SANITAS

SANITAS 

LIVING WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR PLANET 

Editors: Antonia Hadjimichael, Xavier Garcia Acosta, Fanlin Meng, Rebecca Pearce

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report is based on the fourth work package 

(WP4) of the European Marie Curie Funded Initial 

Training Network: SANITAS 289193 – ‘From Science 

to Policy’ - led by the University of Exeter. Following 

the Roadmap for Uptake of EU Water Research in 

Policy and Industry (SPI-Water Cluster, 2012), the 

overarching teaching goal of WP4 was to develop 

the next generation of integrated urban water 

management professionals; capacity for visualising 

policy in novel and enquiring ways; and constructing 

a global narrative to link directly with policy-makers 

aiming to initiate sustainable water management. 

A further objective was to develop a core set of skills 

based on improved understanding amongst SANITAS 

Fellows of when and how to engage with and 

formulate policy inputs, to enable delivery of the EU 

Water Framework Directive and international water 

policy objectives that are key to maintaining and where 

possible improving environmental and human health. 

The core work completed by Marie Curie Fellows in 

completing WP4 spanned devising new methods to identify 

appropriate technological developments for the effective 

delivery of water policies; critical analyses of innovation 

policy in European countries, the United States, China, 

India, Pakistan, and the Philippines; identifying the impacts 

associated with extending the benefits of new technological 

and policy inputs to developing countries; and considering 

the ethics of moving science beyond the lab to real-life 

situations, in quick-time, to take advantage of infrastructure 

renewal planning in developing countries, and the potential 

pit-falls in being ready to tender for infrastructure 

projects early. 

Towards the end of the programme, SANITAS Fellows 

were asked to critically review their research projects 

from a policy perspective, to identify where their actions 

and outputs support and/or enhance key policy objectives 

that are interconnected via overall goals of sustainable 

development and protection of global natural capital. 

Taking the most recent European Environmental Action 

Programme as a guide, SANITAS Fellows have directly 

linked their individual research projects to the programmes 

thematic priorities, demonstrating their enhanced 

understanding of how and where their knowledge can 

be transferred to the policy arena, in pursuit of a lowcarbon, 

circular economy, built upon sturdy foundations of 

sustainably managed resources and flourishing biodiverse 

environments. 

Through the following chapters, SANITAS Fellows are 

attempting to forge new links between the realms of 

policy and research. Chapter one demonstrates the deep 

understanding SANITAS Fellows have developed, by 

assessing the factors contributing to surface water quality 

and enhancing the decision-making process through 

improved methods of cost-benefit analysis that incorporate 

ecosystem services information, and modelling control 

systems to substantially reduce nutrient levels in treated 

effluent. Chapter two addresses the low carbon economy 

and the resource efficiency strategy explored through 

SANITAS projects which encompass optimised system 

design, lifecycle assessment, nutrient, water, and biogas 

re-use, identifying areas where involvement in policymaking 

could speed up the adoption of these processes. 

SANITAS – Living Well, within the Limits of our Planet 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Chapter three highlights the increasing problems associated 

with storm-water runoff and sewer overflow events. The 

authors look at providing tools for optimum control and 

potential upgrades to waste water treatment plants to 

eliminate the potential for toxic mixtures of micro pollutants 

to accumulate in vulnerable discharge areas such as the 

Mediterranean river basins. 

In chapter four, the authors turn their gaze onto 

the enabling framework for delivery of sustainability 

objectives, strengthening connections between academics, 

stakeholders and legislators, that will lead to improved 

environmental decision support systems. And, in chapter 

five improvements to the evidence base for environmental 

legislation by filling data and knowledge gaps on the 

prevalence of micropollutants, greenhouse gases (nitrous 

oxide and methane), and sulphur and phosphorous, in 

urban water systems, and effective methods of detection 

and removal of these pollutants. The authors highlight how 

all projects under the SANITAS umbrella can be used to 

tackle these issues and how their knowledge can be used to 

make integrated waste water modelling more effective. 

In chapter six, securing investment through better 

accounting of ecosystem services and full environmental 

costs exposes the importance of moving towards full 

cost recovery in the water management system, which is 

consistent with a circular economy. Finally, in chapter seven, 

integrating environment and climate considerations into 

water policy and market interventions is discussed with a 

view to ensuring that water management is a key part of the 

move towards living well within the limits of our planet. 

www.sanitas-itn.eu 

2

GLOSSARY 

AOB 

AD 

ADM 

ASM 

ASMN 

BSM 

CFD 

CSO 

DM 

DO 

Ammonia oxidising bacteria 

Anaerobic Digestion 

Anaerobic Digestion Model 

Activated Sludge Model 

Activated Sludge Model for Nitrogen 

Benchmark Simulation Model 

Computational fluid dynamics 

Combined sewer overflow 

Decision makers 

Dissolved oxygen 

IPCC 

IWA 

PAH 

PAOs 

PhACs 

PES 

PPP 

RBMP 

SFX 

Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 

International Water Association 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

Phosphorus accumulating organisms 

Pharmaceuticals 

Payment for ecosystem services 

Polluter Pays Principle 

River Basin Management Plan 

Sulphonamide antibiotic 

sulfamethoxazole 

DSS 

Decision Support System 

TBT 

Antifouling biocide tributyltin 

EDCs 

Endocrine disrupting compounds 

UWS 

Urban water system 

EDSS 

GHG 

Environmental Decision 

Support System 

Greenhouse gas 

UWWS 

UWWTD 

Urban wastewater system 

Urban Waste Water 

Treatment Directive 

LCA 

Life Cycle Assessment 

WFD 

Water Framework Directive 

MBR 

Membrane bioreactor 

WWTP 

Wastewater treatment plant 


3


INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH PROJECTS AND CODES 

Research 

project 

Individual Research project 

Appointed 

Fellow 

Host 

Institution 

3.A 

Decision making and multicriteria analysis (environmental and economical 

impacts) in UWS 

Antonia 

Hadjimichael 

UdG 

1.G Energy optimization in membrane integrated systems for water reuse Julian Mamo UdG 

1.E 

Anaerobic processes for energy conservation and biotransformation 

of pollutants 

Lara Paulo 

WU 

2.C Catchment based and real time based consenting Fanlin Meng UNEXE 

1.C Biodegradation of micropollutants Eliza Kassotaki ICRA 

2.F 

Assessment and control of sewer detrimental emissions for optimal 

Mediterranean UWS management 

Joana Batista 

ICRA 

1.B 

Detailed modelling of GHG emission from WWTP using integrated CFD and 

biological models 

Usman Rehman 

UGent 

2.B.1 

Development of a system–wide benchmark system for Urban Water Systems 

(UWS) 

Ramesh Saagi 

LU 

2.B.2 

Development of an enhanced benchmark system for Waste Water Treatment 

Plants (WWTPs) 

Kimberly Solon 

LU 

1.A 

Practical application of models in UWS: Simulation–based scenario analysis for 

reducing carbon footprint, nitrite production and micropollutant discharge in 

UWS operation 

Laura Snip 

DTU 

1.F 

Improved modelling, design and control of granular sludge reactors in future 

energy–positive WWTPs 

Celia María 

Castro Barros 

UGent 

1.D Qualitative modelling in UWS Jose Porro UdG 

2.D Integrated advanced technologies for water reuse 

Marina Arnaldos 

Orts 

ACCIONA 

2.A Tool development for cost effective control strategies in IUWS Bertrand Vallet AQF 

2.E Advanced research for water reuse systems and impact on receiving media 

Xavier Garcia 

Acosta 

YRA 

UdG = Universitat De Girona | UGent = University of Ghent | YRA = Yarqon River Authority | WU = Wageningen University 

ICRA = Catalan Institute for Water Research | LU = Lund University | DTU = Technical University of Denmark | UNEXE = University of Exeter 

AQF = Aquafin | ACCIONA = ACCIONA Agua 


4

INTRODUCTION 

“Living Well, within the Limits of our Planet” is the 

most recent Environment Action Programme of 

the European Union. The programme is led by the 

following vision for Europe’s future: 

In 2050, we live well, within the planet’s ecological 

limits. Our prosperity and healthy environment stem 

from an innovative, circular economy where nothing 

is wasted and where natural resources are managed 

sustainably, and biodiversity is protected, valued and 

restored in ways that enhance our society’s resilience. 

Our low-carbon growth has long been decoupled 

from resource use, setting the pace for a safe and 

sustainable global society. 

There are nine thematic priorities of Living Well: 

Three key objectives 

• to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s 

natural capital 

• to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, 

and competitive low-carbon economy 

• to safeguard the Union’s citizens from environmentrelated 

pressures and risks to health and wellbeing 

Four “enabler” objectives 

• better implementation of legislation 

• better information by improving the knowledge base 

• more and wiser investment for environment and 

climate policy 

• full integration of environmental requirements and 

considerations into other policies 

Two complementary horizontal-priority objectives 

• to make the Union’s cities more sustainable 

• to help the Union address international environmental 

and climate challenges more effectively. 

SANITAS projects are addressing the main seven 

thematic priorities and the document will establish how 

this can be achieved. 

We will also make our own suggestions on how these 

issues should be addressed based on evidence derived 

by SANITAS research. 


5

CHAPTER 1 

Priority objective 1: To protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital 

Natural capital (soil, forests, seas, air, productive 

land, water and biodiversity) along with ecosystems 

that provide vital goods and services, underpin the 

European Union’s economic prosperity and well-being 

of their citizens. Being focused on urban water and 

wastewater systems, the SANITAS body of research 

is mainly focused on the protection, conservation 

and enhancement of the Union’s water capital, and 

by extension on the quality of water bodies, waterrelated 

ecosystem services, and air pollution arising 

from the urban water systems. 

In accordance with the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/ 

EC) and the European Urban Waste Water Treatment 

Directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EE), urban water systems 

(UWS) comprises three main components: 1) the water 

treatment: responsible for treating and supplying water 

for all the required uses (domestic, industrial, agricultural 

and services); 2) the wastewater treatment: responsible 

for the treatment and discharge of urban wastewater 

with the main objective of protecting the environment 

from adverse effects of the aforementioned wastewater 

discharges; and 3) the collection and distribution system: 

responsible for the collection and distribution of water for 

use in the agglomeration and the collection of wastewater 

from the agglomeration, and its transportation to treatment 

units. In order to integrate the whole urban water cycle, 

and in accordance with the Water Framework Directive 

(WFD) (2000/60/EC), SANITAS research incorporates 

also the local water bodies as an integral element of the 

system. These water bodies (groundwater aquifer, river, 

lake, transitional water body, coastal water body, artificialsurface 

water bodies) act as a source of water for water 

treatment and/or receiving the discharged treated water 

from wastewater treatment. Therefore, urban water 

system sectorial elements not only alter the water quantity 

and quality of the water bodies, but also significantly affect 

aquatic ecosystem structure and functioning and thus their 

provision of valuable services that contribute to the wellbeing 

of society and the environment. 

Improving surface water quality 

To achieve the WFD requirements, activities in all sectors 

need to be better controlled. In a recent report (European 

Environment Agency, 2012), of the overall 12,700 surface 

water bodies investigated, more than half of them did not 

reach good ecological status or potential. After investigation 

of pressures for water quality downgrade, diffuse pollution 

from agriculture was found to be a significant pressure for 

more than 40% of rivers and coastal waters, and more 

than one third of lakes and transitional waters; hydromorphological 

pressures, which were mainly attributable 

to hydropower, navigation, agriculture, flood protection 

and urban development, affected around 40% of rivers 

and transitional waters, and 30% of lakes; point pollution 

from urban wastewater systems and industries constituted 

the third major significant pressure, influencing 22% of 

all surface water bodies. In contrast with the ecological 

classification system, the monitoring network for chemical 

status remained to be developed, as more than 40% of the 

surface water bodies were reported as having unknown 

chemical status. And among the water bodies examined, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals 

and industrial chemicals (e.g. plasticiser di-(2-ethylhexyl) 

phthalate (also known as DEHP) and pesticides) are the 

main reasons for poor chemical status of rivers; heavy metal 

emissions are the major pollution source for lakes; and 

PAHs, heavy metals and the antifouling biocide tributyltin 

(TBT) are the most common culprits for transitional 

water bodies. 

SANITAS is primarily focused on contributing to 

the improvement of EU water bodies’ quality, and 

implementing the UWWTD as well as the WFD, through 

the improvement in the management of sewer systems, 

wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and the integrated 

management of UWS; automatic control of sewer systems, 

WWTPs, advanced water reuse technologies and the 

integrated UWS; and developing and applying tools used to 

minimize environmental (including energy), economic and 

social impacts of the UWS. 


6

Ecosystem Services and biodiversity 

Biodiversity and ecosystems support the most vital of our 

needs: food provision, supply of fresh water and clean air, 

shelter from natural disasters and even medicine. It is our 

“life insurance” (COM (2011) 244). Despite their relevance 

for our economy and well-being, the Union’s biodiversity 

is being lost and most ecosystems are seriously degraded. 

The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 is aimed at reversing 

biodiversity loss and supporting the transition of the Union 

to a resource-efficient, green economy. As such, it is an 

integral part of the Resource-Efficient Europe Flagship 

Initiative (COM (2011) 21) and Europe 2020 Strategy 

(COM (2010) 2020). 

Ecosystems services are “the benefits humans derive from 

nature” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). This is 

an innovative approach with the aim of valuing the benefits 

society receives from ecosystems. The value of the different 

aspect of ecosystem services, especially the economic, 

could help stakeholders to understand the importance of 

maintaining ecosystems’ functioning and the need to integrate 

water and wastewater management. Principally due to our 

poor understanding of the role of ecosystems and their 

processes in water provision, incorporating them in UWS 

decision making is a complex and troublesome task. There 

is a great need for methodologies to coherently value and 

price (tangible and intangible) ecosystem services for the 

UWS sector and for innovative management schemes and 

approaches incorporating water-related ecosystem services. 

Within SANITAS, a cost-benefit analysis integrating 

marketed and non-marketed benefits was applied for the 

research project 2.E to assess the feasibility, in economic 

terms, of the Yarqon River Rehabilitation project (Israel). 

The costs included both the capital costs of implementing 

rehabilitation measures (including maintenance costs) and 

the opportunity costs of foregone users (water provisioning 

for agriculture), whereas the benefits of rehabilitation 

included the increase in the ecosystem service provision 

of aesthetic information (hedonic pricing method), 

opportunities for recreation (value function transfer), and 

gene-pool protection (replacement cost). The result of 

the cost-benefit analysis for a 30-years period showed 

that the net present value of the rehabilitation project is 

approximately $151 million. 

Value of Ecosystem Services 

“Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of 

ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them 

in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution 

to averting global biodiversity loss.” is the EU 2020 

biodiversity target (COM(2011) 244). Underpinning this 

headline target is the understanding that biodiversity and 

important ecosystem services have significant economic 

value that is seldom captured in markets. This often leads 

to the true value of these ecosystem services to not be 

considered while assessing the trade-offs of urban water 

systems-related decisions, basically because stakeholders 

mostly do not pay for them. The economic valuation of 

ecosystem services trade-offs can be useful to develop an 

informational base for more rational decision-making on 

the allocation of scarce natural resources and, thus, tackling 

the informational failure that causes the underestimation 

of value of these services without a market. Therefore, 

valuing the trade-offs concerning ecosystem services 

among alternative decisions within the urban water system 

might prove valuable to cope with the lack of information/ 

awareness of the consequences of the decision, supporting 

thus a more informative assessment. 

Nutrient release/nutrient cycle 

(nitrogen and phosphorus) 

Anthropogenic activities have been causing disruptions to 

the nutrient cycles (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus). 

Water bodies can tolerate a range of concentrations of 

nutrients, but beyond threshold values the performance 

of these ecosystems to treat them is likely to be reduced 

(Odum et al., 1979). Excessive nutrient discharge in 

water bodies from wastewater treatment plants promotes 

eutrophication, a process where water bodies receive 

excess nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth. 

Eutrophication depletes the oxygen in the water and 

limits the penetration of sunlight, with the consequent 

negative effects on biodiversity and disrupting the 

production of valuable ecosystem services. It is still 

one of the main environmental problems worldwide 

(Smith and Schindler, 2009). 


7

Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to the Union’s water 

bodies have decreased considerably over the past 20 years, 

due to the investment and development or upgrading of 

wastewater treatment plants. Nevertheless, excessive 

nutrient releases from effluent continue to negatively affect 

the water bodies’ ecological status. Inadequate wastewater 

treatment urgently needs to be tackled to achieve further 

significant reduction of nutrients discharge. Technological 

and scientific advances on wastewater treatment and 

integrated urban water systems management, as these 

achieved by SANITAS, will definitely contribute to improve 

the effluent water quality and reduce the environmental 

impact. These have been mainly focused on developing 

modelling and control strategies and decision-support tools 

to improve the wastewater treatment and urban water 

systems processes. 

Concluding remarks and ways forward 

By expanding the knowledge base in multiple 

water-based academic disciplines (modelling, 

control, and decision support) on different 

element within the urban water cycle (sewer 

systems, WWTP, water reuse, integrated UWS), 

SANITAS seeks to contribute to the fulfilment of 

the Urban Waste Water Directive, as well as the 

WFD. Improving the water quality in the Union’s 

water bodies will reduce negative environmental 

effects such as eutrophication, loss of biodiversity 

in aquatic ecosystems, protect the water-related 

natural capital, and ensure the provision of valuable 

ecosystem services. 


8

CHAPTER 2 

Priority objective 2: To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, 

green, and competitive low-carbon economy 

Valuable raw materials such as fuels, minerals and 

metals, as well as other resources including soil, water, 

air, biomass, food and ecosystems, underpin human 

welfare and the well-functioning of the European 

economy. However, pressures on natural resources 

are increasing with the rapidly growing population and 

urbanisation, especially in developing and emerging 

economies (OECD and CDRF, 2010). The security of 

supply is threatened if the current pattern of intensive 

resource use continues. A sustainable solution to this 

is to improve the efficiency of resource use, which 

not only secures growth but also offers great job and 

economic opportunities. 

Urban wastewater systems (UWWSs) have been widely 

developed to treat wastewater to an acceptable level before 

discharging to the receiving water body to protect the 

environment. By traditional treatment methods however, 

the UWWSs require energy and other resource inputs 

and produce Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) (Figure 

2.1a). To minimise the adverse impact to the environment, 

SANITAS projects have investigated a range of resourceefficient 

strategies that could reduce resource consumption 

rate (i.e. fewer raw materials demands) and turn waste 

(GHGs, wastewater) to resources (water, energy, nutrient) 

(Figure 2.1b). 

Energy & 

materials 

GHGs 

Wastewater 

Urban wastewater 

systems 

Treated 

wastewater 

Environment 

Figure 2.1 (a) The impact of traditional wastewater treatment strategies 

Reused water, nutrient, biogas, etc. 

Energy & 

materials 

Wastewater 

Urban wastewater 

systems 

GHGs 

Environment 

Treated 

wastewater 

Figure 2.1 (b) Reduced adverse impact from the urban wastewater systems by resource-efficient strategies 


9

Energy efficient strategies 

Increased dependence on energy imports and scarce 

energy resources have raised economic and political 

concerns among European Union members. Along with 

the economic crisis and climate change threat the Union 

is faced with unprecedented challenges. The concept of 

energy efficiency can be a valuable means in tackling these 

challenges. By reducing primary energy consumption, the 

Union’s supply security will be increased and greenhouse 

gas emissions will be reduced. SANITAS projects have 

identified a few innovative technological solutions to 

improve energy efficiency of the UWWSs through 

optimised system design and operation. 

Optimised system design 

a) Environmental Decision Support System 

Environmental Decision Support Systems (EDSSs) are 

intelligent information systems, integrating mathematical 

models and automatic control with knowledge-based 

systems, that can support the decision making process in 

an environmental domain. 

NOVEDAR_EDSS 

The selection of the most appropriate wastewater 

treatment is a complex process as several factors should be 

taken into account: new wastewater treatment challenges, 

an increasing number of available technologies, and the 

need to include different types of criteria. 

EDSSs appear to be an efficient approach to deal with this 

complex process since they allow integration of data and 

experience to include knowledge from different fields, and 

the use of different experts to justify the proposals based on 

a multi-criteria assessment. In this sense, the NOVEDAR_ 

EDSS streamlines technology evaluations by integrating 

technology performance, cost, and environmental impact 

data all into one platform. Moreover all the information 

and knowledge collected is retrieved in an easy way, since 

different alternatives will be evaluated. 

Therefore, NOVEDAR_EDSS allows the reduction of 

the time required in the alternatives-selection stage while 

improving the final results and justifying the proposals. 

NOVEDAR_EDSS has many applications which can be 

grouped in three different fields: technical, administration 

and promotional. It is a useful tool for engineers working on 

wastewater treatment plant design, as they can use this tool 

to select treatment alternatives but it can also act as a source 

of knowledge. As for the administration department, the 

NOVEDAR_EDSS is useful to prepare tender projects and 

to justify their selection in tenders. Finally, other applications 

are related to promotional eco-practices in the industry and 

water utilities. 

Currently, this tool is in the stage of industrialization within 

an industrial doctorate framework between Aqualogy and 

the University of Girona. 

Alba Castillo Llorens: a.castillogtaqualogy.net Industrial PhO student) Vicente 

COmez Martinez: ygornezmaaqualogy.net (Aqualogy supervisor) Manel Poch 

Espallargas: manuel.poch@udg.edu (Lequia supervisor) 


10

) Life Cycle Assessment 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique to 

quantify the impacts associated with all the stages of a 

product, service, or process, from cradle-to-grave. It is 

designed to evaluate - and even possibly reduce - the 

environmental impact for the entire life cycle of said 

product, service or process (ISO, 2006). There have 

been multiple examples of the LCA method being 

applied for estimating environmental impacts from 

urban water systems, typically wastewater systems. 

During cooperation between SANITAS project 3.A and 

network partner Waterschap de Dommel, a LCA was 

performed for a wastewater treatment plant and sludge 

treatment. The study facilitated a) a better understanding 

of the main contributing factors of the process to the 

various impact categories (such as climate change, 

marine eutrophication, human toxicity and others); 

and b) a comparison of the current treatment situation 

against proposed technologies or methods to be 

implemented at the plant. 

Optimised system operation 

Besides improved system design for energy efficiency, 

SANITAS projects also investigate the optimisation of 

operational plans in traditional activated sludge treatment 

process, granular activated sludge systems or membrane 

systems. For instance, results from project 2.C suggest that 

significant energy savings can be achieved by optimising 

an integrated control strategy of a benchmark urban 

wastewater system (more than 50% in the case study 

investigated) (F. Meng et al. 2014). Further benefits are 

achievable by implementing real-time control strategies 

to exploit the dynamic capacity of the environment 

(e.g. high river flow rate) without detrimental impacts 

(F. Meng et al. 2013). 

Waste reduction strategies 

Granular activated sludge for anammox 

Conventional nitrification-denitrification over nitrate is an 

effective technology to remove nitrogen from wastewater, 

but it is energy intensive (for aeration) and often needs the 

addition of chemicals. Furthermore, conventional treatment 

processes yield a considerable amount of Greenhouse 

Gases (GHGs). For example, fossil fuel consumption for 

energy use results in CO2 emission in WWTPs. Nitrogen 

removal emits N2O, a very strong GHG that accounts for 

298-CO2 equivalents in 100 year horizon (IPCC, 2013 

ch8, p714). 

Emerging treatment technologies such as partial nitrificationanammox 

(PNA) are promising solutions for sustainable 

wastewater treatment due to the lower energy demand (up 

to 63% less than conventional treatments), minimal CO2 

emissions and sludge production, and higher effectiveness of 

nitrogen removal. Granular sludge is a special type of biofilm 

in which bacteria grow in compact aggregates (granules). 

Compared to biomass growing in flocs, granular biomass is 

denser and has very high settling velocity, which allows high 

loads in the reactors with lower footprint and no biomass 

washout. Furthermore, granules can hold different bacterial 

species with different conditions, which makes it suitable to 

perform PNA (Castro-Barros et al., 2015) . 

SANTAS project 1.F investigates optimal design and control 

strategies of granular sludge reactors to minimise energy 

requirements whilst reducing GHG (CO2 and N2O) 

emissions. Results show that by optimising operational 

st rategy (e.g. aeration intensity), GHG emissions can be 

greatly reduced, and the required process efficiency can be 

maintained at a reasonable cost. 


11

Resource reuse strategies 

Water reuse strategies 

According to the WFD, good status for groundwater 

bodies requires both good chemical and quantitative status. 

However, water scarcity is reported in nearly all river 

basin districts in the Mediterranean area. Two out of three 

groundwater bodies were reported as not being in good 

quantitative status, with abstraction being mentioned as 

a significant pressure. To address this the EU encourages 

reclamation of treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation 

(seasonal demand), landscape irrigation (seasonal demand), 

industrial reuse (site specific), non-potable urban use 

(limited volumes), environmental uses (site specific), indirect 

potable reuse through groundwater recharge (site specific), 

indirect potable reuse through surface water augmentation 

(site specific) and direct potable. 

The membrane bioreactor (MBR) is a low-footprint and 

robust technology that constitutes the state-of-the-art 

in wastewater treatment and reclamation. Through the 

combination of a suspended growth bioreactor and a 

membrane process for solids separation, MBR processes 

deliver a high-quality effluent that is amenable for reuse. 

SANTAS projects 1.G and 2.D both investigate improved 

design and operation of MBR systems for water reuse 

(Arnaldos M. et al. 2015). 

Biogas reuse strategies 

Wastewater is a source of organic matter that can be 

used to produce biogas, a potent and useful renewable 

energy source. The most common and applied treatment 

to fulfil this objective is Anaerobic Digestion (AD). During 

AD, complex organic matter will be degraded to smaller 

products and, finally to biogas. AD can also be applied to 

the sludge produced during wastewater treatment, which 

enables more biogas recovery. Nowadays, biogas can be 

recovered efficiently and be used to supply energy to the 

wastewater treatment plant itself, or be sold and used, for 

example, as a fuel to public transportation, as is already 

done in Sweden. 

SANITAS project 1.E studies the microbiology of 

methanogenesis to optimise biogas formation from organic 

rich wastewater under conditions of metals and chlorinated 

compounds biotransformation. 

Nutrient reuse strategies 

Excessive discharge of phosphorus from WWTP to surface 

waters is not only a main cause of eutrophication, but is 

also a waste of resource as phosphate rock (main global 

source of phosphorus) is a limited and critical raw material 

in the EU. Compared to the common phosphorus removal 

method by precipitation with metals, struvite precipitation 

(Nathan O. Nelson et al. 2003) is a more environmentally 

viable option that not only removes phosphorus from the 

wastewater but also generates a product which can be used 

as a fertilizer. 


The implementation of water and biogas recycling 

and reuse faces important barriers, both technically 

and politically: there is a very limited institutional 

capacity to formulate and institutionalise recycling, 

reclamation and reuse measures; financial incentives 

are not sufficient to stimulate implementation; 

and public perceptions towards water reuse are 

still a complication. 

With regards to technical bottlenecks, there is a clear 

need for innovative treatment options to produce 

and test reclaimed water for several (residential, 

urban, industrial and agricultural) uses and to allow 

for a balance between the ever-growing needs of 

human and economic activities and environmental 

requirements. The development of these innovative 

solutions should of course be done with the active 

involvement of all the relevant stakeholders and a 

strong consideration for the health and wellbeing of 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Although a range of complex and interlocking 

approaches have been suggested for building a 

resource-efficient Europe, synergies (e.g. GHGs 

emission and energy efficiency) or trade-offs (energy 

efficiency and environmental quality) effects may 

exist within each approach or across different 

approaches on various environmental concerns. 

Thus synergies should be optimised and tradeoffs 

addressed in adopting a technical solution or 

agreeing policy that will nurture positive synergies. 


12

CHAPTER 3 

Priority objective 3: To safeguard the Union’s citizens from environment-related 

pressures and risks to health and wellbeing 

Prominent among the concerns of the Union’s general 

public remain environmental stressors such as water 

pollution, air pollution and chemicals. Immediate 

action is necessary, especially in urbanised areas, 

where both people and ecosystems are exposed 

to high levels of pollution. In order to address the 

concerns and ensure a healthy environment for the 

people of the Union, adequate national and Unionwide 

policy should support the application of local 

measures and initiatives. 

The first cycle of implementation the WFD RBMPs is 

coming to an end in 2015. Yet, it is becoming more 

apparent that the environmental objectives set by the 

WFD are still far from total fulfilment: only just over half 

of the Union’s water bodies have achieved the Good 

Ecological Status as of the time of writing. As the impacts 

of anthropogenic climate change are becoming clearer and 

more imminent, the issues of droughts, water scarcity as 

well as flood risks are under renewed policy attention. 

Adverse consequences of floods and storm events 

Good quality surface waters and especially the ones 

provided for bathing and other activities benefit both 

human health and economic activities, including the 

tourism industry. In the era of the anthropocene, the 

adverse impacts of floods and storm events are already 

being experienced in bigger numbers and intensities. 

Human activities have a big role to play in that either by 

directly altering land morphology and the hydrological 

cycle or by indirectly inducing changes in the climate and 

the phenomena this entails. The environmental, social 

and economic consequences of floods and droughts are 

well recognised and future climate change is expected to 

aggravate their occurrence and impacts. Integrated risk 

management approaches will be needed to deal with these 

impacts in the UWS: prevention, adaptation, response and 

recovery are all concepts to be addressed by water and 

wastewater utilities and managers. 

Indeed presently, in spite of expanding infrastructure to 

safely transport and treat all the wastewater, it is not always 

possible to achieve a good treatment for all the wastewater. 

The continuous increase of impervious areas due to 

urbanisation has made the management of storm-water 

runoff an important challenge for urban planners (Wenger 

et al., 2009). Rainfall is largely conveyed to underground 

sewer systems and is mixed with municipal and industrial 

wastewater in the case of combined sewer systems. Mainly 

due to historical aspects most European cities are operating 

combined sewer systems. During severe rain events the 

drainage capacity of sewers is often not sufficient for the 

total amount of combined flow that needs to be conveyed 

to a wastewater treatment plant. The excess water has to 

therefore be released directly to water streams without 

adequate treatment - so-called combined sewer overflow 

(CSO) events. CSO events pose a serious threat for 

the environment due to the large amounts of pollutants 

present, such as solids, organic matter, nutrients, metals, 

organic compounds and pathogenic microorganisms among 

others (Gasperi et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2005). Without the 

application of control CSOs in urban areas occur typically 

between 10 and 60 times per year (Novotny, 2003). 

During heavy rains, choosing the least sensitive discharge 

locations and controlling the CSOs will reduce the risk to 

humans and the environment and ensure the preservation 

of ecosystem services to society. 

Within SANITAS project 2.A, a phenomenological tool for 

impact assessment of CSOs was developed to evaluate 

the optimal control strategies to limit the impact of 

pollution load during rain events on receiving waters. The 

phenomenological CSO model was also coupled with an 

uncertainty and cost optimization toolbox. Using the CSO 

model UWS managers can study the control potential of 

an existing sewer system and identify the most relevant 

structure to reduce the volume and improve the quality of 

water released to the river. This decision-support tool can 

also be a valuable resource to stimulate discussion between 

urban drainage and river managers for an integrated UWS 

management. 


13

Micropollutants 

Chemical pollution of long lasting compounds in water 

bodies has been identified within the top ten environmental 

concerns of the 21st century. Horizontal chemicals 

legislation such as Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation 

and restriction of Chemicals (REACH), provides baseline 

protection for human health and the environment and 

ensures stability and predictability for economic operators. 

However, there is still great uncertainty regarding the full 

impacts of various chemicals, nanomaterials, chemicals 

that interfere with the endocrine (hormone) system 

(endocrine disruptors) and chemicals in products. The 

effect of persistent chemical compounds found at trace 

concentrations (ng/L), namely micropollutants such as 

pharmaceutically active compounds (PhACs) and endocrine 

disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our water bodies is of 

important ecotoxicological concern for both human health 

and ecosystems. For instance, prolonged exposure to low 

doses of antibiotics results in the selective proliferation 

of resistant bacteria, which could lead to the transfer of 

resistance genes to other bacterial species (Baquero et 

al., 2008). In addition, the presence and fate of EDCs 

have raised the public attention since the discovery of 

the feminization of male fish and other aquatic organisms 

exposed to WWTP effluents where these compounds 

are abundant. The main source of these micropollutants 

comes from human consumption (Liu et al., 2009). 

Once administered, PhACs are metabolised to varying 

degrees, and their excreted metabolites and unaltered 

parent compounds can also undergo further modification 

due to biological, chemical and physical processes in both 

sewage treatment facilities and receiving water bodies. 

For this, one of the main pathways of micropollutants into 

the aqueous environment is through the WWTP (Ternes 

et al. 2004). Yet, municipal WWTPs are generally not 

equipped to remove PhACs and EDCs, as they were built 

and upgraded with the principal aim of removing easily 

or moderately biodegradable compounds (e.g. carbon, 

nitrogen and phosphorus) and microbiological organisms. 

Moreover, the chemical and physical properties of these 

compounds (solubility, volatility, adsorbability, absorbability, 

biodegradability, polarity and stability), vary greatly with 

obvious repercussions on their behaviour during the 

treatment and consequently on their removal efficiencies. 

Currently the vast majority of the Union’s treated 

wastewater is either discharged directly into coastal bodies 

or received by rivers and streams which ultimately also end 

up discharged into coastal water bodies. The release of 

some PhACs into surface water bodies may therefore pose 

a medium-high (acute) risk to aquatic life. Furthermore, 

many other compounds, even if their environmental risk 

had been found to be low, are discharged at high daily mass 

loads, which could contribute to negative effects on aquatic 

organisms in the long term due to chronic and mixture 

toxicities. For example, environmental concentrations can 

be higher than their predicted no effect concentrations. 

The problem magnifies in effluent-dominant rivers whose 

dilution capacity and self-purifying processes are insufficient 

to temper the risk to aquatic life. The bioaccumulation 

of trace organic compounds is a subject that needs to be 

addressed if we are to protect, conserve and enhance 

the Union’s natural capital. This is especially the case for 

Mediterranean river basins due to their particular hydrology 

(water scarcity), the management of which requires more 

urgent attention. WWTPs need to be upgraded with 

effective treatment technologies to control the risks 

caused by these micropollutants. 

Ecosystem restoration 

“Measures to enhance ecological and climate resilience, such 

as ecosystem restoration and green infrastructure, can have 

important socio-economic benefits, including for public health.” 

Risks to ecosystems in the anthropocene are significant. 

Water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including 

insufficiently treated discharges and sewage overflows, 

diffuse pollution, legacies from the past, discharges from 

factories and sewers, and nutrients and crop protection 

agents used in agriculture. Around the world, societies 

aim to maintain and improve ecosystem quality in order 

to enjoy the several benefits stemming from them. In the 

context of UWS particularly, surface waters provide services 

for recreational activities (for example swimming, fishing, 

rowing and other water sports) and users of these services 

enjoy clean surface water (OECD, 2014). Agricultural 

practices, such as irrigation, benefit from good quality of 

surface and groundwater (van Gaalen et al., 2012). The 

industrial sector also benefits from water of sufficient quality 

being used for industrial practices (OECD, 2014). Healthy 


14

aquatic ecosystems do not only benefit the direct users 

of water services, but also everyone that uses a service 

indirectly (e.g. consumer of agricultural products) or merely 

values the existence of the service (e.g. knowing that 

beautiful natural environment is in proximity). Improved 

qualities for aquatic ecosystems and the associated increase 

of biodiversity and environmental assets could therefore 

“have important socio-economic benefits, including for 

public health”. Studies have also shown that people attach 

value to living in a beautiful natural environment and have 

often indicated willingness to pay for improved water quality 

and restored ecosystems (OECD, 2014). 

The restoration of the ecological status of aquatic 

ecosystems will ensure the provision of goods and 

services that contribute to the human well-being. Actions 

focused the restoration can improve the integrity and 

resilience towards environment-related pressures and the 

provisioning of these valuable services. 

3.1 Yarqon River Authority Case Study 

The Yarqon River Rehabilitation Project 

The Yarqon River flows through the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan Area 

and was once the second biggest river in terms of volume of 

flow in Israel. Before the 1950’s, its annual discharge was 220 

million m3 coming mainly from springs supplied by a large 

karst aquifer. However, after the creation of the State of Israel 

in 1948, the demand for water for agricultural, industrial and 

drinking purposes increased, and so the pumping rates from 

the aquifer almost ended the flow of spring water into the 

Yarqon River. Additionally, the increased flow of poorly treated 

sewage, both urban and industrial, had a severe impact on the 

river’s ecosystems. The attempt to change the situation in the 

river began with the creation of the Yarqon River Authority 

(YRA) in 1988. In the last 20 years, the YRA has implemented 

or been involved in several rehabilitation projects as part of the 

River Rehabilitation Project (YRRP), such as the upgrading of 

the basin’s wastewater treatment plants in order to obtain high 

quality tertiary effluents to restore the flow of the river and its 

dependent riparian habitat. The actions conducted by the YRA 

have successfully changed the condition of the river itself and, 

in many aspects, transformed the riparian landscape of the river 

area from a backyard to a front yard. 


Environmental objectives set by the WFD and other 

directives and Union initiatives are still far from total 

fulfilment. The environmental, social and economic 

consequences of floods and droughts are well 

recognised and future climate change is expected to 

aggravate their occurrence and impacts. Integrated 

risk management approaches will be needed to 

deal with these impacts in the UWS: prevention, 

adaptation, response and recovery are all concepts 

to be addressed by water and wastewater utilities 

and managers. 

There is still great uncertainty regarding the full 

impacts of various chemicals, nanomaterials, 

chemicals that interfere with the endocrine system 

and chemicals in products, namely micropollutants. 

The bioaccumulation of trace organic compounds is 

a subject that needs to be urgently addressed if we 

are to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s 

natural capital and WWTPs need to be upgraded 

with effective treatment technologies to control the 

risks caused by these micropollutants. 

Risks to ecosystems in the anthropocene are 

significant, while around the world societies aim to 

maintain and improve ecosystem quality in order 

to enjoy the many benefits stemming from them. 

The restoration of the ecological status of aquatic 

ecosystems will ensure the provision of goods and 

services that contribute to the human well-being. 

The Enabling Framework 

“Achieving the above-mentioned priority thematic 

objectives requires an enabling framework which supports 

effective action.” 


15

CHAPTER 4 

Priority objective 4: To maximise the benefits of Union environment 

legislation by improving implementation 

The Water Framework Directive was established 

in 2000 to address challenges faced by EU waters 

in a comprehensive manner and aims to achieve 

good status for all water bodies in the EU by 2015. 

However, according to a report by the European 

Environmental Agency (EEA, 2012) and river basin 

management plans (RBMPs) by Member States, only 

42 % of surface water bodies held good or high 

ecological status in 2009, and the figure for 2015 

was predicted to be 53 %, still far from meeting 

the Directive objectives. The lack of cooperation 

among the different stakeholders, partly due to lack of 

integration of the EU water legislation, is hampering 

the actual implementation of many well-intentioned 

water policy initiatives. Thus cooperation between 

stakeholders and academics from multiple disciplines 

should be strengthened along with the integration of 

EU urban water policies. 

SANITAS projects have investigated strategies to enhance 

WFD implementation by improving knowledge base of 

environmental science and technology (see Chapter 5 

for more information), exploring innovative regulatory 

approaches on wastewater discharges, and exploring tools/ 

method to facilitate stakeholder engagement and improve 

science-policy interface (Figure 4.1). The strategies are 

expected to contribute to improving compliance rates on 

urban wastewater treatment and enhancing environmental 

quality in river basin scales. 

Innovative permitting approach on wastewater 

effluent discharges 

End-of-pipe permitting is a widely practiced approach 

to control environmental risk imposed by wastewater 

discharges. However, the effectiveness of the traditional 

regulation paradigm is being challenged by increasingly 

complex environmental issues, ever growing public 

expectations, and the need for cost-effective approaches. 

Based on advanced UWWS modelling, a smart, operational 

control-based permitting framework, rather than traditional 

end-of-pipe limits, is proposed by SANITAS project 2.C 

Science 

• Biodegradation of micropollutants; 

• Microbiology of methanogenesis; 

• Improved modellling of urban wastewater systems; 

Technology 

• Improved operation of urban wastewater system; 

• Emerging wastewater treatment technologies; 

Implementation 

• Tools to facilitate stakeholder engagement, strengthen science-policy interface; 

Policy 

• Innovative effluent wastewater discharge permitting 

Figure 4.1 SANITAS strategies for improved implementation of environmental objectives in EU 


16

to maximize urban wastewater system performance in 

a reliable, energy and environmentally efficient manner. 

A range of tools has been employed including integrated 

system modelling, multi-objective optimization and 

visual analytics, to establish a four-step smart permitting 

framework: 

Step I: Selection of system performance indicators to 

represent different interests; 

Step II: Multi-objective optimization of the control strategies 

to reveal objective trade-offs; 

Step III: Visual analytics to screen high performance 

solutions; and 

Step IV: Permit deriving to include control parameters. 

Stakeholders are engaged in the whole permitting process 

to facilitate the development of sustainable solutions that 

achieve balanced benefits. Results suggest that despite 

the effectiveness in restricting WWTP effluent discharge 

quality, the end-of-pipe permitting approach is insufficient 

in controlling other aspects of system behaviour. A more 

stringent regulation by traditional permitting approach may 

produce undesirable outcomes. However, by regulation 

on operational controls, more reliable and energy efficient 

solutions can be achieved and ensured. 

Tools for stakeholder engagement 

In accordance with the definition of urban water systems 

(see chapter 1) which integrates the whole urban water 

cycle, successful management of urban water systems needs 

involvement of several urban water system stakeholders 

from very different sectors. It needs complex integration 

of cross-sectorial urban water cycle stakeholders, such 

as in sectors of water sanitation, water supply, watershed 

authorities, environmental agencies, local authorities, 

among others. However, the contrasting visions and 

responsibilities in the management of water resources 

among these stakeholders make cooperation and complex 

endeavour. In order to improve implementation of water 

legislations, researchers have developed systematic tools 

to make cooperation and engagement of stakeholders 

a realizable task. As a way to stimulate the urban water 

cycle stakeholders’ engagement in UWS decision-making 

process, SANITAS has contributed to the development of 

Environmental Decision Support Systems. 

Tools for strengthening science-policy interface 

In spite of the rapid advances in the knowledge base and 

tools for environmental protection, they are not always in a 

meaningful format/language for decision makers (DMs). For 

example, there is a need to integrate and synthesize outputs 

from diverse tools and indicators into easily understandable 

and transferable output for DMs. SANITAS project 3.A is 

developing such tools in the area of urban water systems. 

A method is established to support decision making in 

UWS assessing the system’s technical, legal, economic, 

environmental performance under different present and 

future scenarios. This tool helps to equip those involved in 

implementing environmental legislation at Union, national, 

regional and local levels (i.e. the DMs) with the knowledge, 

tools and capacity to improve the governance of the 

enforcement process. 


A selection of tools and innovative approach of 

environmental regulation are presented in this 

chapter. The decision-making tools facilitate the 

trade-off analysis of various interests; the flexible 

permitting approach involved relevant stakeholders 

into the permitting process so that maximum 

environmental benefits can be achieved. However, 

there is still a need for institutional and regulatory 

frameworks that are conducive to the adoption of 

innovative approaches. 


17

CHAPTER 5 

Priority objective 5: To improve the knowledge and evidence base 

for Union environment policy 

Environmental monitoring, data, indicators and 

assessments, as well as formal scientific research are 

fundamental to the implementation of the Union’s 

environment legislation. However, the fast pace 

of developments and the growing uncertainties 

surrounding likely future challenges requires further 

steps to maintain and strengthen this knowledge and 

evidence base. This will ensure that the development 

and implementation of policy in the Union continues 

to draw on a sound understanding of the state of the 

environment and possible response actions with their 

consequences. 

Filling data and knowledge gaps 

Degradation of micropollutants 

The advances in analytical technology in the past 15 

years have allowed the detection and quantification of 

micropollutants even at very low concentrations (ng/L), 

thus enabling the study of their occurrence. This is the 

consequence of the increasing number of chemicals (from 

50,000 up to 100,000) which are being commercially 

manufactured by industry, subsequently used in households 

and finally released to the environment through wastewater 

(Mackay et al., 2006). However little progress has been 

done in the field of occurrence studies, and up-to-date 

precautions and monitoring actions have not been well 

established due to some limiting factors that are 

presented below: 

• Removal efficiencies are compound dependent (due 

to the different chemical and physical characteristics of 

PhACs and operational conditions) 

• Variation of PhACs in production and administration as 

well as between countries and over time 

• Instrumental errors due to low level concentrations 

(both in influent and effluent of WWTPs) 

To improve and expand on the current knowledge base 

certain duties are in order: 

• Determination of target compounds such as widely 

prescribed anti-inflammatories and antibiotics, 

based on their presence (most frequently detected), 

on their persistence and on their environmental risk, 

for example sulfamethoxazole (SFX), ibuprofen, 

and diclofenac). 

• Specification of a treatment technology (or a 

combination of technologies), that could assure 

complete or efficient removal of various micropollutants, 

while keeping the carbon footprint as low as possible. 

• Implementation of the best available technologies in 

WWTPs to remove micropollutants. 

SANITAS, is trying to contribute towards that direction 

by filling data and knowledge gaps. One of the projects, 

project 1.C is investigating the biodegradation and removal 

mechanisms of target micropollutants. More specifically, the 

project is aiming to elucidate the parameters that regulate 

the biodegradation of micropollutants in order to develop 

the basis for the implementation of new technologies. New 

technologies can be used to upgrade our existing treatment 

systems and avoid the release of these contaminants into 

the environment. More specifically, SFX has been frequently 

detected in WWTPs and surface waters. Up-to-date 

investigations pertaining to SFX elimination are marked 

by inconsistent results. Advanced treatment processes 

are promising compared to the conventional ones, but 

limitations are posed due to maintenance and operational 

costs. Hence, biodegradation is considered to be one of 

the most promising technologies due to its low cost and its 

potential for complete micropollutants removal. The aim of 

the 1.C project is to explore the biodegradation capacity of 

an enriched Ammonia oxidising bacteria (AOB) culture and 

to investigate whether AOB are able to degrade SFX and if 

so, under which conditions. The first results obtained were 

promising, but more tests are currently under way in order 

to verify these findings. 


18

Greenhouse gasses and formation in urban 

wastewater systems 

Recent studies indicate that build-up of methane (CH4) 

in sewer systems occurs under certain conditions. CH4 

is biologically generated by methanogenic archaea that 

consume volatile fatty acids dissolved in wastewater. In 

addition of being explosive at low concentrations, CH4 

is one of the main greenhouse gas contributors to global 

warming, with a lifespan of about 12 years and a global 

warming potential of roughly 21–23 times higher than 

carbon dioxide. To date, CH4 production from sewer 

systems has been largely overlooked as the latest report 

from the IPCC concerning greenhouse emissions did not 

consider CH4 production from closed or underground 

sewer systems (IPCC, 2006). SANITAS project 2.F studied 

the formation of CH4 in underground sewer systems by 

measuring its production rates in experimental tests carried 

out on a weekly basis. Molecular techniques were also used 

in the monitoring. 

The global warming potential of nitrous oxide (N2O) 

is 298 times greater than carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2013) 

and therefore research on N2O emissions has become 

a point of attention in recent research. N2O production 

within the wastewater treatment process can be related 

to different biochemical pathways such as heterotrophic 

denitrification (von Schulthess et al., 1994), Ammonia 

oxidising bacteria (AOB) denitrification (Bock et al., 1995) 

and from Phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs) 

(Ahn et al., 2001). Several modelling studies have been 

performed to quantify N2O emissions taking different 

pathways into account. Common consensus is found on the 

activated sludge model for nitrogen (ASMN) of Hiatt and 

Grady (2008) on a four step heterotrophic denitrification 

that includes N2O as an intermediate. Mampaey et al. 

(2013), on the other hand, also included N2O and nitric 

oxide (NO) production due to AOB. From these studies 

it is understood that dissolved oxygen (DO) plays a key 

role in quantifying N2O production and, hence, emissions. 

SANITAS project 1.B is providing new insight into N2O 

emissions by coupling computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

and biological models for detailed N2O production, 

while project 1.D complements the progression of the 

mechanistic description and understanding of N2O 

production with a knowledge-based risk assessment 

modelling approach. 

The main source of CH4 from WWTP is related to 

anaerobic digestion units (Daelman et al., 2012). CH4 is 

formed during anaerobic digestion by methanogens and 

it is used to produce energy as biogas. However, part 

of the CH4 is solved in the liquid phase that leaves the 

anaerobic digester (reject water) and can be released to 

the environment in the subsequent processes. SANITAS 

project 1.F studies the feasibility of ammonium and CH4 

removal from reject water in granular sludge reactors 

by simultaneous modelling of anammox technology and 

Nitrite-dependent anaerobic methane oxidation (N-damo). 

This process has interesting potential applications from 

reject water treatment, which may contribute to reduce 

the GHGs during reject water treatment. 

Developing modelling tools 

Modelling of processes and systems is an invaluable tool 

in the context of UWS to i) design and optimize complex 

processes, ii) acquire knowledge of intricate interactions, 

and iii) predict system behaviour. 

Plant-wide and System-wide modelling - 

Benchmark simulation models (BSMs) 

BSMs are developed by the International Water Association 

(IWA) task group on Benchmarking of Control Strategies 

for WWTPs (Gernaey et al., 2014). These models describe 

various biological & physico-chemical processes within a 

WWTP and provide users with tools to evaluate control 

strategies in an objective manner. These simulation tools 

consider different pollutants (C, N, P at the moment; S, 

micropollutants to be included via SANITAS) and are a 

platform to test different control strategies and assess them 

based on certain performance indices related to quality 

of water discharged, associated costs, and risks. BSMs for 

WWTPs will be enhanced with new unit operations (e.g. 

reject water treatment) and descriptions of processes 

(e.g. physicochemistry, fate of micropollutants, etc.) within 

SANITAS. This enhanced BSM can be used to develop and 

verify different control strategies using simulation-based 

scenario analysis to optimize plant performance in terms 

of effluent quality, energy efficiency and energy production 

(e.g. biogas from anaerobic digestion). 


19

Additionally, the 2.B.2 project is extending the ADM1 with 

the pollutants sulphur and phosphorus. This entails addition 

of other relevant components such as iron which chemically 

reacts with both sulphur and phosphorus to produce 

mineral precipitates and thereby reducing/removing sulphur 

and phosphorus from the wastewater. Modelling mineral 

precipitation requires a good physico-chemical description 

in order to predict pH correctly which determines how 

much mineral will be precipitated. And in this line, a 

physicochemical model will also be developed wherein 

corrections due to ionic strength effects, ion pairing, and 

weak acid-base reactions are taken into account. The 

physico-chemical model can also be applied to other 

biological models such as the ASMs. The current BSM plant 

(BSM2: Gernaey et al., 2014) is designed for carbon and 

nitrogen removal. As phosphorus and sulphur are becoming 

significant pollutants, they should also be taken into account 

in a plant-wide context. Including these extensions to the 

ADM1 and in the future to other wastewater treatment 

models will then allow benchmarking of and designing 

control strategies for sulphur and phosphorus removal. 

SANITAS project 2.B.1 will also extend the BSM to 

integrate the subsystems of the UWS (sewer system and 

receiving waters) with the WWTPs. A system-wide BSM 

can be very useful to not only improve our knowledge on 

the interactions of various wastewater subsystems but also 

to evaluate future scenarios. These system wide modelling 

tools evaluate the performance based on receiving water 

quality indicators and hence are a direct way of measuring 

the effect of changes, upgrades to a system on the rivers. 

The existing plant-wide BSM is used as the starting point 

and models for catchment, sewer system and receiving 

waters are developed. The catchment model is capable of 

simulating the diurnal and seasonal variations in wastewater 

generation and also the effect of rain events on combined 

and separate sewer systems. A sewer network model with 

various storage possibilities is also developed. The receiving 

water system is modelled based on the principles of River 

Water Quality Model 1 (Reichert et al., 2001). Interfaces 

are developed to link the sewer and WWTPs models with 

rivers. As all the model sub systems are available on a single 

platform, exchange of information across the sub systems 

in real-time is possible. This gives ample opportunities to 

evaluate integrated control strategies on a system-wide 

scale. Such an integrated model of the UWS can optimize 

simultaneous utilization of the storage capacity of the 

sewer systems, wastewater treatment operation, and the 

consideration of the diluting and assimilating capacity of 

the river. 

Modelling for GHG emissions 

The emission of N2O during the treatment process has 

been studied by SANITAS project 1.B by coupling CFD 

and biological models for detailed N2O production. From 

previous studies it is understood that N2O production 

largely depends on oxygen concentrations. Oxygen in 

wastewater treatment systems is provided by aeration, 

which is both a source of oxygen and mixing. Current 

modelling techniques using systemic models do not 

take local mixing into account and thus average out local 

variations in predicting concentrations. These systemic 

models are calibrated by changing the kinetic parameters 

such as half saturation coefficient of oxygen and ammonia, 

however recent studies have shown that there might be 

other phenomena, such as mixing, playing a vital role in 

predicting the true concentrations (Arnaldos et al., 2014). 

CFD is a method able to account for spatial effects and 

study the influence of design parameters and phenomena 

at local scale. Studies have shown more improved systemic 

model structures can also be obtained using CFD (Le 

Moullec et al. 2010a). Moreover, project 1.B has integrated 

hydrodynamic and biokinetic modelling using the ASM1 

for a full scale WWTP and has demonstrated the effect of 

mixing on local system performance (Rehman et al., 2014). 

Therefore extending the latter by incorporating models 

predicting nitrous oxide concentrations would result in 

more accurate and realistic quantification of greenhouse 

gas emissions. This detailed modelling study will also enable 

developing nitrous oxide mitigation strategies. 

Another project is extending the BSM to include GHG 

emissions in order to evaluate the GHG emissions of a 

WWTP under different control or operational strategies. 

By using dynamic models that are capable of predicting the 

GHG emissions, operational conditions can be identified 

that lead to higher emissions. For example, lowering the 

oxygen set points would lead to less aeration and therefore 


20

less electricity use. This lower electricity usage results 

in lower indirect GHG emissions. However, the lower 

oxygen set point could also lead to higher N2O emissions, 

undoing the lower indirect emissions of the electricity 

use (Kampscheur et al., 2009). Unfortunately, there is no 

consensus on the responsible pathways and models that 

are accurately predicting the N2O emissions. Therefore, 

firstly different models are tested and their performance is 

compared (Snip et al., 2014). Secondly, these models will 

be compared with available data in order to assess which 

model is more accurate for the situation in which the data 

is gathered. 

Modelling of micropollutants 

There is also growing awareness about the importance 

of treating emerging pollutants that typically occur in the 

influent of a WWTP, namely micropollutants. With the usage 

of household chemicals, illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals, 

trace levels of these compounds can indeed be found in 

the wastewater. As WWTPs are not typically sufficiently 

equipped to remove these compounds, a model can help 

with the prediction of the fate of the micropollutants. Project 

1.A has worked on extending the Benchmark Simulation 

Model to be able to predict the fate of micropollutants in 

a plant-wide context. This is useful as there are different 

investigations that demonstrate that a change in operating 

conditions such as sludge retention time (Clara et al., 2005) 

can effectively improve the elimination of micropollutants 

from the liquid phase by sorption, transformation or 

biodegradation (Joss et al., 2008). Therefore, comparison 

of operational/control strategies in WWTPs is a promising 

tool to test the relative removal effectiveness of these 

compounds. The Benchmark Simulation Model (BSM) tools 

have been developed with the aim of having a platform to 

objectively compare different control strategies of WWTPs 

and are therefore the appropriate platform to be extended 

with the occurrence, transport and fate of micropollutants. 

As micropollutants encompass a wide range of chemicals, 

each with different characteristics, pharmaceuticals are 

selected as the micropollutant to model. As mentioned, not 

only the fate of pharmaceuticals in the WWTP is modelled, 

also the occurrence and transport of the pharmaceuticals 

are taken into account. When modelling a WWTP and 

evaluating its performance, it is important to consider the 

dynamics of the operation. The influent of a WWTP is 

highly dynamic and these dynamics will propagate through 

the entire plant (Butler et al., 1995). The same applies 

to the dynamics of the pharmaceuticals, which will be 

reflected in the effluent as well (Nelson et al., 2011). 

These peaks in the effluent can result in acute toxicity if 

the levels are high enough. In addition, the micropollutant 

concentrations influence the rate of the removal processes 

in the activated sludge units (Plósz et al., 2010). In addition, 

in-sewer transformations of pharmaceuticals have been 

reported (Jelic et al., 2015), which would be of importance 

when back calculating consumption rates (Zuccato et al., 

2008). The BSM framework has been upgraded with 

the ASM-X framework (Plósz et al., 2012) and different 

operational strategies have been tested (Snip et al., 2014). 

The comparison of the operational strategies showed 

that improved removal for one compound could lead 

to a decrease in the removal of another due to different 

characteristics. Therefore, tertairy treatment would be 

beneficial when wanted to remove the pharmaceuticals 

from the wastewater before discharging it in the aquatic 

environment. 

Qualitative modelling 

As N2O production within the wastewater treatment 

process can be related to different biochemical pathways 

such as heterotrophic denitrification, AOB denitrification 

and from PAOs. It is therefore difficult for the models to 

properly describe multiple and different data sets. For 

example they typically represent only one of the two basic 

metabolic pathways for N2O production by ammonia 

oxidizing bacteria (AOB). As researchers continue to 

make strides in reaching a consensus on N2O dominant 

pathways, model validation, and implementing and 

calibrating multiple or unified N2O pathway models, 

project 1.D of SANITAS will complement the progression 

of the mechanistic description and understanding of N2O 

production with a knowledge-based risk assessment 

modelling approach. This approach will also provide a 

qualitative, practical means of benchmarking WWTP 

and control strategies. 


21

Information and data sharing 

First of all, practical application of existing knowledge and 

tools for modelling, simulation (project 1.A) and control of 

UWS (project 2.A) was highlighted. Additionally, project 1.A 

will incorporate any new knowledge regarding modelling of 

emerging challenges i.e. GHG (project 1.B), micropollutants 

(project 1.C), optimisation of energy use/production 

in advanced technologies such as anaerobic processes 

(1.E), granular sludge reactors (project 1.F), membrane 

based systems (project 1.G) and qualitative modelling 

of UWS operational problems of biological nature with 

lack of mechanistic understanding (project 1.D). Besides, 

process control tools will be extended to enhance control 

of sewer detrimental emissions (project 2.F), control of 

technologies for water reuse (project 2.D for nutrient 

removal and 1.G for microbial indicators), for minimising 

the impact on receiving media (project 2.E) and for the 

real time based consenting at catchment level, improving 

water quality whilst limiting costs and carbon footprint (i.e. 

moving away from fixed, end-of-pipe consents or permits 

to discharge and consider other more flexible, spatiotemporally 

responsive options, project 2.C). The extended 

Benchmark system (2.B) is a common software platform 

for development and objective evaluation of control 

strategies. First, it will incorporate existing but also new 

models collected within project 1.A and, later on, relevant 

outcomes from project 2.A, 2.C and 2.E will be transferred 

to 2.B. Finally, work within project 3.A, gathering outcomes 

from 1.A and all WP2 projects, will enable to understand 

and improve the UWS by means of models, benchmarks 

or DSS. These tools are a means for the sustainable design 

and integrated control of the UWS. They will enable multicriteria 

analysis for an estimation of the environmental, 

economical (including energy) and policy impact. Scenario 

analysis will be carried out to investigate the impact of/on 

climate regarding design configurations and management 

strategies of UWS. 


Environmental monitoring, data, indicators and 

assessments, as well as formal scientific research 

are fundamental to the implementation of the 

Union’s environment legislation. This knowledge 

and evidence base needs to be constantly improved 

and strengthened so that the development and 

implementation of policy in the Union continues to 

draw on a sound understanding of the state of the 

environment and possible response actions with 

their consequences. 

SANITAS projects are filling data and knowledge 

gaps by investigating the biodegradation and 

removal mechanisms of target micropollutants 

and the formation of GHGs in sewer systems 

and WWTPs. Modelling tools are also being 

developed and enhanced within SANITAS, with 

the expansion of benchmark simulation models to 

include additional pollutants and micropollutants as 

well as the formation of GHGs and extensions to 

include the sewer system and the receiving medium. 

A qualitative model to assess the risk of N2O 

formation in WWTPs has also been developed. 

These models help researchers and UWS decision 

makers and actuators to i) design and optimize 

complex processes; ii) acquire knowledge of intricate 

interactions; and iii) predict system behaviour, 

in order to ensure the development and best 

implementation of EU environment policy. 


22

CHAPTER 6 

Priority objective 6: To secure investment for environment and 

climate policy and address environmental externalities 

Better accounting for environmental externalities 

within the urban water system is a vital step to achieve 

the full cost recovery though the full implementation of 

the polluters pays principle or payment for ecosystem 

services schemes. Incorporating the concept of 

ecosystem services into the urban water system 

management might contribute to the attainment of a 

better accounting for the external costs and benefits in 

the decision’s evaluation. Integrated urban wastewater 

modelling is also a powerful decision-support tool to 

assist on the efficient financial resource allocation (see 

chapter 4). Further development on these research 

fields can prove vital to advance towards a better 

implementation of payments for ecosystem services 

schemes and, thereby, incentivising private sector 

involvement and the sustainable management of 

EU natural capital. 

Achieving full cost recovery 

Article Nine of the WFD stipulates that “Member States 

shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs 

of water services, including environmental and resource 

costs, …, and in accordance in particular with the polluter 

pays principle”. Full cost recovery for water services is an 

important component of waterbodies protection, since it can 

help to generate revenue that can be invested in expanding 

and rehabilitating water service systems (OECD, 2003). 

Water pricing is the monetization of water abstraction, use 

or pollution of water. By implementing pricing mechanisms 

for different types of water services, cost recovery can be 

(partially) achieved. However, so far it has been very difficult 

to achieve full cost recovery through tariffs in the water 

sector (OECD, 2010). Assessing the costs that should be 

recovered from water users is not a straightforward task. 

One of the major difficulties faced is that the costs to be 

considered should be only the efficient ones, i.e. “those that 

would be incurred by a service supplier behaving efficiently 

and paying all inputs at their own marginal cost” (EEA, 

2013). Another remarkable difficulty is that the resource 

and environmental costs call for complex and site-specific 

analyses. Therefore, achieving cost recovery in the urban 

water systems sectors will require moving forward on 

issues of efficient resource allocation and resource and 

environmental accounting, among others. These topics 

have been approached within SANITAS. 

Efficient resource allocation 

In the context of financial and economic crisis in Europe, 

efficient financial resource allocation for the urban water systems 

management is a must. This context offers the opportunities 

to move rapidly towards a more resource-efficient, safe and 

sustainable urban water systems management. 

A system-wide analysis of wastewater infrastructure could 

prove a good strategy to achieve these objectives. For 

instance, it can be a valuable tool in identifying and ranking 

ageing infrastructure that has to be updated. With limited 

financial resources, an integrated analysis can identify those 

treatment plants that will provide best value for money 

in terms of improving the water bodies quality. A good 

example of efficient resource allocation is the Kallisto project 

(see box 6.1 below). Using modelling can help to identify 

where to invest and what is the best way to get the most 

out of their investment. In this way, it is possible to achieve 

improved water quality with a significantly less cost than a 

traditional approach of just expanding their assets. 


23

6.1 

The Kallisto project 

The Kallisto project had the objective of finding cost 

effective sets of measures to comply with the WFD 

in the case of the river De Dommel. The project 

reasons from the both severe and long-term impact 

of the UWS on the water and ecological quality of 

the river that are studied with an integral monitoring 

campaign in the wastewater system (WWTP and 

sewers) and river. By applying impact based real time 

control, the project aims at reducing supplementary 

investments in infrastructure while meeting the 

environmental objectives. Moreover, uncertainty is 

explicitly taken into account in the optimization and 

decision-making process (Weijers et al., 2012). 

Chapter 4 has presented how SANITAS project is 

investigating ways to optimize the wastewater system 

operation, e.g., through improving the system’s design for 

energy efficiency, or the optimisation of operational plans 

in traditional activated sludge treatment process, granular 

activated sludge system or membrane systems. 

Environmental externalities and pricing 

(Polluters Pay Principle) 

According to the WFD (article 9), member states should 

achieve full cost recovery of water services in accordance 

in particular with the polluter pays principle. The Polluters 

Pay Principle (PPP) makes economic actors aware of the 

full cost, including environmental externalities, of their 

decisions by making them pay for the cost of avoiding, 

abating or cleaning up pollution. This principle should be 

fully implemented in the Union’s urban water systems to 

recover the full costs of water services. In the context of 

urban water systems, environmental externalities can consist 

of positive externalities (for example, groundwater recharge 

from irrigation or water reuse) and negative externalities 

(for example, the release of pollutants in a receiving water 

body) (OECD, 2010). 

During recent years, there has been an exponential 

increase in the interest by the research community to 

incorporate the concept of ecosystem services in the 

environmental management research field. The reason 

is that it might contribute to the attainment of a better 

accounting of the ecological and socio-economic tradeoffs 

involved in management and planning decisions. 

Also, it can encourage institutions to adopt approaches 

that maximise the welfare of society and support the 

maintenance of the ecosystems’ integrity. 

Incorporating the concept of ecosystem services into 

urban water systems management might contribute to 

the achievement of the objectives established by the 

Water Framework Directive, of full cost recovery. While 

conducting the economic assessment (cost-effectiveness) 

of the actions within the river basin management plans, 

or formulating water-pricing policies that would provide 

adequate incentives for users to use water resources 

efficiently (PPP), it is important to estimate the total 

(environmental and resource) costs and benefits of the 

impact in the status of the water bodies produced by these 

uses. Incorporating the concept of ecosystem services 

within the urban water systems, that is, the system that 

includes all the elements considered water services by the 

Water Framework Directive will definitely ensure a more 

efficient management of water resources and ecosystems. 

Within the SANITAS research project 2.E, one of its 

objectives was to create a framework to integrate the 

concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) into Urban Water 

System (UWS) decision-making. This conceptual framework 

guides decision makers in UWS management through the 

definition of evaluation goals, spatio-temporal boundaries 

of the decision and the suitable decision support-tool; 

identification of the involved elements, stakeholders and 

ES to be considered; modelling the impact of the decision 

on the quality attributes of the water body; the provision 

(or depletion) of ES, and finally valuing its benefits 

and costs. 


24

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) – 

valuation of environmental goods 

Both public and private water sector have focused their 

attention on the market opportunities attached to the 

management of ecosystem services, for instance, through 

the implementation of payment for ecosystem services 

(PES) schemes. Payment for ecosystem services is a 

market-based mechanism, similar to subsidies and taxes, to 

encourage the conservation of valuable ecosystems. These 

are payments to owners of an ecosystem that provides 

the service/s who have agreed to take certain actions to 

manage their ecosystems to provide an ecological service/s. 

The main purpose of PES is offering economic incentives 

to foster more efficient and sustainable use of ecosystem 

services. One important step is to identify and quantify as 

much as possible the ecosystem services provided. The 

valuation of the ES provided following the implementation 

of the PES scheme helps to demonstrate that it is worth 

to maintain or enhance ecosystem services from a societal 

point of view. Again, the SANITAS objective of improving 

the ecosystem services accounting by developing a 

systematic framework can prove valuable to further 

implement this mechanism and create incentives for 

better management. 


The Water Framework Directive seeks to achieve 

the full cost recovery of the water services in 

accordance with the PPP. To contribute to this 

purpose, SANITAS is developing modelling 

techniques to optimize, in economic terms, the 

operational performance of the wastewater systems. 

Moreover, SANITAS is supporting research aimed at 

improved accounting of resource and environmental 

costs and benefits (externalities), contributing to the 

efficient use of water resources and the pricing of full 

cost of water services, as well as the development of 

new approaches to incentivise protection of natural 

capital (i.e. PES). 


25

CHAPTER 7 

Priority objective 7: To improve environmental integration and policy coherence 

Driven by the increasingly stringent environmental 

quality policy requirements, significant progress 

has been achieved in urban wastewater treatment. 

According to the 7th implementation report on 

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, 94% of 

wastewater generated within the EU is collected by 

sewer systems, and 82% of the wastewater subject to 

secondary treatment and 77% to tertiary treatment 

meet the Directive requirements. Yet to improve 

environmental sustainability and economic efficiency, 

more efforts are in need, especially in the fields of 

resource recovery and integrated water management. 

To achieve this, it is essential to effectively integrate 

environmental and climate-related considerations 

into other policies, and deliver environmental, 

economic and social benefits by more coherent 

policy approaches. 

Integrated resource recovery management 

Global trends such as population and economic growth, 

urbanisation and migration have increased the demand for 

water, energy and food. Resource reuse is a sustainable 

proactive risk management solution. 

Integrated nutrients and biogas management 

Anaerobic digestion is an environmental sustainable 

technology in providing biogas as renewable energy 

and digestate which could be excellent fertiliser and soil 

improver. However, the biogas price is relatively higher 

than other renewable energies (e.g. wind, solar, hydro, 

geothermal), and the yield of biogas from urban wastewater 

systems is still low despite its potential. Thus competitive 

market for recovered resources should be established in 

order to push resource recovery initiatives. Innovative 

technologies to improve the biogas production efficiency 

are in demand. Financial policy, such as subsidies may be 

necessary in some cases. 

Integrated wastewater reuse management 

Though wastewater reuse has been widely practiced in 

some regions with limited rainfall and water resource (e.g. 

Israel, Cyprus), it is in general underdeveloped and underregulated 

in Europe compared to other water stressed 

regions (e.g. Australia, Japan, California): 

• Wastewater reuse is raised in UWWTD and WFD but 

not addressed further, thus coherent regulations are 

needed at the European level; 

• Comprehensive water treatment and reuse standards 

need to be developed tailored for specific situations in 

Europe; and 

• Directions and financial tools need to be employed 

by Member States to encourage the demand for 

reused water. 

Addressing trade-offs 

The integration of Union and member state environmental 

legislation must be improved, particularly in the water, 

low-carbon and energy agendas. EU policies directed 

at addressing different environmental goals, for example 

improved air quality, improved water quality, biodiversity 

and reduced GHG emissions, are not always compatible. 

Taking into account general societal concerns, such as 

provision and affordability of services or security of energy 

supply can only make the compatibility challenge even more 

complicated for policy makers. The regulatory framework 

of the Union should be coherent and consistent across 

the board, ensuring a good balance among the Union’s 

social, economic, environmental and political objectives. 

The balance between the costs related to environmental 

damage and the costs of abatement and treatment should 

be investigated to ensure a sustainable management. 

Potential trade-offs between different types of pollution 

should also be investigated (for example improving water 

treatment using more energy and thus increasing GHG 

emissions) in order to maximise synergies and avoid 

unintended negative effects on the environment. These 

potential trade-offs should then be clearly communicated to 

decision makers, utilities, operators and the public. 


26

Tools for integrated resource management 

Local and regional authorities, who are responsible for the 

use of land and marine areas, play an important role in 

assessing environmental impacts and protect and manage 

the environment in an integrated way. A range of tools and 

methods can be applied to study the trade-offs between 

different types of environmental impacts and objectives 

in general. For one, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can be 

employed to study the impacts of a product, service or 

process from cradle-to-grave across different categories 

of environmental damage. This allows to estimate 

environmental impacts across the board, and thus compares 

between different technologies, for example, a technology 

improving water quality (less eutrophication) but using more 

chemicals (more human toxicity). Multi-criteria analyses 

also allow for the investigation of trade-offs between 

various objectives by evaluating competing alternatives 

in cases where a DM needs to take several types of 

objectives (economic, environmental, social, technical, 

legal) into account. Finally, DSSs can integrate economic, 

environmental, social and technical indicators to assess 

trade-offs and overall coherence of a decision. The outputs 

can then be easily communicated to the public, policy 

makers and actuators. 


Though significant achievement has been made 

in establishing coherence and holistic regulatory 

framework (e.g. WFD), more efforts are needed 

to set clear and robust linkages between different 

policies so as to promote and make full use of 

innovation of research and the market. 


27

REFERENCES 

Ahn J., Daidou T., Tsuneda S. and Hirata A. 

(2001) “Metabolic behavior of denitrifying 

phosphate-accumulating organisms under nitrate 

and nitrite electron acceptor conditions.” Journal of 

bioscience and bioengineering, 92 (5), 442-446 

Arnaldos M., Amerlinck Y., Rehman U., Maere 

T., Van Hoey S., Naessens W. and Nopens I. 

(2015) “From the affinity constant to the halfsaturation 

index: Understanding conventional 

modeling concepts in novel wastewater treatment 

processes.” Water Research, 70 458-470. 

Baquero, F., Martínez, J.L., Cantón, R., (2008) 

“Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in water 

environments.” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 

19, 260–265. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2008.05.006 

Bock, E., Schmidt, I., Stuven, R., Zart, D. (1995) 

“Nitrogen loss caused by denitrifying Nitrosomonas 

cells using ammonium or hydrogen as electron 

donors and nitrite as electron acceptor.” Archives 

of Microbiology 163 (1), 16–20. 

Butler, D., Friedler, E., Gatt, K., 1995. 

Characterising the quantity and quality of 

domestic wastewater inflows. Water Sci. Technol. 

31, 13–24. 

Castro-Barros, C.M., Daelman, M.R.J., Mampaey, 

K.E., Van Loosdrecht, M C M, Volcke, E.I.P., 2015. 

Effect of aeration regime on N2O emission from 

partial nitritation-anammox in a full-scale granular 

sludge reactor. Water research 68, 793–803. 

Clara, M., Kreuzinger, N., Strenn, B., Gans, 

O. and Kroiss, H. (2005). The solids retention 

time - a suitable design parameter to evaluate 

the capacity of wastewater treatment plants to 

remove micropollutants. Water Research, 39 (1): 

97-106. 

Chen, X., Guo, J., Shi, Y., Hu, S., Yuan, Z. and Ni, 

B.-J. (2014) Modeling of Simultaneous Anaerobic 

Methane and Ammonium Oxidation in a 

Membrane Biofilm Reactor. Environmental Science 

& Technology. 

Daelman, M.R.J., van Voorthuizen, E.M., 

van Dongen, U.G.J.M., Volcke, E.I.P. and van 

Loosdrecht, M.C.M. (2012) Methane emission 

during municipal wastewater treatment. Water 

Research 46(11), 3657-3670. 

De Bruyn, S., Korteland, M., Markowska, A., 

Davidson, M., de Jong, F., Bles, M., Sevenster, M., 

2010. Shadow Prices Handbook: Valuation and 

weighting of emissions and environmental impacts. 

Delft, CE Delft, Delft, the Netherlands. 

EEA - European Environment Agency, 2012. 

European waters — assessment of status and 

pressures. 

EEA - European Environment Agency, 2013. 

Assessment of cost recovery through pricing of 

water. EEA Technical report No 16/2013. 

F. Meng, G. Fu and D. Butler. Incorporating 

cost-effectiveness analysis into effluent permitting 

through integrated urban wastewater system 

modelling and multi-objective optimization. 13th 

International Conference on Urban Drainage 

2014, Kuching, Malaysia, September 7-12, 2014. 

http://www.13icud2014.com. 

F. Meng, G. Fu and D. Butler. Literature review 

on catchment-based consenting (CBC), real 

time-based consenting (RTBC) and its application. 

2013. 

Fan, Y., Chen, W., Jiao, W., Chang, A.C., 2013. 

Cost-benefit analysis of reclaimed wastewater 

reuses in Beijing. Desalination and Water 

Treatment 0, 1–10. 

Flores-Alsina X., Corominas L., Snip L. and 

Vanrolleghem P.A. (2011) “Including greenhouse 

gas emissions during benchmarking of wastewater 

treatment plant control strategies.” Water 

Research, 45 (16), 4700-4710. 

Gasperi J, Garnaud S, Rocher V, Moilleron R. 

Priority pollutants in wastewater and combined 

sewer overflow. Sci Total Environ 2008;407:263– 

72. 

Gernaey, K.V., Jeppsson, U., Vanrolleghem, P.A. 

and Copp, J.B. (2014). Benchmarking of Control 

Strategies for Wastewater Treatment Plants. IWA 

Publishing Scientific and Technical Report Series, 

London, UK. 

Guo L. and Vanrolleghem P.A. (2013) “Calibration 

and validation of an activated sludge model for 

greenhouse gases no. 1 (ASMG1): prediction of 

temperature dependent N2O emission dynamics”. 

Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 37(2), 

151-63 

Hiatt W.C. and Grady C.P.L.Jr (2008) “An updated 

process model for carbon oxidation, nitrification, 

and denitrification.” Water Environment Research, 

80 (11), 2145-2156. 

IPCC. 2013. The final draft Report, dated 7 June 

2013, of the working Group I contribution to the 

IPCC 5th Assessment Report. In: Climate Change 

2013: the physical Science Basis, chapter 8, page 

714 

IPCC 5th Assessment Report. In: Climate Change 

2013: the Physical Science Basis 

IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis 

Report. 

Jelic, A., Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., Barcelo, D., 

Gutierrez, O., 2015. Impact of in-sewer 

transformation on 43 pharmaceuticals in a 

pressurized sewer under anaerobic conditions. 

Water Res. 8, 98–108. 

Joss, A., Siegrist, H. and Ternes, T.A. (2008). Are 

we about to upgrade wastewater treatment for 

removing organic micropollutants? Water Science 

and Technology, 57 (2): 251-255. 

Kampschreur, M.J., Temmink, H., Kleerebezem, 

R., Jetten, M.S.M., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 

2009. Nitrous oxide emission during wastewater 

treatment. Water Res. 43, 4093–4103. 

Kim G, Choi E, Lee D. Diffuse and point pollution 

impacts on the pathogen indicator organism 

level in the Geum River, Korea. Sci Total Environ 

2005;350:94–105. 

Liu, Z.H., Kanjo, Y., Mizutani, S., (2009) “Urinary 

excretion rates of natural estrogens and androgens 

from humans, and their occurrence and fate in 

the environment: A review.” Science of the Total 

Environment. 407, 4975–4985. doi:10.1016/j. 

scitotenv.2009.06.001 

Mampaey K.E., Beuckels B., Kampschreur M.J., 

Kleerebezem R., van Loosdrecht M.C.M., Volcke 

EIP (2013) “Modelling nitrous and nitric oxide 

emissions by autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing 

bacteria.” Environmental Technology, 34 (12), 

1555-1566. 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), 

Ecosystems and human well–being: current state 

and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Moullec, Y.L, Gentric, C., Potier, O., Leclerc, J.P. 

(2010a) Comparison of systemic, compartmental 

and CFD modelling approaches: Application to the 

simulation of a biological reactor of wastewater 

treatment, Chemical Engineering Science, 65, 

343–350. 

Nathan O. Nelson, Robert L. Mikkelsen, Dean 

L. Hesterberg (2003). “Struvite precipitation in 

anaerobic swine lagoon liquid: effect of pH and 

Mg P ratio and determination of rate constant”. 

Bioresource Technology, 89: 229-236. 

Nelson, E.D., Do, H., Lewis, R.S., Carr, S.A., 

2011. Diurnal variability of pharmaceutical, 

personal care product, estrogen and alkylphenol 

concentrations in effluent from a tertiary 

wastewater treatment facility. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 45, 1228–1234. 


28


Sustainable and Integrated Urban 

Water System Management 

Programme Co-ordinator 

Dr. Joaquim Comas i Matas, 

UNIVERSITAT DE GIRONA 

E: Joaquim.comas@udg.edu 

Ni B.-J, Yuan Z., Chandran K., Vanrolleghem 

P.A. and Murthy S. (2013) “Evaluating four 

mathematical models for nitrous oxide production 

by autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria.” 

Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 110(1):153- 

163. 

Novotny, V., 2003. Water Quality: Diffuse Pollution 

and Watershed Management. John Wiley & Sons. 

Odum et al. (1979) Perturbation Theory and 

the subsidy-stress gradient. BioScience, 29(6), 

349-352 

OECD (2003),Social Issues in the Provision 

and Pricing of Water Services, OECD Studies 

on Water, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1787/9789264099890-en 

OECD (2010),Pricing Water Resources and 

Water and Sanitation Services, OECD Studies 

on Water, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1787/9789264083608-en 

OECD, CDRF, 2010. Trends in urbanisation and 

urban policies in OECD countries : what lessons 

for China ? 

Plósz, B.G., Leknes, H., Thomas, K.V., 2010. 

Impacts of competitive inhibition, parent 

compound formation and partitioning behavior on 

the removal of antibiotics in municipal wastewater 

treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 734–742. 

Plósz, B.G., Langford, K.H., Thomas, K.V., 2012. 

An activated sludge modeling framework for 

xenobiotic trace chemicals (ASM-X): Assessment 

of diclofenac and carbamazepine. Biotechnol. 

Bioeng. 109, 2757–2769. 

Rehman U., Maere T., Vesvikar M., Amerlinck Y. 

and Nopens I. (2014) “Hydrodynamic – biokinetic 

model integration applied to a full scale WWTP.” In 

proceedings: World Water Congress 2014, Lisbon. 

Reichert, P., Borchardt, D., Henze, M., Rauch, 

W., Shanahan, P., Somlyódy, L. and Vanrolleghem, 

P. (2001). River Water Quality Model no. 1 

(RWQM1): II. Biochemical process equations. 

Wat. Sci. Tech., 43(5), 11-30. 

Smith and Schindler (2009) Eutrophication 

science: where do we go from here? Trends. Ecol 

Evol 24, 201–207 

Snip, L., Flores-Alsina, X., Plósz, B.G., Jeppsson, 

U., Gernaey, K. V., 2014. Modelling the 

occurrence, transport and fate of pharmaceuticals 

in wastewater systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 62, 

112–127. 

Snip, L.J.P., Boiocchi, R., Flores-Alsina, X., 

Jeppsson, U., Gernaey, K. V, 2014. Challenges 

encountered when expanding activated sludge 

models: a case study based on N2O production. 

Water Sci. Technol. 

Ternes, T., Joss, A., Siegrist, H., (2004) Scrutinizing 

pharmaceuticals and personal care products in 

wastewater treatment. Environmental Science & 

Technology, 38 (20), 392A-399A. 

Von Schulthess, R., Wild, D., Gujer, W. (1994) 

“Nitric and nitrous oxides from denitrifying 

activated sludge at low oxygen concentration.” 

Water Science and Technology, 30 (6 pt 6), pp. 

123-132. 

Weijers, S. R., De Jonge, J., Van Zanten, O., 

Benedetti, L., Langeveld, J., Menkveld, H. W., & 

Van Nieuwenhuijzen, A. F. (2012). KALLISTO: cost 

effective and integrated optimization of the urban 

wastewater system Eindhoven. Water Practice and 

Technology, 7(2), 1-9. 

Wenger SJ, Roy AH, Jackson CR, Bernhardt ES, 

Carter TL, Filoso S, et al. Twenty-six key research 

questions in urban stream ecology: an assessment 

of the state of the science. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 

2009;28:1080–98. 

Zuccato, E., Chiabrando, C., Castiglioni, S., 

Bagnati, R., Fanelli, R., 2008. Estimating 

community drug abuse by wastewater analysis. 

Environ. Health Perspect. 116, 1027–1032. 

The research leading to these results 

has received funding from the People 

Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the 

European Union’s Seventh Framework 

Programme FP7/2007-2013, under REA 

agreement 289193. This publication 

reflects only the authors’ views and the 

European Union is not liable for any use 

that may be made of the information 

contained therein. 


29

SANITAS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?