International Peer-Reviewed Journal•Open Access•ISSN 2456-8880
[email protected]•+91-7433024337

Home / Current Issue / Paper 1724365

1724365 Vol 10 · Issue 4 Download Paper

Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon

Rayan El Hage Moussa Mohammed Abdalghafoor

Subject area: Science,Engineering and Technology  ·  Area of research: Life Cycle Assessment

DOI: 10.64388/ire1724365

Abstract

Water reuse is central to water security in Lebanon, but the climate burden of producing reclaimed water is rarely assessed under the country's conditions of diesel-dependent electricity and uncontrolled sludge disposal. This study compares seven complete treatment trains, from conventional activated sludge (CAS) with UV disinfection to reverse osmosis, each matched to a Lebanese reuse category. The functional unit is 1 m³ of reclaimed water. A streamlined LCA combines a technology inventory with IPCC 2019 methods for direct N₂O and CH₄, dissolved methane and sludge disposal, five improvement scenarios and a 10,000-run Monte Carlo analysis. Gross climate impacts range from 1.24 kg CO₂ eq/m³ for an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) to 2.34 for a train with reverse osmosis. Direct emissions and sludge disposal account for 50–91% of the impact of every train except reverse osmosis. AnMBR, CAS + UV and a constructed wetland overlap within uncertainty, while reverse osmosis is the highest in 94% of runs. Upgrading from restricted to unrestricted irrigation quality adds only 0.15–0.20 kg CO₂ eq/m³ without reverse osmosis. Recovering 70% of dissolved methane lowers AnMBR to 0.68, a vertical-flow wetland reaches 0.98, and solar power cuts the MBR and reverse osmosis trains by 40–46%. Displacing groundwater pumping roughly halves every train's net footprint. The results indicate that methane and N₂O control, controlled sludge management and renewable electricity should be core design criteria for wastewater reuse in Lebanon.

Keywords

life cycle assessment; water reuse; wastewater treatment; nitrous oxide; dissolved methane; anaerobic membrane bioreactor; constructed wetland; sludge; Lebanon

References

[1] Agraso-Otero A, Vilanova de la Torre M, Malia Molleda M, Rebolledo-Leiva R, González-García S (2025). Life cycle assessment of reclaimed water irrigation in organic vineyards: environmental impacts and water stress implications in La Rioja, Spain. Agriculture, 15(23), 2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15232505

[2] Alam MK, Islam MAS, Saeed T, Rahman SM, Majed N (2023). 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, 15(5), 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050909

[3] Aleisa EE, Al-Mutairi AM, Hamoda MF (2022). Reconciling water circularity through reverse osmosis for wastewater treatment for a hyper-arid climate: a life cycle assessment. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 8, 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-022-00671-8

[4] Boiocchi R, Viotti P, Lancione D, Stracqualursi N, Torretta V, Ragazzi M, Ionescu G, Rada EC (2023). A study on the carbon footprint contributions from a large wastewater treatment plant. Energy Reports, 9, 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.06.002

[5] Boulay AM, et al. (2018). The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints (AWARE). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8

[6] Chi Y, Wei C, Yang P, Yang L, Fan L, Shi M (2025). Quantifying the influence of 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate on soil nitrous oxide production in multi-year reclaimed water-irrigated soil. Agricultural Water Management, 310, 109375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109375

[7] City of Winnipeg (2012). South End Plant process selection report, Appendix 7: emission factors for chemicals.

[8] Corominas L, Byrne DM, Guest JS, Hospido A, Roux P, Shaw A, Short MD (2020). The application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to wastewater treatment: a best practice guide and critical review. Water Research, 184, 116058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116058

[9] Demir MZ, Guven H, Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, Pasaoglu ME, Koyuncu I (2024). Comparative life cycle assessment of four municipal water disinfection methods. Sustainability, 16(14), 6104. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146104

[10] Eid-Sabbagh K, Roukoz S, Nassif MH, Velpuri N, Mateo-Sagasta J (2022). Analysis of water reuse potential for irrigation in Lebanon. IWMI Research Report 181. https://doi.org/10.5337/2022.211

[11] Farajalla N (2026). Lebanon's wastewater sector: a path to development and sustainability. Lebanese Center for Policy Studies.

[12] Foglia A, et al. (2021). Comparative life cycle environmental and economic assessment of anaerobic membrane bioreactor and disinfection for reclaimed water reuse in agricultural irrigation: a case study in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126201

[13] Gao T, Jin Y, Xiao K (2026). Techno-economic and environmental impact assessment of membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: a review. Engineering, 59(4), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2025.05.001

[14] Garfí M, Ziegler-Rodriguez K, Josa I (2026). Life cycle assessment of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: environmental, social and economic opportunities and challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 50, 100713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2026.100713

[15] Glover CJ, Phillips JA, Marchand EA, Hiibel SR (2022). Modeling and life cycle assessment of a membrane bioreactor–membrane distillation wastewater treatment system for potable reuse. Separations, 9(6), 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations9060151

[16] Harb A, Bilal G (2023). Evaluation of the efficiency of wetlands to treat water pollution in the Litani River (studying the biochemical oxygen demand). Damascus University Journal for Engineering Sciences, 39(3). https://journal.damascusuniversity.edu.sy/index.php/engj/article/view/4178

[17] IPCC (2014). 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines: Wetlands, Chapter 6.

[18] IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, Vol. 4 Ch. 11 and Vol. 5 Chs. 3 and 6.

[19] IPCC (2021). AR6 Working Group I, Chapter 7, Table 7.15.

[20] Jiménez-Benítez A, Vázquez JR, Seco A, Serralta J, Rogalla F, Robles A (2023). Life cycle assessment of AnMBR technology for urban wastewater treatment: a case study based on a demo-scale AnMBR system. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 11(6), 111141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.111141

[21] Lebanon Water Forum (2021). Water-Energy Nexus of Water and Wastewater Services in Lebanon.

[22] LEWAP (2024). Sludge management in Lebanon (synthesis sheet).

[23] Li Y, Ren Y, Ji J, Li YY, Kobayashi T (2023). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment, sewage sludge digestion and biogas upgrading: a review. Sustainability, 15(20), 15129. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015129

[24] Mehmeti A, Canaj K (2022). Environmental assessment of wastewater treatment and reuse for irrigation: a mini-review of LCA studies. Resources, 11(10), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11100094

[25] Miwornunyuie N, Alamu SO, Mao G, Benani N, Hunter J, Oguntimein G (2025). Comparative life cycle and techno-economic assessment of constructed wetland, microbial fuel cell, and their integration for wastewater treatment. Clean Technologies, 7(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol7030057

[26] Newman P, O'Brien P (2015). Use of Treated Wastewater for Lebanon (draft). EU Support to Reforms – Environmental Governance / Ministry of Environment.

[27] Rashid SS, Harun SN, Hanafiah MM, Razman KK, Liu YQ, Tholibon DA (2023). Life cycle assessment and its application in wastewater treatment: a brief overview. Processes, 11(1), 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010208

[28] Samsami Z, Jafari AJ, Delnavaz M, et al. (2025). Environmental impact assessment of southern Tehran wastewater treatment plant using life cycle assessment (LCA). Scientific Reports, 15, 294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81380-4

[29] Santos L, Brás I, Barreto A, Ferreira M, Ferreira A, Ferreira J (2026). Assessing water reuse through life cycle assessment: a systematic review of recent trends, impacts, and sustainability challenges. Processes, 14(2), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr14020330

[30] Seitfudem G, Berger M, Müller Schmied H, Boulay AM (2025). The updated and improved method for water scarcity impact assessment in LCA, AWARE2.0. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 29(3), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.70023

[31] Sieranen M, Hilander H, Haimi H, Larsson T, Kuokkanen A, Mikola A (2024). Seasonality of nitrous oxide emissions at six full-scale wastewater treatment plants. Water Science and Technology, 89(3), 603–612. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2023.420

[32] Sun H, Liu Y, Sun B (2026). Unraveling nitrous oxide emissions in constructed wetlands: microbial mechanisms, driving factors, and mitigation strategies. Water, 18, 1685. https://doi.org/10.3390/w18141685

[33] Tang W, Talbott J, Jones T, Ward BB (2024). Variable contribution of wastewater treatment plant effluents to downstream nitrous oxide concentrations and emissions. Biogeosciences, 21, 3239–3250. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-3239-2024

[34] Tözüm Akgül S (2023). Assessment of the role of photovoltaic systems in reducing the carbon footprint of wastewater treatment plants. Global NEST Journal, 25(8), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.005234

[35] Tran HV, Phan HA, Bui HM (2025). Life cycle assessment of industry wastewater treatment plant: a case study in Vietnam. RSC Sustainability, 3, 1415–1423. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SU00511B

[36] Vanella D, Consoli S, Continella A, et al. (2023). Environmental and agro-economic sustainability of olive orchards irrigated with reclaimed water under deficit irrigation. Sustainability, 15(20), 15101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015101

[37] Velasco P, Jegatheesan V, Othman M (2018). Recovery of dissolved methane from anaerobic membrane bioreactor using degassing membrane contactors. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00151

[38] Viotti P, Tatti F, Bongirolami S, Romano R, Mancini G, Serini F, Azizi M, Croce L (2024). Life cycle assessment methodology applied to a wastewater treatment plant. Water, 16(8), 1177. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16081177

[39] Visnyei M, Bakonyi P, Rozsenberszki T, Kook L, Komáromy P, Bélafi-Bakó K, Nemestóthy N (2024). Mitigated CH₄ release of anaerobic waste fermentation is enabled through effluent degassing system equipped with a polydimethylsiloxane membrane contactor. Chemical Engineering Journal Advances, 18, 100607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceja.2024.100607

[40] Wang H, Zhang X, Li L, Lin Z, Tian Y (2025). Carbon emission characteristics and low-carbon operation evaluation of some wastewater treatment plants in East China. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6716. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126716

[41] World Bank (2025). Lebanon Emergency Assistance Project (P509428): Environmental and Social Review Summary.

[42] Yu S, Deng S, Zhou A, Wang X, Tan H (2023). Life cycle assessment of energy consumption and GHG emission for sewage sludge treatment and disposal: a review. Frontiers in Energy Research, 11, 1123972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1123972

[43] Zhang X, Gu J, Meng S, Liu Y (2022). Dissolved methane in anaerobic effluent: emission or recovery? Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 16(4), 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-022-1537-4

[44] Zhou S, Yu Y, Zheng Z, Zhou L, Wang C, Deng R, Hursthouse A, Deng M (2025). Research on carbon emission accounting of municipal wastewater treatment plants based on carbon footprint. Processes, 13, 3057. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13103057

[45] Zielińska M, Ojo A (2023). Anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs) for wastewater treatment: recovery of nutrients and energy, and management of fouling. Energies, 16(6), 2829. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062829

How to cite this paper

Rayan El Hage Moussa, Mohammed Abdalghafoor "Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 10 Issue 4 2026 Page 4982-4994 https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724365
Rayan El Hage Moussa, Mohammed Abdalghafoor "Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 10, no. 4, Oct. 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724365
Rayan El Hage Moussa, Mohammed Abdalghafoor (2026). Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon. Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 10(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724365
Rayan El Hage Moussa, Mohammed Abdalghafoor "Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, vol. 10, no. 4, Oct. 2026. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724365
@article{1724365,
      author = {Rayan El Hage Moussa, Mohammed Abdalghafoor},
      title = {Beyond The Energy Bill: Direct Emissions, Sludge and The Climate Footprint of Wastewater Reuse Trains in Lebanon},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {4982-4994},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724365.pdf},
      abstract = {Water reuse is central to water security in Lebanon, but the climate burden of producing reclaimed water is rarely assessed under the country's conditions of diesel-dependent electricity and uncontrolled sludge disposal. This study compares seven complete treatment trains, from conventional activated sludge (CAS) with UV disinfection to reverse osmosis, each matched to a Lebanese reuse category. The functional unit is 1 m³ of reclaimed water. A streamlined LCA combines a technology inventory with IPCC 2019 methods for direct N₂O and CH₄, dissolved methane and sludge disposal, five improvement scenarios and a 10,000-run Monte Carlo analysis.

Gross climate impacts range from 1.24 kg CO₂ eq/m³ for an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) to 2.34 for a train with reverse osmosis. Direct emissions and sludge disposal account for 50–91% of the impact of every train except reverse osmosis. AnMBR, CAS + UV and a constructed wetland overlap within uncertainty, while reverse osmosis is the highest in 94% of runs. Upgrading from restricted to unrestricted irrigation quality adds only 0.15–0.20 kg CO₂ eq/m³ without reverse osmosis. Recovering 70% of dissolved methane lowers AnMBR to 0.68, a vertical-flow wetland reaches 0.98, and solar power cuts the MBR and reverse osmosis trains by 40–46%. Displacing groundwater pumping roughly halves every train's net footprint.

The results indicate that methane and N₂O control, controlled sludge management and renewable electricity should be core design criteria for wastewater reuse in Lebanon.},
      keywords = {life cycle assessment; water reuse; wastewater treatment; nitrous oxide; dissolved methane; anaerobic membrane bioreactor; constructed wetland; sludge; Lebanon},
      month = {October},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724365}
  }