Abstract
This paper evaluates the metabolism-based performance of a number of centralised and decentralised water reuse strategies and their impact on integrated urban water systems (UWS) based on the nexus of water-energy-pollution. The performance assessment is based on a comprehensive and quantitative framework of urban water metabolism developed for integrated UWS over a long-term planning horizon. UWS performance is quantified based on the tracking down of mass balance flows/fluxes of water, energy, materials, costs, pollutants, and other environmental impacts using the WaterMet2 tool. The assessment framework is defined as a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) within the context of the water-energy-pollution nexus. The strategies comprise six decentralised water reuse configurations (greywater or domestic wastewater) and three centralised ones, all within three proportions of adoption by domestic users (i.e. 20, 50, and 100%). This methodology was demonstrated in the real-world case study of San Francisco del Rincon and Purisima del Rincon cities in Mexico. The results indicate that decentralised water reuse strategies using domestic wastewater can provide the best performance in the UWS with respect to water conservation, green house gas (GHG) emissions, and eutrophication indicators, while energy saving is almost negligible. On the other hand, centralised strategies can achieve the best performance for energy saving among the water reuse strategies. The results also show metabolism performance assessment in a complex system such as integrated UWS can reveal the magnitude of the interactions between the nexus elements (i.e. water, energy, and pollution). In addition, it can also reveal any unexpected influences of these elements that might exist between the UWS components and overall system.
Highlights
The integral management of urban water systems (UWS) is primarily recognised for addressing services to water supply, stormwater and wastewater collection, and treatment withinResponsible editor: Philippe GarriguesEnviron Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:4582–4597 development and the reinforcement of circularity within the economy, which encompasses closing loops in material and energy flows, and minimising resource inputs and outputs for more efficient processes in cities (Geissdoerfer et al 2017)
It is arguable that the most influential water reuse strategy is decentralised using domestic wastewater with 100% adoption proportion (DW100) which provides the greatest reductions for the potable water supply (27%), the Eutrophication potential (EP) (29.2%), and green house gas (GHG) emissions (17.8%), the largest reduction in energy use (11.5%) is obtained through centralised water reuse using urban wastewater with 100% adoption proportion (C100)
This can be due to mainly decreasing the unused biogas in the UWS as a result of less domestic sewage being discharged into sewers/wastewater treatment works (WWTW) and, less electricity being required for water withdrawals, treatment, and transportation within the water supply infrastructure
Summary
The integral management of urban water systems (UWS) is primarily recognised for addressing services to water supply, stormwater and wastewater collection, and treatment withinResponsible editor: Philippe GarriguesEnviron Sci Pollut Res (2020) 27:4582–4597 development and the reinforcement of circularity within the economy, which encompasses closing loops in material and energy flows, and minimising resource inputs and outputs for more efficient processes in cities (Geissdoerfer et al 2017). Reclaimed water as a result of the treated effluent in centralised wastewater treatment works (WWTW) can be used for different demands including irrigation and toilet flushing in cities (Jiménez-Cisneros 2014). This approach benefits from the economy of scale it is difficult to implement in rapidly urbanised cities due to space and resource constraints. Existing reuse guidelines recommend effluent concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) < 30 mg/L for use in urban irrigation or toilet flushing, which require treatments up to tertiary level (EPA 2012). The comparison of centralised vs decentralised water reuse is still an ongoing debate requiring further study (Chang et al 2017; Valek et al 2017; Matos et al 2014; Mo et al 2014; Opher and Friedler 2016; Singh et al 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
