukraine (Levkovska et al 2020), Denmark and Sweden (Delre et al 2019), Gold Coast region of Australia (Lane et al 2015), municipality of Aveiro in Portugal (Lemos et al 2013) and USA (Zib et al 2021).…”

“…The recent research studies related to the sanitation stage of the urban water cycle addressed the analysis of wastewater infrastructure for total energy and GHG emissions considering the water-energy-carbon nexus (Singh & Kansal 2018), carbon neutrality of wastewater treatment systems for energy, nutrient and water recovery (Mo & Zhang 2012), comparison of different wastewater and sludge treatment technologies and disposal alternatives for the lowest CF (Chai et al 2015), analysis of energy consumption in WWTPs to evaluate water, CF and energy footprints (EF), and gray water footprint reduction (Gu et al 2016), application of a new methodological approach to determine direct and indirect emissions from WWTPs according to the guidelines of ISO 14064-1 (Marinelli et al 2021) and CF estimation of municipal water and wastewater services by embodied energy associated with topographic characteristics, efficiency of water and wastewater treatment systems and pumps (Bakhshi & Demonsabert 2012). In the case of the water supply stage, the relevant research studies focused on the evaluation of alternatives for the water supply infrastructure system by integrated CF and cost-benefit analysis (Qi & Chang 2012), analysis of the water cycle by LCA considering the impacts of water treatment and desalination plants, water losses in the water works, electrical consumptions and network maintenance (Del Borghi et al 2013), implementation of performance indicators to compare impacts of energy-saving, energy production and water losses reduction on water supply (Puleo et al 2015), evaluation of water cycle for hot spots of carbon emissions and pumping efficiency (Lin & Kang 2019) and comparison of current and future alternative water reclamation and resource recovery scenarios (Lahmouri et al 2019).…”