Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Bałazi´nska, M.; Bardos, P.;
Gzyl, G.; Antos, V.; Skalny, A.;
Lederer, T. Life Cycle Assessment of
an Innovative Combined Treatment
and Constructed Wetland Technology
for the Treatment of
Hexachlorocyclohexane-
Contaminated Drainage Water in
Hajek in the Czech Republic.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114802
Academic Editor: Valentina Coccia
Received: 8 May 2024
Revised: 24 May 2024
Accepted: 28 May 2024
Published: 5 June 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Life Cycle Assessment of an Innovative Combined Treatment
and Constructed Wetland Technology for the Treatment of
Hexachlorocyclohexane-Contaminated Drainage Water in Hajek
in the Czech Republic
Maria Bałazi ´nska 1, Paul Bardos 2, Grzegorz Gzyl 1, Vojtech Antos 3, Anna Skalny 1,* and Tomas Lederer 4
1
Water Protection Department, Central Mining Institute—National Research Institute, 40166 Katowice, Poland;
mbalazinska@gig.eu (M.B.); ggzyl@gig.eu (G.G.)
2r3 Environmental Technology Ltd., Reading RG4 7DH, UK; paul@r3environmental.co.uk
3Photon Water Technology s.r.o., 460 01 Liberec, Czech Republic; vojtech.antos@photonwater.com
4Department of Environmental Technology, Institute for Nanomaterials, Advanced Technology and
Innovation, Technical University of Liberec, 461 17 Liberec, Czech Republic; tomas.lederer@tul.cz
*Correspondence: askalny@gig.eu
Abstract: The paper presents the results of an LCA analysis of the “Wetland+
®
” technology compared
to conventional wastewater treatment technology. Wastewater contaminated with pesticide produc-
tion residues from lindane was treated. The analysis is based on data from a full-scale Wetland+
®
installation located in Hajek, the Czech Republic. Conventional wastewater treatment technology
was selected as a comparator. For the comparative system, data for the LCA came from design
calculations assuming the location of such a system in the same place and function as the Wetland+
®
technology implemented. The LCA analysis was carried out using system boundaries covering the
stages of construction and operation of the systems. The results indicate that with the Wetland+
®
technology, a system’s overall environment burdens are >11 times less than that of conventional
wastewater treatment technology.
Keywords: LCA; Wetland+®technology; wastewater treatment technology; lindane contamination;
pesticide contamination
1. Introduction
Areas contaminated with pesticides and their production residues, such as from
lindane (gamma hexachlorocyclohexane—gamma-HCH), exist in many places around the
world. Impacted areas include dump sites for production wastes and/or sites of former
activities of production and storage facilities. HCH isomers bioaccumulate in food chains
and are persistent in the environment. Therefore, their potential for causing chronic harm in
the long term is high [
1
]. Very often, impacted sites are complex and intractable problems,
for example, in the case of Hajek, the case study site, there are issues of scale and mixed
waste disposal with mine spoil. The social, environmental, and economic costs of dealing
with the waste deposit (i.e., source management) mean that this will never be attempted in
the foreseeable future. Therefore, risk management depends on managing the pathways by
which pollutants reach the wider environment and key receptors such as humans. A key,
and hitherto unmanaged, pathway in Hajek has been via drainage water leaving the waste
area carrying dissolved and suspended contaminants [
2
]. Dealing with this contaminated
water, to “break” the pathway, using conventional water treatment plants has been seen by
the public company owning the area as both resource- and energy-intensive.
The European LifePopWat project (Life program—grant agreement no. LIFE18 ENV/
CZ/000374) has built and tested a full-scale demonstration of a low-input system, Wetland+
®
,
in Hajek. A spoil heap at the former uranium mining area of Hajek has also been used
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114802 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 2 of 20
as a dump for lindane production residues. Wetland+
®
combines in-ground treatments
with a constructed wetland used as a polishing step. As well as its perceived sustainability
advantages, Wetland+
®
is also seen as offering (1) a technical solution for a remote location
where no access to mains services (such as electricity and sewerage) was available and
(2) a solution that does not need day-to-day staffing and maintenance, which were also
not possible given the treatment site location. Conventional WWTP requires regular
maintenance and management load, which may require a rapid response where there is
process failure/interruption. This need may be difficult to meet over the decades during
which the system has to run at its remote location.
Svermova et al. [
3
] used qualitative sustainability assessment to compare and contrast
the sustainability performance of Wetland+
®
against conventional water treatment plant.
They found Wetland+
®
to be highly advantageous using an overarching sustainability
assessment, compliant with ISO 18504:2017 on sustainable remediation.
The need for performing LCA to evaluate the proposed technologies have been ex-
pressed by many recent papers [
4
,
5
]. However, the examples of LCA applied to HCH-
contaminated water treatment technologies are very rare [6].
The LCA described in this paper was one of the inputs to this sustainability assessment
and benchmarks Wetland+
®
against a conventional water treatment plant design for the
Hajek application. This paper is one of the first public-domain examples of an LCA that
has been explicitly incorporated into a wide-ranging qualitative sustainability assessment
that has included the opinions of multiple technical and local stakeholders [3].
2. Site and Methods
2.1. The Hajek Site
The site in Hajek is a former uranium mining area where lindane production wastes
were dumped until 1968. Uranium mining was carried out from the 1960s until 1971. In
parallel with uranium mining, kaolin and basalt, and later bentonite, were mined. Between
1966 and 1968, the national authorities decided to dispose of non-saleable isomers and
chlorobenzene from lindane (
γ
-HCH) production into the Hajek mine spoil and tailings.
Around 3000–5000 tons of these wastes were dumped in metal drums, in paper packaging,
or in bulk. The dump is located in the source area of the OstrovskýBrook.
In 1977, a landslide occurred in the spoil heap over an area of about 10–12 ha, leaving
part of lindane chemical waste exposed. The landslide was stabilized by the construction
of a weighting bench of crushed aggregate into which a drainage system consisting of
pipe drains, which empty to a drainage channel, was incorporated. Since January 1989,
concentrations of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) isomers and chlorinated benzenes (CBs)
have been monitored and documented at the outlet of this drainage system. Since 1991, the
site owner has been conducting detailed hydrological, climatological, and hydrochemical
monitoring of the site.
The current site owner is the state-owned company DIAMO, which is responsible
for the mitigation of the consequences of various mining activities in the Czech Republic.
Site ownership has passed through a series of public structures. The original uranium
ore-mining company was founded in 1946 and then called Jáchymovskédoly. In 1955, after
a reorganization, it was renamed the Central Administration for Research and Mining of
Radioactive Raw Materials (ÚSVTRS). From 1967, the company existed under the name
Czechoslovak Uranium Industry ( ˇ
CSUP). In 1992, the company was renamed to its current
name, DIAMO.
Between 1999 and 2002, DIAMO carried out initial remediation work at the dump
site. This work consisted of placing a sealing and covering layer over the landslide area,
consisting of 0.3 m depth of bentonite under a 0.45 m layer of heap material. This was then
revegetated along with the remainder of the Hajek mining area.
Excavation and treatment of the buried wastes are not currently considered feasible
on cost and environmental impact grounds. Leachate and drainage water were collected
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 3 of 20
from the site and its drains via a ditch that empties to a local water course. Very visible in
this ditch is iron contamination (orange) also originating from the site; see Figure 1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
consisting of 0.3 m depth of bentonite under a 0.45 m layer of heap material. This was
then revegetated along with the remainder of the Hajek mining area.
Excavation and treatment of the buried wastes are not currently considered feasible
on cost and environmental impact grounds. Leachate and drainage water were collected
from the site and its drains via a ditch that empties to a local water course. Very visible in
this ditch is iron contamination (orange) also originating from the site; see Figure 1.
Figure 1. Hajek drainage channel.
Hajek’s focus has been on the remediation of the drainage water collected in this
ditch. In 2014–2016, four types of remediation technologies were piloted at the site:
• engineered wetland;
• anaerobic biodegradation;
• a permeable reaction barrier using zerovalent iron;
• sorption remediation system.
The Wetland+
®
system was designed based on these pilot test outcomes and inte-
grates several of the components tested.
2.2. Wetland+
®
Technology
The Wetland+
®
technology was jointly developed by the Technical University of Li-
berec and AQUATEST a.s. It is based on the use of in-ground oxidation–reduction and
biosorption stages (Figure 2) as a front end, with a back end using engineered wetland as
a polishing step. There are three in-ground treatment stages at the front end. In the first
stage, the iron in the contaminated drainage water is oxidized and precipitated out in the
form of Fe(III) oxides and hydroxides and drops out as sediment. The second stage uses
zerovalent iron (ZVI) to reduce HCH isomers and chlorobenzenes, which achieves partial
dechlorination and renders the water anaerobic. The third stage exploits anaerobic bio-
sorption onto a wood chip matrix. Here, remaining chlorinated species are sorbed and
subsequently degraded.
Figure 1. Hajek drainage channel.
Hajek’s focus has been on the remediation of the drainage water collected in this ditch.
In 2014–2016, four types of remediation technologies were piloted at the site:
•engineered wetland;
•anaerobic biodegradation;
•a permeable reaction barrier using zerovalent iron;
•sorption remediation system.
The Wetland+
®
system was designed based on these pilot test outcomes and integrates
several of the components tested.
2.2. Wetland+®Technology
The Wetland+
®
technology was jointly developed by the Technical University of
Liberec and AQUATEST a.s. It is based on the use of in-ground oxidation–reduction and
biosorption stages (Figure 2) as a front end, with a back end using engineered wetland
as a polishing step. There are three in-ground treatment stages at the front end. In the
first stage, the iron in the contaminated drainage water is oxidized and precipitated out
in the form of Fe(III) oxides and hydroxides and drops out as sediment. The second stage
uses zerovalent iron (ZVI) to reduce HCH isomers and chlorobenzenes, which achieves
partial dechlorination and renders the water anaerobic. The third stage exploits anaerobic
biosorption onto a wood chip matrix. Here, remaining chlorinated species are sorbed and
subsequently degraded.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 4 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Figure 2. Wetland+® treatment approach.
Within the backend, engineered wetland is used to render the treated water aerobic
and polish out any residual organic compounds via sorption and degradation within the
wetland’s soil/plant root system. Outflow water quality limit values are set by the local
regulator.
Wetland+® is not dependent on regular supply of chemicals and energy and exploits
nature-based systems, with the main flow led through the system gravity. Only a minor
part requires an electric pump to pump water from the new drainage (as it exits from the
lower part of the system) to the first part of the technology—sedimentation. The project
also foresees regular maintenance of the system and the eventual replacement of the iron
charge in the permeable reactive barrier; otherwise, the whole technology is without any
further input (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 3. Wetland + installation in Hajek.
Figure 2. Wetland+®treatment approach.
Within the backend, engineered wetland is used to render the treated water aerobic
and polish out any residual organic compounds via sorption and degradation within the
wetland’s soil/plant root system. Outflow water quality limit values are set by the local
regulator.
Wetland+
®
is not dependent on regular supply of chemicals and energy and exploits
nature-based systems, with the main flow led through the system gravity. Only a minor
part requires an electric pump to pump water from the new drainage (as it exits from the
lower part of the system) to the first part of the technology—sedimentation. The project
also foresees regular maintenance of the system and the eventual replacement of the iron
charge in the permeable reactive barrier; otherwise, the whole technology is without any
further input (Figures 3and 4).
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Figure 2. Wetland+® treatment approach.
Within the backend, engineered wetland is used to render the treated water aerobic
and polish out any residual organic compounds via sorption and degradation within the
wetland’s soil/plant root system. Outflow water quality limit values are set by the local
regulator.
Wetland+® is not dependent on regular supply of chemicals and energy and exploits
nature-based systems, with the main flow led through the system gravity. Only a minor
part requires an electric pump to pump water from the new drainage (as it exits from the
lower part of the system) to the first part of the technology—sedimentation. The project
also foresees regular maintenance of the system and the eventual replacement of the iron
charge in the permeable reactive barrier; otherwise, the whole technology is without any
further input (Figures 3 and 4).
Figure 3. Wetland + installation in Hajek.
Figure 3. Wetland + installation in Hajek.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 5 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Figure 4. Wetland + installation in Hajek—aerial view.
2.3. Conventional WWTP Technology
A theoretical alternative to Wetland+
®
in Hajek is to build a water treatment plant for
the drainage water treatment. The conventional WWTP used as the comparator is based
on a bespoke design commissioned for the Hajek application, shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Conventional water treatment plant: flow chart.
This design was used for the estimation of environmental burdens in detail.
2.4. Method
Many environmental assessment techniques can be found in the literature. Among
them we can mention Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Material Input Per Service Unit
(MIPS), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). MFA is a method used to quantify flows and
stocks of materials or substances in any complex system. MFA is used to study material
or substance flows in various industries or ecosystems [7,8]. MIPS, on the other hand,
focuses on the use of resources during the life cycle of a product. This allows one to
identify the most resource-consuming processes in order to concentrate efforts on mini-
mizing their impact on the environment [9,10]. LCA, by contrast, is a tool used to assess
the potential impact on the environment during the product life cycle, i.e., from the ac-
Filter
Press
Settling
Tan k
Sand
Filter
Activated
carbon
filter
Aeration
and NaOH
input
inflow outflow
Wash water
sludge
solids
Spent
carbon
Figure 4. Wetland + installation in Hajek—aerial view.
2.3. Conventional WWTP Technology
A theoretical alternative to Wetland+
®
in Hajek is to build a water treatment plant for
the drainage water treatment. The conventional WWTP used as the comparator is based on
a bespoke design commissioned for the Hajek application, shown in Figure 5.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Figure 4. Wetland + installation in Hajek—aerial view.
2.3. Conventional WWTP Technology
A theoretical alternative to Wetland+
®
in Hajek is to build a water treatment plant for
the drainage water treatment. The conventional WWTP used as the comparator is based
on a bespoke design commissioned for the Hajek application, shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Conventional water treatment plant: flow chart.
This design was used for the estimation of environmental burdens in detail.
2.4. Method
Many environmental assessment techniques can be found in the literature. Among
them we can mention Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Material Input Per Service Unit
(MIPS), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). MFA is a method used to quantify flows and
stocks of materials or substances in any complex system. MFA is used to study material
or substance flows in various industries or ecosystems [7,8]. MIPS, on the other hand,
focuses on the use of resources during the life cycle of a product. This allows one to
identify the most resource-consuming processes in order to concentrate efforts on mini-
mizing their impact on the environment [9,10]. LCA, by contrast, is a tool used to assess
the potential impact on the environment during the product life cycle, i.e., from the ac-
Filter
Press
Settling
Tan k
Sand
Filter
Activated
carbon
filter
Aeration
and NaOH
input
inflow outflow
Wash water
sludge
solids
Spent
carbon
Figure 5. Conventional water treatment plant: flow chart.
This design was used for the estimation of environmental burdens in detail.
2.4. Method
Many environmental assessment techniques can be found in the literature. Among
them we can mention Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Material Input Per Service Unit
(MIPS), and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). MFA is a method used to quantify flows and
stocks of materials or substances in any complex system. MFA is used to study material or
substance flows in various industries or ecosystems [
7
,
8
]. MIPS, on the other hand, focuses
on the use of resources during the life cycle of a product. This allows one to identify the
most resource-consuming processes in order to concentrate efforts on minimizing their
impact on the environment [
9
,
10
]. LCA, by contrast, is a tool used to assess the potential
impact on the environment during the product life cycle, i.e., from the acquisition of
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 6 of 20
natural resources, through the production and use stages, to its disposal. LCA aims to
comprehensively examine the impact of the subject of analysis on the natural environment
and natural resources [11–13].
LCA analysis is the only environmental assessment technique mentioned above to
take into account not only the use of resources or materials but also emissions resulting
from the way they are produced or from how they are used in a specific way. Moreover, it
relates the obtained results to their impact on subsequent environmental problems such as
acidification, eutrophication, or human toxicity. Optionally, it also groups the mentioned
environmental problems within so-called damage categories such as impacts on human
health, ecosystems, and natural resources. This allows for a comprehensive interpretation
of the results obtained. For this reason, the LCA technique was chosen to carry out the
environmental assessment of the Wetland+®technology.
LCA analysis was used to compare the environmental impacts found via Wetland+
®
technology in Hajek with the WWTP design as a possible alternative. LCA analysis
was carried out according to the guidelines contained in the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044
standards [11,12]. The life cycle assessment was carried out in four stages:
•
definition of the purpose and scope, including setting the boundaries of the systems
and the functional unit;
•inventory analysis (Life Cycle Inventory—LCI);
•impact assessment (Life Cycle Impact Assessment—LCIA);
•interpretation (ISO 14040).
The same functional unit and same system boundaries were used for each alternative.
A quantity of 1 m
3
of treated water was chosen as the functional unit (FU), which is a
typical approach. For example, Nijdam et al. (1999) used such approach for LCA-based
comparison of two techniques for advanced wastewater treatment applied for percolation
water from HCH/chlorobenzene-contaminated groundwater [14].
The boundaries of the system described in current paper covered both construction
and operation stages (Figure 6). As these were long-term solutions, the analysis assumed a
25-year lifetime for the systems.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
quisition of natural resources, through the production and use stages, to its disposal.
LCA aims to comprehensively examine the impact of the subject of analysis on the nat-
ural environment and natural resources [11–13].
LCA analysis is the only environmental assessment technique mentioned above to
take into account not only the use of resources or materials but also emissions resulting
from the way they are produced or from how they are used in a specific way. Moreover, it
relates the obtained results to their impact on subsequent environmental problems such
as acidification, eutrophication, or human toxicity. Optionally, it also groups the men-
tioned environmental problems within so-called damage categories such as impacts on
human health, ecosystems, and natural resources. This allows for a comprehensive in-
terpretation of the results obtained. For this reason, the LCA technique was chosen to
carry out the environmental assessment of the Wetland+
®
technology.
LCA analysis was used to compare the environmental impacts found via Wetland+
®
technology in Hajek with the WWTP design as a possible alternative. LCA analysis was
carried out according to the guidelines contained in the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 stand-
ards [11,12]. The life cycle assessment was carried out in four stages:
• definition of the purpose and scope, including seing the boundaries of the systems
and the functional unit;
• inventory analysis (Life Cycle Inventory—LCI);
• impact assessment (Life Cycle Impact Assessment—LCIA);
• interpretation (ISO 14040).
The same functional unit and same system boundaries were used for each alterna-
tive. A quantity of 1 m
3
of treated water was chosen as the functional unit (FU), which is a
typical approach. For example, Nijdam et al. (1999) used such approach for LCA-based
comparison of two techniques for advanced wastewater treatment applied for percola-
tion water from HCH/chlorobenzene-contaminated groundwater [14].
The boundaries of the system described in current paper covered both construction
and operation stages (Figure 6). As these were long-term solutions, the analysis assumed
a 25-year lifetime for the systems.
Figure 6. LCA system boundary used for the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems.
The input data inventory stage (LCI) for Wetland+
®
collated actual quantities used
during the construction of the physical plant in Hajek and the supplier’s predicted values
for the operational phase. For the WWTP technology used as a comparator, quantities for
both construction and operation were based on predicted values estimated by the WWTP
system designer.
This LCA study used ReCiPe 2016, which was developed on the basis of the expe-
rience of using the CML and Ecoindicator99 methods. This approach was chosen because
ReCiPe 2016 is comprehensive and has had widespread use already in LCA. The LCA
Figure 6. LCA system boundary used for the Wetland+®and WWTP systems.
The input data inventory stage (LCI) for Wetland+
®
collated actual quantities used
during the construction of the physical plant in Hajek and the supplier’s predicted values
for the operational phase. For the WWTP technology used as a comparator, quantities for
both construction and operation were based on predicted values estimated by the WWTP
system designer.
This LCA study used ReCiPe 2016, which was developed on the basis of the experience
of using the CML and Ecoindicator99 methods. This approach was chosen because ReCiPe
2016 is comprehensive and has had widespread use already in LCA. The LCA analysis was
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 7 of 20
carried out with ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint H/A (Hierarchist/Average) Perspective.
The ReCiPe Midpoint method allows the assessment of eighteen impact categories while
the ReCiPe Endpoint method additionally allows assessment in three damage categories—
impacts on human health, ecosystems, and resources.
ReCiPe life cycle impact assessment includes the following stages: characterization,
normalization, grouping, and weighing. During characterization, the values of indicators
of impact categories such as particulate matter, global warming, water use, human health,
ecosystems, and resources are obtained. The results of the characterization stage are
then normalized. Normalization relates the values of the impact category indicators to
a reference point. The results obtained as a result of normalization take non-nominated
values (i.e., indices independent of a physical characteristic such as mass). The normalized
results are then grouped. Grouping assigns impact categories to one or more damage
categories, such as human health, ecosystems, or resources. Weighting factors are then
used to transform these numerical values based on the perceived importance within each
damage category. The weighted impact category indicators are then summed for each
damage category.
The category of “human health” is expressed using the DALY (Disability-Adjusted
Life Years) unit, which is the sum of shortened years of human life and years of reduced
quality as a result of disability.
The category “ecosystems” is described by the unit “species
·
year”, understood as the
loss of species during the year.
The “resources” category, in turn, is expressed as a monetary value in dollars, defined
as the increase in the cost of obtaining raw materials from harder-to-reach deposits as a
consequence of using easily accessible deposits.
These impacts can then be converted into a single measure called ecopoints (Pt). An
ecopoint determines a thousandth of the damage a resident of Europe causes per year.
The values of the damage category indicators expressed in the same unit allow them to
be summed up, finally obtaining a single “LCA value” to describe the technologies being
compared.
This LCA was conducted using SimaPro software. SimaPro is one of the most popular
programs for performing LCA analysis. After one enters the data characterizing the ana-
lyzed system, SimaPro allows them to develop its model. In the next step, the LCIA method
is selected, and an environmental assessment is carried out. An important advantage of
SimaPro is the ability to equip it with the necessary databases to supplement environmental
burdens for input or output data. The comparative LCA analysis for Wetland+
®
technology
in relation to WWTP was performed in SimaPro version 9.3.0.3, which included numerous
databases.
3. Results
Data characterizing the Wetland+
®
system and WWTP, which were collected at the
inventory (input) stage, were verified and adjusted to the needs of LCA. The verification
consisted of reconciling the data with experts in order to obtain the appropriate quality
in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. In addition, the selected data
were adjusted through calculation. For this purpose, literature studies were carried out,
during which the missing values for calculations were collected. The calculations allowed
obtaining data in the appropriate form required by the SimaPro program in which the
analysis was performed. The data obtained in this way constituted the input values for the
LCIA stage, which was carried out based on the ReCiPe method, ultimately obtaining the
results of the LCA analysis.
All LCA analysis results are presented per functional unit (FU) equal to 1 m
3
of treated
water. The final results are presented as one quantity expressed in Pt/FU for each system.
It is more convenient to compare the environmental effect in the form of a single quantity
when comparing systems. The results of the intermediate calculation steps, in turn, express
the environmental burden for each impact category. Therefore, they allow for a better
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 8 of 20
understanding of the impact that the analyzed system will have on another environmental
aspect.
As a first step, the ReCiPe Midpoint analysis was performed, and subsequently, so
was ReCiPe Endpoint H/A. The tables presenting the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and
Endpoint H/A after the characterization stage are included in the Appendix Aat the end
of the publication in Tables A1–A6. The results for the ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the
weighing step are shown below and used as the basis for the interpretation and discussion
of the LCA outcomes. Our not including the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint
H/A after the characterization stage in the main part of the paper is intentional and has a
purpose: so that the interpretation of the results remains clear for the reader. There was a
possibility that an excess of discussing different types of results could affect the readability
of the paper.
The results for the construction and operation stages have been presented both sep-
arately and as an integrated whole. Figure 7presents the environmental effects for the
Wetland+®construction phase compared to the WWTP.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
As a first step, the ReCiPe Midpoint analysis was performed, and subsequently, so was
ReCiPe Endpoint H/A. The tables presenting the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint
H/A after the characterization stage are included in the Appendix A at the end of the publi-
cation in Tables A1–A6. The results for the ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing step are
shown below and used as the basis for the interpretation and discussion of the LCA out-
comes. Our not including the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint H/A after the char-
acterization stage in the main part of the paper is intentional and has a purpose: so that the
interpretation of the results remains clear for the reader. There was a possibility that an ex-
cess of discussing different types of results could affect the readability of the paper.
The results for the construction and operation stages have been presented both
separately and as an integrated whole. Figure 7 presents the environmental effects for the
Wetland+
®
construction phase compared to the WWTP.
Figure 7. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the construction
stage of the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems.
During construction, Wetland+
®
shows a higher environmental burden compared to
WWTP within each damage category, i.e., for human health, ecosystems, and resources.
The results obtained for human health for both technologies significantly exceed the en-
vironmental effects for ecosystems and resources. In this study, for Wetland+
®
, the bur-
den assigned to human health was 2.755 mPt/FU and was more than twice as high as for
the same category of WWTP technology (1.141 mPt/FU). Figure 8 shows the environ-
mental effects for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+
®
system, which allows one to
indicate the area with the highest values.
Figure 8. Summary of the environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighting stage
for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+
®
system construction.
Figure 7. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the construction
stage of the Wetland+®and WWTP systems.
During construction, Wetland+®shows a higher environmental burden compared to
WWTP within each damage category, i.e., for human health, ecosystems, and resources.
The results obtained for human health for both technologies significantly exceed the envi-
ronmental effects for ecosystems and resources. In this study, for Wetland+
®
, the burden
assigned to human health was 2.755 mPt/FU and was more than twice as high as for the
same category of WWTP technology (1.141 mPt/FU). Figure 8shows the environmental
effects for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+
®
system, which allows one to indicate
the area with the highest values.
Segment B, i.e., the PRB, has the highest environmental impact among all segments
of the Wetland+
®
system. Figure 9shows the environmental burden for the subsequent
components of Segment B of the Wetland+®system.
In segment B of Wetland+
®
technology, the highest values of environmental effects are
generated by perforated PVC pipes (DN300), concrete, standard PVC pipes (DN300), and
prefabricated concrete.
The overall LCA outcomes for the operational stage are shown in Figure 10 for the
two techniques.
During the operational phase, the WWTP system shows a higher environmental
burden than the Wetland+
®
system for all damage categories. These values are many
times higher for the WWTP system than for Wetland+
®
. The environmental effect for
WWTP within human health stands out significantly from other values. This value reached
91.687 mPt/FU
in this study and was more than seventeen times higher than the same
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 9 of 20
value for the Wetland+
®
system. Figure 11 shows the quantities that make up the obtained
environmental effect for the operation of the WWTP system.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
As a first step, the ReCiPe Midpoint analysis was performed, and subsequently, so was
ReCiPe Endpoint H/A. The tables presenting the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint
H/A after the characterization stage are included in the Appendix A at the end of the publi-
cation in Tables A1–A6. The results for the ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing step are
shown below and used as the basis for the interpretation and discussion of the LCA out-
comes. Our not including the results of ReCiPe Midpoint and Endpoint H/A after the char-
acterization stage in the main part of the paper is intentional and has a purpose: so that the
interpretation of the results remains clear for the reader. There was a possibility that an ex-
cess of discussing different types of results could affect the readability of the paper.
The results for the construction and operation stages have been presented both
separately and as an integrated whole. Figure 7 presents the environmental effects for the
Wetland+
®
construction phase compared to the WWTP.
Figure 7. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the construction
stage of the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems.
During construction, Wetland+
®
shows a higher environmental burden compared to
WWTP within each damage category, i.e., for human health, ecosystems, and resources.
The results obtained for human health for both technologies significantly exceed the en-
vironmental effects for ecosystems and resources. In this study, for Wetland+
®
, the bur-
den assigned to human health was 2.755 mPt/FU and was more than twice as high as for
the same category of WWTP technology (1.141 mPt/FU). Figure 8 shows the environ-
mental effects for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+
®
system, which allows one to
indicate the area with the highest values.
Figure 8. Summary of the environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighting stage
for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+
®
system construction.
Figure 8. Summary of the environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighting stage
for the subsequent segments of the Wetland+®system construction.
Figure 9. Summary of environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for
subsequent components of segment B of the Wetland+®system.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 10 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 10. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the operational
phase of the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems.
Figure 11. Summary of environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for
WWTP system operation.
The environmental burden of the WWTP system is most affected by the electricity
consumed, followed by the consumption of NaOH and granulated activated carbon. The
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
mPt/FU
Human health Ecosystems Resources
Figure 10. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the operational
phase of the Wetland+®and WWTP systems.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 10. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighing stage for the operational
phase of the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems.
Figure 11. Summary of environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for
WWTP system operation.
The environmental burden of the WWTP system is most affected by the electricity
consumed, followed by the consumption of NaOH and granulated activated carbon. The
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
mPt/FU
Human health Ecosystems Resources
Figure 11. Summary of environmental effects of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for
WWTP system operation.
The environmental burden of the WWTP system is most affected by the electricity
consumed, followed by the consumption of NaOH and granulated activated carbon. The
value assigned to electricity is several times higher than the burden assigned to the second
highest, NaOH. As a comparison, Figure 12 presents the environmental effects of the
components of the Wetland+®system operation.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 11 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
value assigned to electricity is several times higher than the burden assigned to the sec-
ond highest, NaOH. As a comparison, Figure 12 presents the environmental effects of the
components of the Wetland+
®
system operation.
Figure 12. List of environmental burdens of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for the
operation of the Wetland+
®
system.
The largest contributor to the environmental effect of the operation stage of Wet-
land+
®
is also the consumption of electricity. The remaining quantities are characterized
by an environmental burden that is several times lower. However, in all cases, the bur-
dens are substantially lower than for WWTP.
Figure 13 shows a comparison of environmental effects for two systems combined
over both the construction and operational phases. The overall environmental impacts
are far higher for WWTP than for Wetland+
®
, reflecting the dominance of operational
impacts over a 25-year working period.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
mPt/FU
Analyzing 1 m3 'Wetland+_operation';
Method: ReCiPe 2016 Endpoint (H) V1.06 / World (2010) H/A / Single score
Human health Ecosystems
Resources
Figure 12. List of environmental burdens of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A after the weighing stage for the
operation of the Wetland+®system.
The largest contributor to the environmental effect of the operation stage of Wetland+
®
is also the consumption of electricity. The remaining quantities are characterized by an
environmental burden that is several times lower. However, in all cases, the burdens are
substantially lower than for WWTP.
Figure 13 shows a comparison of environmental effects for two systems combined
over both the construction and operational phases. The overall environmental impacts are
far higher for WWTP than for Wetland+
®
, reflecting the dominance of operational impacts
over a 25-year working period.
The greater impacts of WWTP are true both on an overall basis and within all of the
individual damage categories such as human health, ecosystems, or resources. The level of
value for human health in relation to ecosystems and resources is many times higher for
both the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems. However, in the case of WWTP, the environmental
effect within human health is noteworthy; this has a value of
92.828 mPt/FU
and signifi-
cantly differs from the value set for all other damage categories for both systems. It takes
values more than eleven times higher than the human health category for the Wetland+
®
system (8.057 mPt/FU). Finally, the total environmental burden for the Wetland+
®
system
amounts to 8.434 mPt/FU while, for the WWTP system, it is 96.581 mPt/FU.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 12 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Figure 13. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighting stage for the total
Wetland+
®
and WWTP system boundaries covering the construction and operational stages.
The greater impacts of WWTP are true both on an overall basis and within all of the
individual damage categories such as human health, ecosystems, or resources. The level of
value for human health in relation to ecosystems and resources is many times higher for
both the Wetland+
®
and WWTP systems. However, in the case of WWTP, the environ-
mental effect within human health is noteworthy; this has a value of 92.828 mPt/FU and
significantly differs from the value set for all other damage categories for both systems. It
takes values more than eleven times higher than the human health category for the Wet-
land+
®
system (8.057 mPt/FU). Finally, the total environmental burden for the Wetland+
®
system amounts to 8.434 mPt/FU while, for the WWTP system, it is 96.581 mPt/FU.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
At the construction stage, the Wetland+
®
technology burdens the environment more
than the WWTP system. However, its burdens are substantially lower during the opera-
tional phase, so on an overall basis, Wetland+
®
presents a far more environmentally be-
nign approach.
The major contributor to Wetland+
®
impacts during the construction phase is the
installation of the in-ground treatment systems (Segment B), in particular, the use of
zerovalent iron, which has the highest environmental effect of all of the Wetland+
®
stages.
Other Wetland+
®
in-ground treatment components carrying large environmental bur-
dens are its use of PVC pipes and concrete. These impacts could be greatly reduced in
future Wetland+
®
configurations by replacing PVC pipes and concrete with materials
with similar properties but lower environmental effects.
In the case of the operating stage of the systems, electricity consumption is the
largest contributor to the environmental effect obtained for both approaches. However, it
is worth noting the scale of values. The environmental effect for electricity consumption
for the Wetland+
®
system was over fourteen times lower than that of the WWTP system
in this study, reflecting the far greater energy demand of the WWTP system. The Wet-
land+
®
technology consumes 328,500 kWh over its 25-year lifetime ,while the WWTP
system consumes 4,730,400 kWh ,which is more than fourteen times more.
Wetland+
®
technology shows a higher environmental burden during the initial pe-
riod associated with the construction phase. After this time, when the system starts
working and the exploitation stage begins, the WWTP system burdens the environment
many times more. Overall, the Wetland+
®
technology is more environmentally friendly
than the alternative WWTP system.
The LCA was predicated on the basis of supply from the Czech national grid. How-
ever, the environmental costs of electricity vary from country to country depending on the
Figure 13. Comparison of ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the weighting stage for the total
Wetland+®and WWTP system boundaries covering the construction and operational stages.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
At the construction stage, the Wetland+
®
technology burdens the environment more
than the WWTP system. However, its burdens are substantially lower during the opera-
tional phase, so on an overall basis, Wetland+
®
presents a far more environmentally benign
approach.
The major contributor to Wetland+
®
impacts during the construction phase is the
installation of the in-ground treatment systems (Segment B), in particular, the use of
zerovalent iron, which has the highest environmental effect of all of the Wetland+
®
stages.
Other Wetland+
®
in-ground treatment components carrying large environmental burdens
are its use of PVC pipes and concrete. These impacts could be greatly reduced in future
Wetland+
®
configurations by replacing PVC pipes and concrete with materials with similar
properties but lower environmental effects.
In the case of the operating stage of the systems, electricity consumption is the largest
contributor to the environmental effect obtained for both approaches. However, it is worth
noting the scale of values. The environmental effect for electricity consumption for the
Wetland+
®
system was over fourteen times lower than that of the WWTP system in this
study, reflecting the far greater energy demand of the WWTP system. The Wetland+
®
technology consumes 328,500 kWh over its 25-year lifetime, while the WWTP system
consumes 4,730,400 kWh, which is more than fourteen times more.
Wetland+
®
technology shows a higher environmental burden during the initial period
associated with the construction phase. After this time, when the system starts working
and the exploitation stage begins, the WWTP system burdens the environment many
times more. Overall, the Wetland+
®
technology is more environmentally friendly than the
alternative WWTP system.
The LCA was predicated on the basis of supply from the Czech national grid. However,
the environmental costs of electricity vary from country to country depending on the energy
mix for its production. Therefore, it was decided to analyze how LCA outcomes might vary
depending on the country where Wetland+
®
was located as a function of the energy mix for
the electricity supply in that country. France, Germany, Poland, and Spain were considered
as these have a range of energy mixes and are initial markets for Wetland+
®
because of
the presence of significant lindane waste sites in these countries. For example, France’s
energy mix is seen as environmentally friendly as most of its electricity is generated by
nuclear power plants. Poland’s energy mix, on the other hand, is mainly based on coal-fired
generating units [15]. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 14.
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 13 of 20
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
energy mix for its production. Therefore, it was decided to analyze how LCA outcomes
might vary depending on the country where Wetland+
®
was located as a function of the
energy mix for the electricity supply in that country. France, Germany, Poland, and Spain
were considered as these have a range of energy mixes and are initial markets for Wet-
land+
®
because of the presence of significant lindane waste sites in these countries. For
example, France’s energy mix is seen as environmentally friendly as most of its electricity is
generated by nuclear power plants. Poland’s energy mix, on the other hand, is mainly
based on coal-fired generating units [15]. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Alternative scenarios showing the final environmental effect of the ReCiPe Endpoint
H/A method after the weighting stage for Wetland+
®
and WWTP technologies, summed for the
construction and operation stages with a specific energy mix for each country.
The lowest environmental burden was for the energy mix of France, followed by
those of Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, and, finally, Poland. In all countries, the
Wetland+
®
technology showed a lower environmental burden compared to the WWTP
system. The results show that even when a country’s energy mix is more environmen-
tally friendly (e.g., France), the Wetland+
®
system is still more environmentally beneficial
than the WWTP alternative system.
To compare the obtained results of the analysis to the results of the work of other
authors, it should be noted that according to the guidelines of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044,
in order for this to be possible, it is necessary that the system boundaries, the functional
unit, and the chosen LCIA method correspond to each other. The authors of this study
conducted a literature review covering LCA analyses of wastewater treatment systems
using the conventional method. In many cases, discrepancies in the use of functional
units, system boundaries, and LCA methodology undermined the comparison being
made [16–22] with the use of wetlands [23–28].
For example, La Laina Cunha et al. (2010) have performed an LCA for four tech-
nologies that can be applied to remediate sites contaminated with HCH [6]. They ana-
lyzed bioremediation, phytoremediation, nanotechnology, and thermal treatment.
Figure 14. Alternative scenarios showing the final environmental effect of the ReCiPe Endpoint
H/A method after the weighting stage for Wetland+
®
and WWTP technologies, summed for the
construction and operation stages with a specific energy mix for each country.
The lowest environmental burden was for the energy mix of France, followed by those
of Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, and, finally, Poland. In all countries, the Wetland+
®
technology showed a lower environmental burden compared to the WWTP system. The
results show that even when a country’s energy mix is more environmentally friendly (e.g.,
France), the Wetland+
®
system is still more environmentally beneficial than the WWTP
alternative system.
To compare the obtained results of the analysis to the results of the work of other
authors, it should be noted that according to the guidelines of ISO 14040 and ISO 14044,
in order for this to be possible, it is necessary that the system boundaries, the functional
unit, and the chosen LCIA method correspond to each other. The authors of this study
conducted a literature review covering LCA analyses of wastewater treatment systems
using the conventional method. In many cases, discrepancies in the use of functional
units, system boundaries, and LCA methodology undermined the comparison being
made [16–22] with the use of wetlands [23–28].
For example, La Laina Cunha et al. (2010) have performed an LCA for four technolo-
gies that can be applied to remediate sites contaminated with HCH [
6
]. They analyzed
bioremediation, phytoremediation, nanotechnology, and thermal treatment. However, a
different LCIA method and different functional units were used, which makes it impossible
to compare those results with those presented in this paper.
Nevertheless, Lopsik (2013) compared the environmental impact of two types of con-
structed wetland and extended aeration-activated sludge treatment systems working with
municipal wastewater treatment at a small scale [
20
]. The system boundaries covered both
construction and operation. The functional unit was the treatment of one population equiv-
alent, municipal wastewater was selected, and a realistic operating period was considered
(15 years). The analysis was performed using SimaPro software. Impact2002+ and ReCiPe
were selected as LCIA methods. The results were in line with the findings of this study. The
aeration-activated sludge treatment system had a higher environmental load, which was
determined over the operational stage. In contrast, the main loads on the wetland system
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 14 of 20
arose during the construction stage. A similar conclusion was formulated as a result of the
analysis presented in this study, indicating that for a sewage treatment system based on a
wetland, a higher environmental load is assigned to the construction stage compared to
the operation stage. Therefore, it can be concluded that the results presented in this paper
are consistent with the findings of other researchers. At the same time, they extend the
LCA analyses conducted so far to include the Wetland+ technology and the type of treated
sewage contaminated with pesticides, including lindane.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.B. and G.G.; methodology, M.B.; validation, P.B. and
V.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, P.B., G.G., V.A., A.S. and
T.L.; visualization, M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the project “Innovative technology based on constructed wetlands
for treatment of pesticide-contaminated waters” granted by the LIFE EU program (agreement number
LIFE18 ENV/CZ/000374).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Paul Bardos was employed by the company r3 Environmental Tech-
nology Ltd. Author Vojtech Antos was employed by the company Photon Water Technology s.r.o.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or
financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. ReCiPe Midpoint results after the characterization stage for the construction of the
Wetland+®system compared to WWTP.
Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Construction WWTP_Construction
Global warming kg CO2eq 8.56 ×10−22.62 ×10−2
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 7.42 ×10−86.68 ×10−9
Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq 7.53 ×10−41.39 ×10−3
Ozone formation, human health kg NOxeq 1.78 ×10−46.19 ×10−5
Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 8.44 ×10−54.05 ×10−5
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems kg NOxeq 1.89 ×10−46.31 ×10−5
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2eq 2.68 ×10−41.23 ×10−4
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 8.58 ×10−61.19 ×10−5
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 9.55 ×10−76.51 ×10−7
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 9.77 ×10−21.17 ×10−1
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.01 ×10−32.70 ×10−3
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.49 ×10−33.39 ×10−3
Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 8.41 ×10−33.08 ×10−3
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1.43 ×10−23.51 ×10−2
Land use m2a crop eq 5.46 ×10−34.75 ×10−4
Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 4.97 ×10−42.95 ×10−4
Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 2.86 ×10−28.19 ×10−3
Water consumption m36.37 ×10−41.90 ×10−4
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 15 of 20
Table A2. ReCiPe Midpoint results after the characterization stage for operation of the Wetland+
®
system compared to WWTP.
Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Operation WWTP_Operation
Global warming kg CO2eq 1.43 ×10−12.53
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 2.35 ×10−84.36 ×10−7
Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq 4.01 ×10−26.81 ×10−1
Ozone formation, human health kg NOxeq 2.32 ×10−44.30 ×10−3
Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 1.32 ×10−42.99 ×10−3
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems kg NOxeq 2.34 ×10−44.33 ×10−3
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2eq 3.98 ×10−49.25 ×10−3
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 2.04 ×10−42.98 ×10−3
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.31 ×10−51.95 ×10−4
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.66 ×10−11.12
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1.37 ×10−27.94 ×10−2
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1.75 ×10−21.09 ×10−1
Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1.38 ×10−21.56 ×10−1
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.41 ×10−13.17
Land use m2a crop eq 4.89 ×10−32.09 ×10−2
Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 3.68 ×10−41.48 ×10−3
Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 3.54 ×10−25.00 ×10−1
Water consumption m32.96 ×10−34.64 ×10−2
Table A3. ReCiPe Midpoint results after the characterization stage in total for the construction and
operation of the Wetland+®system compared to WWTP.
Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Construction +
Operation
WWTP_Construction +
Operation
Global warming kg CO2eq 2.28 ×10−12.55
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC11 eq 9.78 ×10−84.43 ×10−7
Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq 4.08 ×10−26.82 ×10−1
Ozone formation, human health kg NOxeq 4.09 ×10−44.36 ×10−3
Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq 2.17 ×10−43.03 ×10−3
Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems kg NOxeq 4.22 ×10−44.39 ×10−3
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2eq 6.67 ×10−49.37 ×10−3
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 2.12 ×10−42.99 ×10−3
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 1.41 ×10−51.95 ×10−4
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 3.64 ×10−11.23
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 1.57 ×10−28.21 ×10−2
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.00 ×10−21.13 ×10−1
Human carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.22 ×10−21.59 ×10−1
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity kg 1,4-DCB 2.55 ×10−13.20
Land use m2a crop eq 1.03 ×10−22.14 ×10−2
Mineral resource scarcity kg Cu eq 8.65 ×10−41.77 ×10−3
Fossil resource scarcity kg oil eq 6.40 ×10−25.08 ×10−1
Water consumption m33.59 ×10−34.66 ×10−2
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 16 of 20
Table A4. ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the characterization stage for the construction of the
Wetland+®system compared to WWTP.
Damage
Category Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Construction WWTP_Construction
Human
health
Global warming,
human health
DALY (shortened years
of life or years with
reduced quality of life
as a result of disability)
7.94 ×10−8
1.65 ×10−7
2.43 ×10−8
6.84 ×10−8
Stratospheric ozone
depletion 3.94 ×10−11 3.55 ×10−12
Ionizing radiation 6.39 ×10−12 1.18 ×10−11
Ozone formation,
human health 1.62 ×10−10 5.63 ×10−11
Fine particulate matter
formation 5.30 ×10−82.54 ×10−8
Human carcinogenic
toxicity 2.79 ×10−81.02 ×10−8
Human
non-carcinogenic
toxicity
3.26 ×10−98.01 ×10−9
Water consumption,
human health 1.33 ×10−93.58 ×10−10
Ecosystems
Global warming,
terrestrial ecosystems
species·yr
(loss of species during
the year)
2.40 ×10−10
3.86 ×10−10
7.33 ×10−11
1.25 ×10−10
Global warming,
freshwater ecosystems 6.55 ×10−15 2.00 ×10−15
Ozone formation,
terrestrial ecosystems 2.43 ×10−11 8.14 ×10−12
Terrestrial acidification 5.69 ×10−11 2.61 ×10−11
Freshwater
eutrophication 5.76 ×10−12 7.97 ×10−12
Marine eutrophication 1.62 ×10−15 1.11 ×10−15
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 1.11 ×10−12 1.34 ×10−12
Freshwater ecotoxicity 1.39 ×10−12 1.86 ×10−12
Marine ecotoxicity 2.61 ×10−13 3.56 ×10−13
Land use 4.84 ×10−11 4.21 ×10−12
Water consumption,
Terrestrial ecosystem 7.97 ×10−12 2.10 ×10−12
Water consumption,
Aquatic ecosystems 4.20 ×10−16 1.19 ×10−16
Resources
Mineral resource
scarcity
$
(extra costs involved
for future mineral and
fossil resource
extraction)
1.15 ×10−4
9.00 ×10−3
6.82 ×10−5
2.08 ×10−3
Fossil resource scarcity 8.88 ×10−32.01 ×10−3
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 17 of 20
Table A5. ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the characterization stage for operation of the
Wetland+®system compared to WWTP.
Damage
Category Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Operation WWTP_Operation
Human
health
Global warming, human
health
DALY (shortened years
of life or years with
reduced quality of life
as a result of disability)
1.32 ×10−7
3.18 ×10−7
2.35 ×10−6
5.50 ×10−6
Stratospheric ozone
depletion 1.25 ×10−11 2.31 ×10−10
Ionizing radiation 3.40 ×10−10 5.78 ×10−9
Ozone formation, human
health 2.11 ×10−10 3.92 ×10−9
Fine particulate matter
formation 8.32 ×10−81.88 ×10−6
Human carcinogenic
toxicity 4.58 ×10−85.18 ×10−7
Human non-carcinogenic
toxicity 5.49 ×10−87.22 ×10−7
Water consumption,
human health 1.01 ×10−92.16 ×10−8
Ecosystems
Global warming,
terrestrial ecosystems
species·yr
(loss of species during
the year)
3.99 ×10−10
7.19 ×10−10
7.08 ×10−9
1.20 ×10−8
Global warming,
freshwater ecosystems 1.09 ×10−14 1.93 ×10−13
Ozone formation,
terrestrial ecosystems 3.02 ×10−11 5.58 ×10−10
Terrestrial acidification 8.44 ×10−11 1.96 ×10−9
Freshwater
eutrophication 1.37 ×10−10 2.00 ×10−9
Marine eutrophication 2.23 ×10−14 3.31 ×10−13
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 3.04 ×10−12 1.27 ×10−11
Freshwater ecotoxicity 9.50 ×10−12 5.50 ×10−11
Marine ecotoxicity 1.84 ×10−12 1.15 ×10−11
Land use 4.33 ×10−11 1.86 ×10−10
Water consumption,
terrestrial ecosystem 1.02 ×10−11 1.88 ×10−10
Water consumption,
aquatic ecosystems 3.62 ×10−16 6.78 ×10−15
Resources
Mineral resource scarcity
$
(extra costs involved
for future mineral and
fossil resource
extraction)
8.51 ×10−5
1.98 ×10−3
3.41 ×10−4
6.26 ×10−2
Fossil resource scarcity 1.90 ×10−36.23 ×10−2
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 18 of 20
Table A6. ReCiPe Endpoint H/A results after the characterization stage in total for the construction
and operation of the Wetland+®system compared to WWTP.
Damage
Category Impact Category Unit Wetland+®_Construction +
Operation
WWTP_Construction +
Operation
Human
health
Global warming, human
health
DALY (shortened years
of life or years with
reduced quality of life
as a result of disability)
2.12 ×10−7
4.83 ×10−7
2.37 ×10−6
5.57 ×10−6
Stratospheric ozone
depletion 5.19 ×10−11 2.35 ×10−10
Ionizing radiation 3.47 ×10−10 5.79 ×10−9
Ozone formation, human
health 3.72 ×10−10 3.97 ×10−9
Fine particulate matter
formation 1.36 ×10−71.90 ×10−6
Human carcinogenic
toxicity 7.37 ×10−85.28 ×10−7
Human non-carcinogenic
toxicity 5.82 ×10−87.30 ×10−7
Water consumption,
human health 2.34 ×10−92.20 ×10−8
Ecosystems
Global warming,
terrestrial ecosystems
species·yr
(loss of species during
the year)
6.39 ×10−10
1.10 ×10−9
7.15 ×10−9
1.22 ×10−8
Global warming,
freshwater ecosystems 1.75 ×10−14 1.95 ×10−13
Ozone formation,
terrestrial ecosystems 5.45 ×10−11 5.67 ×10−10
Terrestrial acidification 1.41 ×10−10 1.99 ×10−9
Freshwater
eutrophication 1.42 ×10−10 2.00 ×10−9
Marine eutrophication 2.39 ×10−14 3.32 ×10−13
Terrestrial ecotoxicity 4.16 ×10−12 1.41 ×10−11
Freshwater ecotoxicity 1.09 ×10−11 5.69 ×10−11
Marine ecotoxicity 2.10 ×10−12 1.18 ×10−11
Land use 9.18 ×10−11 1.90 ×10−10
Water consumption,
terrestrial ecosystem 1.81 ×10−11 1.90 ×10−10
Water consumption,
aquatic ecosystems 7.83 ×10−16 6.90 ×10−15
Resources
Mineral resource scarcity
$
(extra costs involved
for future mineral and
fossil resource
extraction)
2.00 ×10−4
1.10 ×10−2
4.09 ×10−4
6.47 ×10−2
Fossil resource scarcity 1.08 ×10−26.43 ×10−2
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 19 of 20
References
1.
Di, S.; Liu, R.; Chen, L.; Diao, J.; Zhou, Z. Selective bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and dissipation of hexachlorocyclohexane
isomers in a freshwater food chain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018,25, 18752–18761. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Wycisk, P.; Stollberg, R.; Neumann, C.; Gossel, W.; Weiss, H.; Weber, R. Integrated methodology for assessing the HCH
groundwater pollution at the multi-source contaminated mega-site Bitterfeld/Wolfen. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013,20,
1907–1917. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Svermova, P.; Cernik, M.; Bardos, P.; Buresova, J.; Bałazi ´nska, M. Survey on the socio-economic and environmental impact of
Wetland+®.J. Environ. Eng. 2024; in press. ISSN 1943-7870.
4.
Mar-Pineda, C.G.; Poggi-Varaldo, H.M.; Ponce-Noyola, M.T.; Estrada-Bárcenas, D.A.; Ríos-Leal, E.; Esparza-García, F.J.; Galíndez-
Mayer, J.; Rinderknecht-Seijas, N.F. Effect of zero-valent iron nanoparticles on the remediation of a clayish soil contaminated with
γ-hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane) in a bioelectrochemical slurry reactor. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2021,99, 915–931. [CrossRef]
5.
Wu, F.; Zhou, Z.; Hicks, A.L. Life cycle impact of titanium dioxide nanoparticle synthesis through physical, chemical, and
biological routes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019,53, 4078–4087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
La-Laina-Cunha, A.C.; Ruiz, M.S.; Echevengua Teixeira, C. Environmental assessment of remediation technologies: An analytical
framework for a hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) contaminated site in Brazil. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference
on Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management, Chania, Greece, 5–8 October 2010.
7.
Pincetl, S. 1-A living city: Using urban metabolism analysis to view cities as life forms. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy,
Metropolitan Sustainability; Zeman, F., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; pp. 3–25, ISBN 9780857090461. Available
online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780857090461500011?via=ihub (accessed on 13 December
2023).
8.
Lombardi, M.; Amicarelli, V.; Bux, C.; Varese, E. Sustainable Development and Waste Management, Reference Module in Earth Systems
and Environmental Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; ISBN 9780124095489. [CrossRef]
9.
Liedtke, C.; Bienge, K.; Wiesen, K.; Teubler, J.; Greiff, K.; Lettenmeier, M.; Rohn, H. Resource Use in the Production and
Consumption System—The MIPS Approach. Resources 2014,3, 544–574. [CrossRef]
10.
Cahyandito, M.F. The MIPS Concept (Material Input per Unit of Service): A Measure for an Ecological Economy, 2009, University
of Padjadjaran. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martha-Cahyandito/publication/228243237_The_
MIPS_Concept_A_Measure_for_an_Ecological_Economy/links/57768b8408ae4645d60d7bb2/The-MIPS-Concept-A-Measure-
for-an-Ecological-Economy.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2023).
11.
ISO 14040: 2006; Environmental management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland,
2006.
12.
ISO 14044: 2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland,
2006.
13.
Finnveden, G.; Potting, J. Life Cycle Assessment. In Encyclopedia of Toxicology, 3rd ed.; Wexler, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2014; pp. 74–77, ISBN 9780123864550. [CrossRef]
14.
Nijdam, D.; Blom, J.; Boere, J.A. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of two advanced wastewater treatment techniques.
Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal. 1999,120, 763–775.
15. IEA. Total Energy Supply 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe (accessed on 31 October 2023).
16.
Al-Anbari, M.A.; Altaee, S.A.; Kareem, S.L. Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Appraisal Sustainability Indicators of Najaf
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Egypt. J. Chem. 2022,65, 513–519. [CrossRef]
17.
Burchart-Korol, D.; Zawartka, P. Determinants of environmental assessment of Polish individual wastewater treatment plants in
a life cycle perspective. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2019,45, 44–54. [CrossRef]
18.
Friedrich, E.; Buckley, C.A. The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in the Selection of Water Treatment Processes, WRC Report No. 1077/1/02;
Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2002; ISBN 1-86845-858-X.
19.
Morsy, K.M.; Mostafa, M.K.; Abdalla, K.Z.; Galal, M.M. Life Cycle Assessment of Upgrading Primary Wastewater Treatment
Plants to Secondary Treatment Including a Circular Economy Approach. Air Soil Water Res. 2020,13, 1178622120935857. [CrossRef]
20.
Raghuvanshi, S.; Bhakar, V.; Sowmya, C.; Sangwan, K.S. Waste water treatment plant life cycle assessment: Treatment process to
reuse of water. Procedia CIRP 2017,61, 761–766. [CrossRef]
21.
Rashid, S.S.; Liu, Y.-Q.; Mokhtar, H.; Zainudin, M.R.; Muda, M.F. Review of toxicity emission from municipal wastewater
treatment by life cycle assessment. Gading J. Sci. Technol. 2022,5, 10–18, eISSN 2637-0018.
22.
Rashid, S.S.; Harun, S.N.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Razman, K.K.; Liu, Y.-Q.; Tholibon, D.A. Life Cycle Assessment and Its Application in
Wastewater Treatment: A Brief Overview. Processes 2023,11, 208. [CrossRef]
23.
Alam, M.K.; Islam, M.A.S.; Saeed, T.; Rahman, S.M.; Majed, N. Life Cycle Analysis of Lab-Scale Constructed Wetlands for the
Treatment of Industrial Wastewater and Landfill Leachate from Municipal Solid Waste: A Comparative Assessment. Water 2023,
15, 909. [CrossRef]
24.
Corbella, C.; Puigagut, J.; Garfi, M. Life cycle assessment of constructed wetland systems for wastewater treatment coupled with
microbial fuel cells. Sci. Total Environ. 2017,584–585, 355–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Lopsik, K. Life cycle assessment of small-scale constructed wetland and extended aeration activated sludge wastewater treatment
system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013,10, 1295–1308. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 4802 20 of 20
26.
Gongora, G.R.A.; Lu, R.H.; Hanandeh, A.E. Comparative life cycle assessment of aerobic treatment units and constructed
wetlands as onsite wastewater treatment systems in Australia. Water Sci. Technol. 2021,84, 1527–1540. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Resende, J.D.; Nolasco, M.A.; Pacca, S.A. Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to
constructed wetlands. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019,148, 170–177. [CrossRef]
28.
Wang, S.; Ji, Z.; Wang, Y. Life Cycle Assessment of Artificial Wetland Systems for Rural Wastewater Treatment. E3S Web. Conf.
2021,299, 02006. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
