Premium
Comparison of treatment process sustainability at water plants in the Sacramento region
Author(s) -
Kerri Kenneth D.,
Campeon Camille,
Espinasse Fabien,
Ohlinger Kurt N.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2011.tb11533.x
Subject(s) - carbon footprint , greenhouse gas , environmental science , filtration (mathematics) , environmental engineering , sustainability , water treatment , carbon fibers , flocculation , waste management , engineering , ecology , statistics , materials science , mathematics , composite number , composite material , biology
With greenhouse gas (GHG) a suspected contributor to climate change and poor air quality, drinking water utilities are becoming more concerned about reducing GHG emissions. This study compares the total emissions of equivalent carbon, i.e., carbon footprint, for different processes used at 11 facilities in the Sacramento, California, region. Conventional treatment, microfiltration, pressure filtration, slow sand filtration, and ballasted flocculation were considered in terms of the environmental effects of construction, staff transportation, chemical consumption, energy consumption, and sludge production. Results indicated that the carbon footprints of the processes used at urban facilities are quite similar. For rural plants, the carbon footprints differed, with slow sand filtration producing a larger carbon footprint than the other processes studied. The procedures described here should help water providers better evaluate the emission consequences of the treatment processes they choose.