PERSPECTIVE

www.advenergysustres.com

Striking a Balance: Decentralized and Centralized

Wastewater Treatment Systems for Advancing Sustainable
Development Goal 6
Fateme Saadatinavaz, Mohammed A. Alomari, Muhammad Ali,*
and Pascal E. Saikaly*

However, a mere 3% of this vast volume

Water scarcity and sanitation pose a critical global challenge worsened by is in the form of freshwater, which is essen-
population growth and the finite nature of freshwater resources. Despite the tial for drinking, agriculture, and industry.
United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6) advocating for uni- A staggering 65% of this freshwater is
locked away in glaciers and ice caps, ren-
versal water and sanitation access, progress remains insufficient. Presently,
dering it largely inaccessible for human
approximately 50% of generated wastewater is released into the environment use. In contrast, rivers, lakes, and reser-
without adequate treatment, emphasizing the urgent need to address this issue. voirs provide less than 1% of Earth’s water
This article examines the socio-economic and technical aspects of both cen- available to meet the needs of over 8 billion
tralized and decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DWTS) and assesses people.[1]
According to the World Health
the environmental impact, spatial footprint, and energy usage across treatment
Organization (WHO) in 2021 and the
technologies. An economic analysis underscores the cost advantages of DWTS, reports of 231 countries, 269 billion m3
especially in sparsely populated regions. With modular designs, DWTS not only of wastewater are generated globally each
provides environmental and economic advantages but also enables water reuse. year.[2] However, only 53% of generated
The research concludes that adopting DWTS is crucial in achieving SDG6 targets wastewater is safely treated (secondary or
and ensuring universal access to safe sanitation, especially in low-density and higher treatment was employed or appro-
priate standards were adhered to for efflu-
newly developed areas. This thorough investigation of wastewater management
ent discharge) facilitated by approximately
contributes to the ongoing dialogue on sustainable solutions amidst escalating 58 502 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
global challenges of water scarcity and sanitation. across the globe.[3] Untreated or partially
treated wastewater, a major source of pollu-
tion, poses risks to the environment and
1. Introduction public health, and indirectly contributes to global warming, while
the absence of proper sanitation also threatens the contamination
Water, unquestionably one of the most precious natural resour- of our finite water resources. The discharge of untreated sewage,
ces, plays a crucial role in human development and prosperity. rich in nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous, to water bodies
With the global population steadily increasing, the pressure on is detrimental. This influx leads to the accumulation of wastewa-
our limited freshwater resources has raised significant concerns ter, triggering the decomposition of organic matter. As a result,
about worldwide water scarcity. The total water volume is esti- dissolved oxygen levels plummet, severely disrupting the balance
mated at approximately 1350 million cubic kilometers (km3). of the aquatic ecosystem and leading to widespread mortality

F. Saadatinavaz, M. Ali M. A. Alomari, P. E. Saikaly

Department of Civil Environmental Science and Engineering Program, Biological and
Structural & Environmental Engineering Environmental Science and Engineering (BESE) Division
Trinity College Dublin King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)
The University of Dublin Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Dublin 2, Dublin D02 PN40, Ireland E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Alomari, P. E. Saikaly
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article Water Desalination and Reuse Center
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/aesr.202400097. KAUST
Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
© 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research pub-
lished by Wiley-VCH GmbH. This is an open access article under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
DOI: 10.1002/aesr.202400097

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (1 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

Figure 1. Amount of the total wastewater safely treated; A) rural percentage across different countries and B) based on GDP per capita. Each data point
represents a country, with those exceeding 100 million population highlighted in green with labels, while the remaining countries are marked in red. The
graphs were generated using data adapted from the WHO report on country profiles concerning the proportion of wastewater safely treated.[2]

among aquatic life.[4] Furthermore, inadequate sanitation sys- cost-effective than doing so all at once for greenfield development
tems remain as a persistent issue in numerous regions across projects.[8] This phased approach involves building small auton-
the world, predominantly impacting rural areas within low- omous decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DWTS).
and middle-income countries.[5] Presently, more than 4 billion Likewise, it is important to recognize that in rural areas of devel-
people continue to lack access to adequate sanitation systems, oping countries, distinct challenges emerge, set them apart from
and a substantial portion of this massive population resides in their urban counterparts.[9] Limited budgets, lack of local exper-
impoverished rural areas or low-density areas.[2] Figure 1A high- tise, and areas with low-density population often hinder the oper-
lights the correlation between rural populations and the level of ation and maintenance of CWTS, leaving rural communities
wastewater treatment. It reveals that countries with a higher rural with suboptimal sanitation solutions and a low percentage of
percentage tend to have less safely treated wastewater, thereby safely treated wastewater.[10] To bridge this gap, DWTS and
emphasizing the elevated risks to the environment and public on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) have emerged
health in rural areas. Additionally, Figure 1B illustrates the rela- as a pragmatic alternative. These systems are designed to serve
tionship between the economic indicator gross domestic product small, sparsely populated villages and settlements, offering cost-
(GDP) per capita and the percentage of wastewater safely treated, effective solutions that minimize the financial burden on com-
where countries with higher GDP per capita have higher percen- munities.[11] Furthermore, OWTS and DWTS are in alignment
tages of safely treated wastewater. with the predominant economic criteria utilized in decision-
To address these pressing challenges and the need for making processes across many developing countries. This makes
improved sanitation practices on a global scale, the United OWTS and DWTS a favorable option for sustainable sanitation
Nations General Assembly formulated Sustainable Development due to the avoidance of extensive wastewater collection networks
Goal 6 (SDG6) in 2015 which aimed to ensure the availability of and the energy burden of transporting wastewater for long dis-
water and sanitation for all people around the world. The SDG6 tances, cost efficiency, and ease of operation.[12] Consequently, it
signifies a significant commitment to achieving both adequate is imperative to adapt sanitation solutions to suit local conditions,
and equitable sanitation for all (as outlined in target 6.2) and serving as a critical step toward advancing the sanitation agenda
the sustainable treatment and reuse of wastewater (as detailed in rural and low-density communities. This not only enhances
in target 6.3). These goals represent pivotal milestones in the affordability but also promotes sustainable wastewater manage-
global mission to enhance water quality worldwide. It aims to ment and reuse practices. In the past, there have been several
enhance water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dump- studies focusing on OWTS, DWTS, and CWTS, but these studies
ing, minimizing the release of hazardous substances, halving the predominantly centered on case studies that targeted specific
proportion of untreated wastewater, and significantly boosting areas or regions,[8,13] or concentrated on specific wastewater
global recycling and safe reuse by 2030.[6] However, the progress treatment technologies or types of wastewater (such as gray water
to meet these targets is under question and is anticipated to be or wastewater).[12b,14] However, studies that focus on trade-offs
off-track.[7] between decentralized and centralized systems to provide sani-
In urban areas, centralized wastewater treatment systems tation coverage to the entire global population to achieve SDG6
(CWTS) are essential in managing the sanitation needs of are limited.
densely populated regions. However, recent findings indicate Aligned with this aim, this review article addresses the eco-
that constructing sanitation systems in phases proves more nomics, advantages, and challenges associated with OWTS,

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (2 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

DWTS, and CWTS, particularly within rural and community- primary (physical) treatment and a limited amount of anaerobic
based settings. By comparing these systems and dissecting their digestion (biological) process.[14a] Within septic tanks, solid par-
implications, this analysis aims to furnish valuable insights for ticles settle, forming a layer of sludge, while lighter substances
policymakers, researchers, and practitioners committed to ensur- like grease float to create scum. The partially treated effluent is
ing universal access to safe sanitation and fostering a sustainable subsequently directed to a drain field for further processing.
water future. The article evaluates these different treatment sys- Further treatment occurs as effluent percolates through the
tems in meeting the targets outlined in Sustainable Development soil-stone matrix of the soil treatment unit (STU) which can vary
Goal 6 (SDG 6.2 and 6.3), which strive to elevate global water in their configuration according to site-specific design require-
quality, curtail pollution, and advocate for safe wastewater treat- ments.[14a] The underlying soil or subsoil into which the waste-
ment and reuse. Ultimately, the overarching goal is to contribute water effluent percolates provides a critical buffer zone for the
to a world where clean water and efficient sanitation are accessi- protection of water resources. Proper maintenance and sizing
ble irrespective of geographical or economic constraints.
of septic systems are paramount to ensure their effective operation
and adherence to environmental standards.[16] Globally around 28
2. Scale of Wastewater Treatment Systems billion m3 of wastewater are treated annually in septic tanks, serv-
ing an extensive population of around 880 million people.[2]
Three primary categories of wastewater treatment systems, i.e., More recently, a proliferation of packaged treatment systems
OWTS, DWTS, and CWTS (Figure 2), are described in the has emerged to offer additional (secondary) treatment to the
following sections. effluent before its discharge to the STU. On-site secondary treat-
ment systems exhibit various configurations, including the coco-
2.1. OWTS nut husk filter system (Ecoflo Coco Filter, Premier Tech Aqua
Ltd., Ireland), rotating biological contractors (Klargester BioDisc,
OWTSs are engineered to process wastewater at or near its point Kingspan Ltd., UK), and sequential batch reactor (Chieftain SBR,
of origin (Figure 2A). These systems are especially vital in rural Molloy Environmental Systems, Ireland). These types of second-
and suburban regions where connection to decentralized or cen- ary treatment systems represent the preferred choice when
tralized sewage infrastructure is either impractical or prohibi- enhanced treatment efficiency is necessary, or site conditions
tively costly.[15] OWTS include various types of treatment, with do not favor simple septic tanks.[17] On-site secondary treatment
septic tanks, secondary treatment units, and constructed wet- systems are employed to achieve high-quality effluent through
lands (CWs) being notable technologies. Septic tanks, which the biological transformation of dissolved and suspended
are among the most prevalent OWTS (Figure 2A), provide pollutants.[16]

Figure 2. Different types of sanitation systems; A) OWTS, B) DWTS, and C) CWTS.

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (3 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

2.2. DWTS production with reduced collection and conveyance components,

while still providing acceptable treatment.[24]
DWTS are designed to operate at a moderate scale, serving Figure 3 demonstrates the comparison between population
small or medium-sized local communities (Figure 2B). These density and specific sewer length required per PE. As the popu-
community-scale treatment plants serve populations within a clus- lation density increases from 100 PE km
2 to 5000 PE km
2 there
ter of homes or a small community. Notably, 62% of WWTPs in is a noticeable decrease in specific sewer length required per PE
Europe are small and remote, serving from 2000 to 10 000 pop- from 84 to 3 m. The established capital and operating costs of a
ulations equivalents (PE). In this context, integrating digital typical gravity sewer are $150 per meter and $0.17 per meter,
technologies into the operation of DWTS becomes crucial, respectively, as detailed in prior research.[8,25] Correspondingly,
addressing specific challenges faced by smaller, decentralized as the population density increases from 100 to 5000 PE km
2,
treatment facilities.[18] Decentralized systems promote the effi- the construction and operating costs per PE consistently decrease
cient use of resources by enabling the reuse or return of treated from $12 557 to $400 and from $14 to $0.5, respectively
wastewater within the watershed of origin.[19] Further, decentral- (Figure 3). This suggests that in sparsely populated areas (less
ized systems are a more cost-effective solution, especially in areas than 1000 PE km
2), the cost of constructing sewers can exceed
with low population densities, where the installation of centralized $1500 per PE, similarly impacting operating costs, rendering
treatment systems may not be financially viable.[9] the centralized sanitation system economically unviable.
Previous reports have elucidated the cost difference of imple-
2.3. CWTS menting decentralized sanitation system instead of centralized
sanitation system; the cost was lower by 40%–45% in comparison
CWTS, as exemplified in many developed regions, entail the col- to conventional centralized sanitation systems due to the exclu-
lection of wastewater from various sources and its conveyance to sion of connections, conveyance lines, as well as pumps.[26] A
a central treatment facility (Figure 2C). Particularly effective in case study performed in South Africa, demonstrated that decen-
densely populated urban areas, these centralized systems capital- tralized sanitation system can cost substantially less, due to low
ize on economies of scale, utilizing an extensive network of pipes operational costs, and can produce treated water that can be
for efficient wastewater collection.[20] However, they have several reused, for example in agriculture. The use of centralized sys-
disadvantages, including elevated energy consumption due to the tems would have been more costly for such means due to the
reliance on pumps and the conveyance of wastewater over long extension of sewer networks to city outskirts or farm areas.[27]
distances. Particularly during wet weather, infiltration signifi- Moreover, decentralized systems can be beneficial for new devel-
cantly rises as flow is augmented by rainwater runoff inflow from opments and population growth, since they can benefit from
joints, manholes, and roofs, entering the sewers via rain leaders added investments while avoiding unnecessary costs of idle
connected to roof gutters. Furthermore, the centralized approach capacity, and uncertainties of land use and population growth.[26]
may result in the mixing of industrial waste streams, complicat-
ing resource recovery and reuse. In navigating the choice
between a DWTS and CWTS, it is imperative to adopt a compre-
4. Footprint and Energy Usage of Different
hensive approach that considers sustainability and socioeco- Treatment Technologies
nomic factors, incorporating local conditions, population
Looking back through history, environmental and sanitation con-
density, and environmental considerations.[21] Further, it is also
cerns start growing amidst industrial revolutions and rapid
highlighted that the choice between a DWTS and CWTS some-
urbanization. This era saw a surge in epidemic outbreaks, with
what linked to political will and socioeconomic conditions of a
wastewater management emerging as a pivotal challenge. In
country.[22] This decision-making process is integral to optimiz-
response, the conventional activated sludge (CAS) technology
ing wastewater management practices tailored to specific
was invented in 1914.[28] Since then, the CAS process with some
contexts and ensuring a balance between efficiency and environ-
modifications has been used as the standard biological wastewa-
mental impact.
ter treatment process. Initially, CAS processes dominated major
urban centers, providing a solution to increasing sewage issues.
3. Economics of Wastewater Collection System However, as smaller settlements sought efficient solutions, the
sequential batch reactor emerged in the 1980s.[29] While the
There are fundamental differences in wastewater collection and CAS system catered to developed nations’ major cities, the esca-
conveyance between DWTS and CWTS that can substantially lating population strained the capacity of the existing CAS treat-
impact the costs patterns of the system as a whole over time. ment. This necessity paved the way for innovations like the
These differences can greatly affect capital and operating costs, moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system in the 1990s, aimed
as collection systems cost about 60% of the total wastewater man- at bolstering treatment capacities.[30] Subsequently, the mem-
agement budget for capital costs and 70% of the annual operating brane bioreactor (MBR) system was introduced, offering com-
budget for wastewater pumping costs and connection system pactness but at the expense of higher energy consumption.[31]
maintenance.[8,12b] CWTS cater to large volumes of wastewater It was not until 2006 that the development journey culminated
produced by large densely populated areas, and treatment facili- in the invention of the aerobic granular sludge (AGS) process, a
ties are far away from the source of wastewater production.[23] In breakthrough requiring less space and energy—a transformative
contrast, DWTS facilitates the collection, treatment, and disposal leap that took nearly a century to evolve from the CAS to the
or reuse of treated wastewater within the area of wastewater advanced AGS process.[32]

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (4 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

Figure 3. Comparison of specific sewer length (m per population equivalent, PE) and population density (PE per km2). The secondary y-axis illustrates the
capital expenditure (CAPEX) for sewer construction and the annual operating expenditure (OPEX) for maintenance and operation. The data used in this
analysis were taken from the strategic plan for sewerage development of Brazil developed by JICA.[50]

The choice of a treatment system is affected by the evaluation (known as IFAS) are estimated within a range of 0.06 to
of numerous factors including the area and energy requirement. 0.125 m2 per PE. Among these, the AGS process stands out
Figure 4A presents the area requirement for various treatment as more space-efficient, highlighting its more compact area
systems as a function of the population. The data reveal signifi- requirement compared to the other mentioned methods.
cant variations in the footprint across different technologies. The Figure 4B illustrates the daily estimated energy usage in kWh
CW stands out with the largest footprint at ≈4.5 m2, followed by as compared to served population for the various treatment tech-
the trickling filter (TF) at ≈0.45 m2 per PE. In contrast, the MBR nologies. Remarkably, the most energy-efficient processes, AGS
showcases a notably lower footprint of ≈0.05 m2 per PE, signify- (70 kWh) and CAS with chemical P removal (75 kWh), demon-
ing its relatively more efficient use of space. Other technologies, strate comparatively lower energy consumption. However, it is
including AGS, CAS with chemical P removal, CAS with biolog- crucial to note that chemical P removal involves the use of chem-
ical P removal, and hybrid processes such as CAS with MBBR icals for phosphorus elimination and subsequent disposal of

Figure 4. A) Comparison of area requirement relative to population across various treatment systems. The area required (A, m2) by each technology can
be approximated by multiplying a constant factor specific for a particular treatment technology with the population (P) in thousand. For example, if the P
value is 100, then the area required for an MBR is A = 50 (constant factor)  100 = 50 000 m2. B) Comparison of daily energy requirement relative to
population for various treatment systems. The daily energy required (E, kWh) by each technology can be estimated by multiplying a constant factor with the
population (P) in thousands. CW: constructed wetlands; TF: trickling filter; CAS þ BioP: conventional activated sludge with biological phosphate removal;
CAS þ ChemicalP: conventional activated sludge with chemical phosphate removal; IFAS: hybrid process with conventional activated sludge and moving bed
biofilm reactor; AGS: aerobic granular sludge; MBR: membrane bioreactor. The data used to generate these graphs were adapted from ref. [51].

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (5 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

resulting chemical waste sludge, potentially inflating operational installations around the world are mainly applied for the
costs. Meanwhile, CAS with biological P removal and IFAS show treatment of industrial (high-strength, BOD > 560 mg L
1)
higher energy requirements, implying greater energy demands wastewaters. One of the biggest challenges with anaerobic treat-
for these methods. Among the listed technologies, MBR stands ment of domestic wastewater is that the effluent is saturated or
out for its highest energy consumption, reaching 0.25 kWh per supersaturated with dissolved CH4 (>50% of total produced
PE, signaling substantially greater energy utilization compared to methane is in dissolved form),[37] which is a greenhouse gas with
the other outlined methods. The MBR process demands addi- ≈30 times higher global warming potential as compared to CO2.
tional energy for effective membrane filtration and controlling Also, anaerobic processes cannot remove nutrients (such as
membrane fouling. Moreover, the use of chemicals for mem- N and P), which can cause algae growth in impoundments.
brane cleaning contributes to the overall treatment costs.[33] Typically discharge and reuse standards require <10 mg L
1
Although MBR stands as the current gold standard for reuse BOD and ammonium (NH4þ) <5 mg L
1, which cannot be
technology, reducing the reliance on energy-intensive achieved by anaerobic processes.
(3–8 kWh m
3) desalination reverse osmosis process (and hence Although large-scale centralized infrastructure for wastewater
energy) for freshwater production,[34] its energy-intensive nature was initiated to provide the means of servicing the population as
presents challenges. In the realm of wastewater treatment tech- a single entity by taking advantage of economies of scale to
nology, opting for the AGS process over MBR could lead to a reduce efforts and costs on the system, decentralized infrastruc-
reduction in the energy footprint by over threefold. The combi- ture takes advantage of its compact setup and leverages econo-
nation of AGS and gravity-driven membrane filtration processes mies of scope to facilitate multifunctionality and flexibility.[38]
presents a promising solution by reducing energy demands Moreover, using a decentralized approach for treating wastewa-
while producing superior-quality effluent compared to MBR.[35] ter, land requirements in comparison to centralized schemes can
This approach is versatile and applicable at both centralized and play an advantageous role by distributing units to target areas
decentralized scales. instead of one single large area for operation.[26] Decentralized
Aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goals to curtail carbon systems modular design can allow it to adapt to changes in
emissions, most European countries are tasked with cutting their upgrades as well as scale the system by reorganizing or adding
carbon output by 50% before 2030 and reaching carbon neutral- components without hindering the operation of the overall sys-
ity by 2050. Given the current dominance of fossil fuel-powered tem.[38] In areas with higher population density, leveraging econ-
plants in electricity grids, prioritizing energy efficiency becomes omies of scale through CWTS proves advantageous. Conversely,
in lower-density areas, harnessing the economies of scope
pivotal. Anaerobic processes consume less energy than aerobic
offered by DWTS is more beneficial.
because they do not require oxygen to treat the wastewater
and methane (CH4) gas is generated as a by-product of the treat-
ment which if combusted can offset part of the energy input for 5. Economics of Wastewater Treatment Systems
treatment. The choice between aerobic and anaerobic systems for
DWTS and CWTS depends on the wastewater characteristics, Figure 5A illustrates the scaling impact on CAPEX concerning
although combinations of both methods are often used for the population served in wastewater treatment facilities. As the
enhanced treatment efficiencies.[36] However, anaerobic pro- population increases, the CAPEX per PE decreases from $1084
cesses are not suitable for the treatment of domestic wastewater for 2500 PE to $227 for 200 000 PE, indicating economies of
that contains low organics measured as biochemical oxygen scale. The CAPEX escalates from $2 682 476 for 2500 PE to
demand (BOD < 230 mg L
1), and existing anaerobic $60 341 117 for 200 000 PE as the population served increases

Figure 5. Comparison of population served against capital expenditure (CAPEX, gray shaded curve, Panel - A), annual operating expenditure (OPEX,
yellow shaded curve, Panel - B), and total expenditure (TOTEX, blue shaded curve, Panel - B) in wastewater treatment facilities. The width of each curve
signifies the range from minimum to maximum values, while the central line represents the average CAPEX, OPEX, and TOTEX values, depicted on the
primary y-axis. The solo blue line illustrates CAPEX (A) and TOTEX (B) per PE, depicted on the secondary y-axis. The data used to generate these graphs
were adapted from refs. [8,25].

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (6 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

within this range. Figure 5B demonstrates the shifting expendi- Moreover, inadequate operational oversight can result in signifi-
ture including operating (OPEX) and total expenditure (TOTEX) cant downstream environmental concerns, particularly in arid or
dynamics concerning the population served in wastewater water-crisis-affected regions heavily reliant on treated water
treatment facilities. Notably, as the population increases, the reuse to sustain their agricultural economics.[41] Remote opera-
TOTEX per PE decreases, from $81.2 for 2500 PE to $16.35 tion and control of these DWTS should be considered to dimin-
for 200 000 PE, showcasing economies of scale. Serving a popu- ish dependence on on-site skilled human resources. In case of
lation of 2500 PE incurs a TOTEX averaging $202 554 and as the any issues, a skilled operator could be dispatched promptly to
population served grows to 200 000 PE, the TOTEX range widens address the issue.
considerably, averaging at $3 268 477.
Large CWTS leverage economies of scale in terms of both ini- 6.1.2. Policy and Regulatory Challenges
tial CAPEX and annual OPEX, as depicted in Figure 5. However,
their cost-effectiveness should be evaluated in conjunction with Regulatory bodies in developing countries are increasingly
the CAPEX and OPEX of the sewer network system. In densely enforcing stricter standards for wastewater treatment to uphold
populated areas with a density exceeding 1500 PE per square kilo- environmental preservation. However, these stringent regula-
meter (PE km
2), CWTS prove to be more economically viable tions pose challenges for DWTS to adapt and upgrade due to
for both CAPEX and OPEX. Conversely, in less densely popu- their high costs. Consequently, the stricter standards make it
lated areas (below 1500 PE km
2) or newly developing regions, tough for low-income areas to afford treating or reusing their
a phased modular approach to building sanitation systems is wastewater. As wastewater treatment systems become more com-
more cost-effective than a singular robust design. This phased pliant, they might also become more costly.[24a]
modular strategy entails building smaller DWTS that operate
in proximity to the actual demand and are easily expandable
as the population grows, thanks to a modular design approach.[8] 6.1.3. Public Acceptance and Social Challenges
It is important to note that different regulations may apply based
on the size of the treatment unit. For example, in the EU, sec- Public perception and stigma often foster reluctance within com-
ondary treatment (i.e., the removal of biodegradable organic mat- munities to have DWTS in their neighborhoods. Concerns about
ter) for urban wastewater is mandatory before discharge into the human health risks and ecological impacts, including the pres-
environment for all communities ≥1000 PE by 2035, as per ence of pathogens and chemicals, significantly impede the wide-
recently agreed rules.[39] By 2039, EU countries must ensure spread acceptance of DWTS and water reuse initiatives.[41,42]
the application of tertiary treatment (i.e., the removal of nitrogen Recent studies have investigated the public acceptance of waste-
and phosphorus) for treatment units covering ≥150 000 PE, and water reuse and the requisites for fostering such acceptance.[41,42]
by 2045 in treatment units covering ≥10 000 PE. Additional These studies highlight the necessity to approach public educa-
treatment, known as “quaternary treatment,” to remove a broad tion both psychologically and practically, particularly in regions
spectrum of micropollutants, will be mandatory for all plants facing water scarcity issues. Educating the population about the
≥150 000 PE by 2045. Keeping these regulatory dynamics in benefits of wastewater reuse, whether through transitioning to a
mind, modular approaches should be designed to meet future circular economy or alleviating water stress, is crucial.[42,43]
regulatory needs. Moreover, there is a growing emphasis on the acceptance of
DWTS due to their overall economic benefits, resilience, and
flexibility.[43a,44]
6. Challenges and Opportunities of DWTS
6.2. Opportunities of DWTS
The implementation of DWTS presents various challenges and
opportunities distinct from those encountered in CWTS. 6.2.1. Water Reuse

6.1. Challenges With the growing population and increased demand for water,
water security is a critical topic that should not be overlooked
6.1.1. Operation and Maintenance Requirements when considering wastewater system designs. Adopting a reuse
scheme is a necessary element when choosing a wastewater sys-
Ensuring effective preventive, proactive, and corrective mainte- tem configuration. However, before the implementation of such
nance is crucial for WWTPs to maintain a consistent operational systems, the benefits of reducing freshwater demand must be
status. Neglecting proper check-ups exposes these systems to weighed against the cost of execution as well as the adverse
environmental stressors (pH, temperature, toxic shock loading, effects on existing wastewater infrastructure that may occur. A
etc.), leading to adverse effects. At CWTS, a skilled workforce is study conducted in Nagpur, India, demonstrated the effect of
generally more available compared to DWTS due to the shortage implementing wastewater reuse for toilet flushing and garden
of skilled human resources in the wastewater management field. irrigation, and how it reduced the freshwater demand in the local
A thorough evaluation of DWTS in Indonesia revealed issues area by 48% percent.[42,45]
arising from insufficient management practices.[40] In instances Treated wastewater serves as a reliable supplementary water
lacking regular maintenance and proper monitoring, treatment source available year-round, particularly when it is in close prox-
systems showed reduced effectiveness in removing pollutants imity to areas with high water demand. In a centralized
like chemical oxygen demand, ammonia, oil, and grease.[40] approach, utilizing treated water requires transportation via

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (7 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

trucks or pumping from CWTS to areas of high demand like 7. Conclusion

residential zones or agriculture. This transport within central-
ized systems could impose additional financial burdens when This perspective presents tangible quantitative assessments,
aiming for the reuse of treated water. On the contrary, DWTS such as those concerning the CAPEX and OPEX of sewer
produce clean water close to its demand that can reduce the network systems. In areas with higher population density
demand for freshwater utilized for nonpotable uses such as (> 1500 PE km
2), leveraging economies of scale through CWTS
toilet flushing, horticulture, agriculture, gardening, and auto- prove advantageous, while in low-density areas (<1500 PE km
2),
mobile washing.[24b,42] DWTS are able to socially benefit the harnessing the economies of scope offered by DWTS is more ben-
population by providing means to bridge the gap between eficial. While the large-scale centralized infrastructure for waste-
wastewater production and treatment and reuse. DWTS have water takes advantage of economies of scale to reduce efforts and
the means to alleviate the stress of adopting local water reuse costs, decentralized infrastructure capitalizes on its compact setup
programs to help in the reduction of energy and resource reli- and leverages economies of scope to facilitate multifunctionality
ance, such as utilization in farm areas and agricultural practi- and flexibility. Furthermore, decentralized treatment of wastewa-
ces.[24] A case study in India, which is ranked 13th globally in ter can offer advantageous land requirements compared to central-
terms of water stress whilst still attaining 4% of world water ized schemes by distributing units to target areas instead of relying
resources, has concluded that to increase water reuse for the on one large operational area. The modular design of decentral-
benefit of society, it is important to utilize decentralized sys- ized systems allows for adaptation to upgrade and upscaling with-
tems.[24b] From an economic point of view, it is more rational out hindering overall system operation. These quantitative
to focus treatment of wastewater close to the source of produc- evaluations provide a fresh perspective on DWTS and CWTS, serv-
tion without the need to construct costly infrastructure.[23] ing as a valuable guide for professionals and decision-makers. By
DWTS have also been implemented in industries due to its abil- offering quantitative evaluations, we aim to facilitate informed
ity to support a circular economy as they implement and inno- decision-making processes toward achieving broader sanitation
vate water recycling solutions.[12b] coverage for the global population, ultimately contributing to
the fulfillment of SDG 6.

6.2.2. Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Disasters

Acknowledgements
The resilience of a system is an important characteristic that one
F.S. and M.A.A. contributed equally to this work. This work was supported
must consider when designing and building a wastewater sys- by the Near Term Grand Challenge Funding Program (REI/1/4254-01-01)
tem, which is expected to operate for decades. CWTS are intrin- from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) and
sically limited by their design. In addition, CWTS are also the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) National Energy
inflexible to changes in operational conditions, which can Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Funding Program
become challenging when promoting sustainability or resiliency (SEAI/22/RDD/830).
for these systems.[11,46] Since CWTS depend on a hierarchical
collection network structure, they are more vulnerable to natural
disasters and unexpected climate changes. Therefore, the lack of Conflict of Interest
adaptability and flexibility in these systems prevents them from
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
being as resilient as DWTS.[46,47] DWTS directly address these
weaknesses of CWTS by providing adaptability to changes in
operational conditions, improved system security, resource con-
servation, cost, and energy efficiency.[48] More importantly, they Keywords
have a safe-failure feature by minimizing the results of failures
due to natural disasters or climate change to a smaller region, centralized sanitation systems, decentralized sanitation systems, on-site
wastewater treatment, sustainable development goal, wastewater
and not allowing for a domino effect, as in the case of earth-
collection systems
quakes or floods.[38,42,46]
DWTS can enhance the security of water that can be utilized in Received: March 26, 2024
areas suffering from a water crisis. For example, Saudi Arabia Revised: May 28, 2024
suffers from one of the harshest dry conditions and renewable Published online: June 9, 2024
natural water resources are not permanent. Further, the CWTS
in Saudi Arabia (and most other water stress regions) are not
[1] a) J. W. Moore, Balancing the Needs of Water Use, Springer Science &
designed and built for wastewater reuse approach unless
Business Media, Berlin 2013; b) B. H. Baker, C. A. Aldridge,
upgraded.[49] Most CWTS are located in areas far away from
A. R. Omer, Water: Availability and Use, Mississippi State University
the population thus requiring less demand for water reuse and
Extension, Starkville 2016.
conveying the treated water to areas of demand would render the [2] WHO, Country files for SDG 6.3.1: “Proportion of wastewater safely
water costly.[49a] Hence, adopting a more decentralized approach treated”, https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-
where treatment and reuse will occur within the same area could and-health/water-sanitation-and-health/monitoring-and-evidence/
enhance the security of water in the region and lowering the water-supply-sanitation-and-hygiene-monitoring/2021-country-files-
demand for freshwater. for-sdg-6.3.1-proportion-of-water-safely-treated (accessed: July 2023).

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (8 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH
 26999412, 2024, 10, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202400097 by Indian Institute Of Technology, Wiley Online Library on [04/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.advenergysustres.com

[3] H. Ehalt Macedo, B. Lehner, J. Nicell, G. Grill, J. Li, A. Limtong, [24] a) N. Brunner, M. Starkl, A. A. Kazmi, A. Real, N. Jain, V. Mishra,
R. Shakya, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022, 14, 559. Water 2018, 10, 1644; b) V. G. Varma, S. Jha, L. H. K. Raju,
[4] a) V. H. Smith, D. W. Schindler, Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 201; b) R. L. Kishore, V. Ranjith, Chemosphere 2022, 300, 134462.
J. Yu, Y. Tian, H. Jing, T. Sun, X. Wang, C. B. Andrews, C. Zheng, ACS [25] T. Dogot, Y. Xanthoulis, N. Fonder, D. Xanthoulis, Water Sci. Technol.
ES&T Water 2023, 3, 1314; c) S. Vergara-López, M. Domínguez, 2010, 62, 640.
M. Conejo, Á. Pascual, J. Rodríguez-Baño, Clin. Microbiol. Infect. [26] Y. T. Jung, N. Narayanan, Y.-L. Cheng, J. Environ. Manag. 2018,
2013, 19, E490. 213, 90.
[5] D. Kone, Nat. Water 2023, 1, 752. [27] J. Späth, P. Arumugam, R. H. Lindberg, O. A. Abafe, S. Jansson,
[6] WHO, Water,Sanitation and Hygiene strategy 2018-2025, World J. Fick, C. A. Buckley, Water SA 2021, 47, 396.
Health Organization 2019 https://www.who.int/publications/i/ [28] E. Ardern, W. T. Lockett, J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 1914, 33, 523.
item/WHO-CED-PHE-WSH-18.03 Geneva (accessed: August 2023). [29] M. L. Arora, E. F. Barth, M. B. Umphres, Water Pollut. Control Fed.
[7] G. Alabaster, R. Johnston, F. Thevenon, A. Shantz, United Nations 1985, 57, 867.
Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) and World Health [30] H. Ødegaard, B. Rusten, T. Westrum, Water Sci. Technol. 1994,
Organization (WHO) 2021, p. 544. 29, 157.
[8] I. Roefs, B. Meulman, J. H. G. Vreeburg, M. Spiller, Water Res. 2017, [31] K. Yamamoto, M. Hiasa, T. Mahmood, T. Matsuo, Water Sci. Technol.
109, 274. 1989, 21, 43.
[9] M. A. Massoud, A. Tarhini, J. A. Nasr, J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 652. [32] M. K. de Kreuk, N. Kishida, M. C. van Loosdrecht, Water Sci. Technol.
[10] P. Paraskevas, D. Giokas, T. Lekkas, Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46, 177. 2007, 55, 75.
[11] K. Rabaey, T. Vandekerckhove, A. Van de Walle, D. L. Sedlak, Water [33] G. K. Matar, M. Ali, S. Bagchi, S. Nunes, W. T. Liu, P. E. Saikaly, Front.
Res. 2020, 185, 116276. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 708531.
[12] a) J. Cardona, A. Lepilova, D. Gieseler, K. Kreter, Strategies and Tools [34] M. W. Shahzad, M. Burhan, L. Ang, K. C. Ng, Desalination 2017,
for a Sustainable Rural Rio de Janeiro, Springer, Berlin 2019, 413, 52.
pp. 277–293; b) M. Garrido-Baserba, S. Vinardell, M. Molinos- [35] M. Ali, Y. Singh, L. Fortunato, Z. U. Rehman, S. Manjunath,
Senante, D. Rosso, M. Poch, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 8965. J. S. Vrouwenvelder, M. Pronk, M. C. M. van Loosdrecht,
[13] a) M. A. Badar, S. Venkatachalam, Z. A. Y. Sani, presented at Inter. P. E. Saikaly, ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3, 2681.
Conf. on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, [36] Y. J. Chan, M. F. Chong, C. L. Law, D. Hassell, Chem. Eng. J. 2009,
UAE, March 10–12, 2020; b) S. Boavida, M. Pinto, T. Salvador, 155, 1.
M. Hind, S. Neto, New Water Policy Pract. 2016, 2, 54; c) [37] S. Chen, A. L. Smith, Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol. 2018, 4, 67.
M. Prihandrijanti, A. Malisie, R. Otterpohl, presented at Efficient [38] A. Helmrich, S. Markolf, R. Li, T. Carvalhaes, Y. Kim, E. Bondank,
Management of Wastewater, Berlin, Heidelberg 2008. M. Natarajan, N. Ahmad, M. Chester, Environ. Res.: Infrastruct.
[14] a) A. J. Criado Monleon, J. Knappe, C. Somlai, C. O. Betancourth, Sustain. 2021, 1, 021001.
M. Ali, T. P. Curtis, L. W. Gill, Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 915856; [39] New EU rules to improve urban wastewater treatment and reuse,
b) M. Garrido-Baserba, I. Barnosell, M. Molinos-Senante, D. L. Sedlak, European Parliament, 2024.
K. Rabaey, O. Schraa, M. Verdaguer, D. Rosso, M. Poch, Water Res. [40] S. Rahmawati, A. Yulianto, A. T. P. Wijayaningrat, MATEC Web. Conf.
2022, 218, 118408; c) J. Keller, Water Res. X 2023, 19, 100180; d) 2019, 280, 03006.
K. Rabaey, T. Vandekerckhove, A. V. de Walle, D. L. Sedlak, Water [41] K. I. Odoemena, K. M. D. Rowshon, C. M. Hasfalina Binti, Irrig. Drain.
Res. 2020, 185, 116276. 2020, 69, 149.
[15] M. Yates, Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, Elsevier, Amsterdam [42] A. Dev, T. C. Dilly, A. E. Bakhshipour, U. Dittmer, S. M. Bhallamudi,
2011, pp. 256–263. Water 2021, 13, 2004.
[16] E. Butler, Y.-T. Hung, M. Suleiman Al Ahmad, R. Y.-L. Yeh, [43] a) C. Gómez-Román, L. Lima, S. Vila-Tojo, A. Correa-Chica, J. Lema,
R. L.-H. Liu, Y.-P. Fu, Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 31. J.-M. Sabucedo, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9060; b)
[17] N. Tharavathy, M. Krishnamoorthy, B. Hosetti, J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. N. Contzen, J. Kollmann, H.-J. Mosler, Nat. Water 2023, 1, 138.
2014, 2, 1. [44] A. Mankad, S. Tapsuwan, J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 380.
[18] A. Soares, Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2020, 2, 100030. [45] a) J. Gerend, Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1589662; b) C. Yu, Y. Xiao, S. Ni,
[19] S. Cook, G. Tjandraatmadja, A. Ho, A. Sharma, Definition of Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 83.
Decentralised Systems in the South East Queensland Context, Urban [46] N. G. Leigh, H. Lee, Sustainability 2019, 11, 918.
Water Security Research Alliance Brisbane, Australia 2008. [47] A. G. Capodaglio, Resources 2017, 6, 22.
[20] J. Parkinson, K. Tayler, Environ. Urban. 2003, 15, 75. [48] P. P. Kalbar, S. Lokhande, Water Policy 2023, 25, 359.
[21] USEPA. Handbookfor Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) [49] a) M. Ali, P.-Y. Hong, H. Mishra, J. Vrouwenvelder, P. E. Saikaly, Water
Wastewater Treatment Systems, NSCEP, National Service Center for Reuse 2022, 12, 346; b) A. Alkhudhiri, N. B. Darwish, N. Hilal, J. Water
Environmental Publications, Cincinnati, OH45242, https://nepis.epa. Process Eng. 2019, 32, 100915.
gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20017K2G.PDF?Dockey=20017K2G.PDF, EPA-832/ [50] JICA, Strategic Plan for sewerage development, Vol. 6, Japan
B-05-001 2005. International Cooperation Agency, 2020.
[22] F. Pasciucco, I. Pecorini, R. Iannelli, J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 375, 134092. [51] a) S. Bengtsson, M. de Blois, B. M. Wilen, D. Gustavsson, Environ.
[23] C. Zaharia, Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 108, 74. Technol. 2019, 40, 2769; b) GoP, Lahore 1986.

Adv. Energy Sustainability Res. 2024, 5, 2400097 2400097 (9 of 9) © 2024 The Author(s). Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research
published by Wiley-VCH GmbH