SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of International Environmental Application and Science / 2026 / Volume: 20 Issue: 1

Estimated Carbon Footprint for the Construction and Operational Phases of a Wastewater Treatment Plant

Muhammed Hasan Eken(KONYA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)0009-0006-7393-1473
Özlem Tunç Dede(GİRESUN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5534-4773
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-03-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, the research incorporating both design data and operational data from the plant will further elucidate the findings of this study and enable the examination of carbon footprints under various operating conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, the carbon footprint of the construction and operational phases of a WWTP in Giresun was evaluated in accordance with TSE EN ISO 14064 Guidelines for Calculation of Greenhouse Gases, within the framework of GHG Protocol standards and CCaLC2 software.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The carbon footprint of the plant during the construction phase was calculated as 1077.55 tCO2e for 2022 and 1110.52 tCO2e for 2023.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, the research incorporating both design data and operational data from the plant will further elucidate the findings of this study and enable the examination of carbon footprints under various operating conditions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:carbon footprint · greenhouse gas · emission

Abstract

In this paper, the carbon footprint of the construction and operational phases of a WWTP in Giresun was evaluated in accordance with TSE EN ISO 14064 Guidelines for Calculation of Greenhouse Gases, within the framework of GHG Protocol standards and CCaLC2 software. The carbon footprint of the plant during the construction phase was calculated as 1077.55 tCO2e for 2022 and 1110.52 tCO2e for 2023. The estimated carbon footprint for operational phase was determined to be 800.64 tCO2e. The primary contribution to greenhouse gas emissions stems from fuel consumption and wastewater treatment for construction and operational phases, respectively. The calculated carbon footprint value was relatively low compared to other WWTPs reported in the literature, primarily due to the lack of real-time operational data. However, the research incorporating both design data and operational data from the plant will further elucidate the findings of this study and enable the examination of carbon footprints under various operating conditions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eken, M. H., Dede, Ö. T. (2025). Estimated Carbon Footprint for the Construction and Operational Phases of a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Journal of International Environmental Application and Science, Volume: 20 Issue: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1112223

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Arıoğlu Akan MÖ, Dhavale DG, Sarkis J, (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions in the construction industry: An analysis and evaluation of a concrete supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 1195–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.225
  2. Ateş F, (2021) Evaluation of Bingöl wastewater treatment plant carbon footprint according to CCALC2 and GPS-X methods. MSc Thesis, Fırat University. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ 674741
  3. Azapagic A, (2012) CCaLC2 carbon footprint tool. http://www.ccalc.org.uk/latestccalc2.php?lsce=EEY8D00G
  4. Campos JL, Valenzuela-Heredia D, Pedrouso A, Val Del Río A, Belmonte M, Mosquera-Corral A, (2016) Greenhouse Gases Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants: Minimization, Treatment, and Prevention. J. Chem. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3796352
  5. Chai C, Zhang D, Yu Y, Feng Y, Wong MS, (2015) Carbon footprint analyses of mainstream wastewater treatment technologies under different sludge treatment scenarios in China. Water (Switzerland) 7, 918–938. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7030918
  6. Chen, H., Zheng, Y., Zhou, K., Cheng, R., Zheng, X., Ma, Z., Shi, L., (2023) Carbon emission efficiency evaluation of wastewater treatment plants: evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30, 76606–76616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27685-9
  7. Erşan, F., (2022) Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions originating from biological treatment units of Sivas domestic wastewater treatment plant. Msc. Thesis, Sivas Cumhuriyet University. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ 752072
  8. Goliopoulos N, Mamais D, Noutsopoulos C, Dimopoulou A, Kounadis C, (2022) Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint of Greek Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water (Switzerland) 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14030320
  9. Güller S, Balcı A, (2018) Carbon Footprint Assessment of Mugla Waste Water Treatment Plant. üleyman Demirel Univ. J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 22, 547. https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufbed.11001
  10. Gupta R, Lee S, Lui J, Sloan WT, You S, (2024) Carbon footprint assessment of water and wastewater treatment works in Scottish islands. J. Clean. Prod. 450, 141650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141650
  11. Hammond GP, Jones CI, (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 161, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1680/ener.2008.161.2.87
  12. Hong J, Shen GQ, Feng Y, Lau WST, Mao C, (2015) Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.023
  13. IPCC, (2022) Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change - Full Report, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
  14. IPCC, (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/
  15. Karakas A, Tozum-Akgul S, Komesli OT, Kaplan-Bekaroglu SS, (2024) Carbon footprint analysis of advanced biological wastewater treatment plant. J. Water Process Eng. 61, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2024.105254
  16. Labaran YH, Mathur VS, Farouq MM, (2021) The carbon footprint of construction industry: A review of direct and indirect emission. J. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 6, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.29187/jscmt.2021.66
  17. Lin, L., (2020) Carbon emission assessment of wastewater treatment plant based on accounting perspective. E3S Web Conf. 194, 0–4. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019404049
  18. Parravicini V, Svardal K, Krampe J, (2016) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants. Energy Procedia 97, 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.067
  19. Purnell P, Black L, (2012) Embodied carbon dioxide in concrete: Variation with common mix design parameters. Cem. Concr. Res. 42, 874–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.02.005
  20. Robescu LD, Presură E, (2017) Reducing carbon footprint of a wastewater treatment plant using advanced treatment and renewable energy sources. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 16, 1055–1062. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2017.108
  21. Stokes J, Horvath A, (2006) Life cycle energy assessment of alternative water supply systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.06.214
  22. Tosun, G., Tunç Dede, Ö., (2024) Karbon Ayak İzi Hesaplamalarında Enerji Tüketiminin Örnek Bir Çalışma ile İncelenmesi. Karadeniz Fen Bilim. Derg. 14, 932–943. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.1458712
  23. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, (2024a), Turkey Electricity Generation and Electricity Consumption Point Emission Factors - 2022. https://enerji.gov.tr/Media/Dizin/EVCED/tr/ÇevreVeİklim/İklimDeğişikliği/EmisyonFaktorleri/TEUVETN_Emisyon_Faktörleri_Bilgi_Formu.pdf. Accessed date: 15.02.2025
  24. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, (2024b), Turkish Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 – 2022. https://enerji.gov.tr//Media/Dizin/EVCED/tr/ÇevreVeİklim/İklimDeğişikliği/UlusalSeraGazıEmisyonEnvanteri/Belgeler/EK-1.pdf. Accessed date: 15.02.2025
  25. TSE, (2019a) Greenhouse gases - Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Ankara. https://www.tse.org.tr/
  26. TSE, (2019b) Greenhouse gases - Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements. Ankara. https://www.tse.org.tr/
  27. TSE, (2019c) Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements. Ankara. https://www.tse.org.tr/
  28. TUIK, (2024) Turkish Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2022, Oil: a Cultural and Geographic Encyclopedia of Black Gold: Volume 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41714-6_72140
  29. United Nations Environment Programme, (2024) Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond foundations: Mainstreaming sustainable solutions to cut emissions from the buildings sector. Nairobi., 2023 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond foundations - Mainstreaming sustainable solutions to cut emissions from the buildings sector. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/45095
  30. Vijayan G, Saravanane R, Sundararajan T, (2017) Carbon Footprint Analyses of Wastewater Treatment Systems in Puducherry. Comput. Water, Energy, Environ. Eng. 06, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.4236/cweee.2017.63019
  31. Wang T, Li K, Liu D, Yang Y, Wu D, (2022) Estimating the Carbon Emission of Construction Waste Recycling Using Grey Model and Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study of Shanghai. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148507