Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy (2018) 20:1819–1834

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1575-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies:

a synthetic index approach
María Molinos‑Senante1,2,3

Received: 17 April 2018 / Accepted: 28 June 2018 / Published online: 4 July 2018
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Improving the energy efficiency of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) provides notable economic and environmental
benefits to society. Several studies have benchmarked the energy performance of WWTPs, but they did not take into account
for differences in the wastewater treatment technologies they used, thus obscuring their relative efficiencies in removing harm-
ful pollutants. To overcome this shortcoming, this study assessed and compared the energy efficiencies of five wastewater
treatment technologies. To do so, the metafrontier approach was used in order to account for the technological differences
among plants in removing pollutants. The results evidenced that energy efficiencies for WWTPs using attached-growth
processes were higher than for WWTPs using suspended-growth technologies as secondary treatment. Moreover, higher
pollutant removal efficiencies associated with biological removal of nutrients compensated for the higher energy require-
ments of this technology, making these WWTPs more energy efficient in the removal of pollutants. The results of this study
provide essential information for improving the sustainability of current WWTPs and can support decision-making in the
planning of new wastewater treatment facilities.

Keywords  Energy performance · Wastewater treatment plant · Greenhouse gas emissions · Data envelopment analysis ·
Metafrontier

Introduction substantial amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are essential for
improving the urban aquatic environment and for protect-
ing public health. These energy-intensive facilities remove
pollutants from wastewater in order to meet quality stand-
ards for effluent imposed by governmental agencies (Zeng
et al. 2017). WWTPs account for around 1% of total elec-
tricity demand in developed countries (Miller et al. 2013).
Moreover, energy consumption by WWTPs contributes a
* María Molinos‑Senante
mmolinos@uc.cl
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Hidráulica y Ambiental,
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña
Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile
2
Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Pontificia
Universidad Católica de Chile, El Comendador 1916,
Santiago, Chile
3
Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable
CONICYT/FONDAP/15110020, Av. Vicuña Mackenna
4860, Santiago, Chile
the atmosphere (Mamais et al. 2015).
As the number of WWTPs increases and effluent require-
ments become more stringent, the issue of energy efficiency
is attracting increasingly more attention from economists
and environmental scientists (Doraisamy et  al. 2013).
Gude (2015) showed that improving the energy efficiency
of wastewater treatment systems provides several benefits,
including: reducing energy costs, air pollution and GHG
emissions, improving energy safety, extending the life of
infrastructures/equipment and protecting public health.
Reflecting growing concerns about the amount of energy
used by WWTPs, numerous recent studies have aimed to
evaluate the energy efficiencies of WWTPs (Naik and Sten-
strom 2016). Benchmarking, a comparative process, is an
excellent tool for assessing the energy efficiency of indi-
vidual WWTPs, thus making it possible to identify inef-
ficiencies and the prioritize optimization efforts (Krampe
2013; Torregrossa et al. 2016). A literature review con-
ducted by Longo et al. (2016) found that two main bench-
mark approaches—normalization and programming

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1820
techniques—have been employed to benchmark the energy
performance of WWTPs.
Standardization compares the energy use of WWTPs
based on key performance indicators, such as kWh/m3 or
kWh/people equivalent (PE). Standardization is simple to
implement and interpret and has been used to compare the
energy performance of WWTPs in China (Yang et al. 2010),
Japan (Mizuta and Shimada 2010) and Italy (Campanelli
et al. 2013). However, this approach does not account for
the influent and effluent characteristics, nor does it consider
the treatment capacity of the WWTPs (Longo et al. 2016).
To overcome these limitations, mathematical programming
methods are used to define optimal control, which is sub-
sequently employed for comparing wastewater treatment
facilities (Hernández-Sancho et al. 2011). The data envel-
opment analysis (DEA) method is the most frequently used
programming approach for evaluating the energy efficiency
of WWTPs (Longo et al. 2016). DEA is a mathematical
programming technique that allows users to build an effi-
cient production frontier to assess the relative efficiency of
WWTPs (Dong et al. 2017). DEA uses data with several
input and output parameters (Shabani et al. 2014), gener-
ating a synthetic index that integrates numerous variables
(e.g., removal efficiency of various pollutants). Moreover,
DEA solves problems related to economies-of-scale by
assuming increasing returns-to-scale technology (Marques
et al. 2014).
Given the benefits of the DEA approach, some previous
studies have applied DEA to evaluate energy efficiencies
of WWTPs. In pioneering the use of DEA in this context,
Hernández-Sancho et al. (2011) applied a non-radial DEA
model to assess the energy efficiencies of 177 WWTPs. Sub-
sequently, Molinos-Senante et al. (2014) assessed the energy
performances of several WWTPs by estimating pure and
mixed environmental indices. Alidrisi (2014) and Castellet
and Molinos-Senante (2016) estimated potential economic
savings associated with improvements in energy efficiency
for two case studies. A series of research studies (Lorenzo-
Toja et al. 2015; Molinos-Senante et al. 2017; Dong et al.
2017) focused on evaluating the eco-efficiency of a WWTP
by integrating the assessment of various environmental
parameters with the amount of energy used.
All the studies outlined above ignored the various types of
technology used by plants to treat their wastewater. Although
some studies (e.g., Hernández-Sancho et al. 2011; Molinos-
Senante et al. 2017; Castellet and Molinos-Senante 2016)
only benchmarked the energy efficiencies of WWTPs that
used the same type of treatment technology (i.e., second-
ary treatment of activated sludge), other studies computed
efficiency scores using a single DEA model based on bench-
marks that integrated data from plants that used several dif-
ferent wastewater treatment technologies (Lorenzo-Toja
et al. 2015; Molinos-Senante et al. 2017; Dong et al. 2017).
13
This later approach has two important drawbacks. Firstly, the
technology used to carry out secondary treatment has been
shown to affect energy consumption (Wang et al. 2016). The
second limitation is methodological: By integrating several
wastewater treatment technologies in the analyses, these
studies assumed that they all have the same efficient produc-
tion frontier. However, a traditional and basic assumption of
production frontier models is that they should not be used to
compare the efficiencies of entities (WWTPs) that employ
different technologies (Lozano-Vivas and Pastor 2002).
To overcome the aforementioned limitations, this paper
used a DEA metafrontier model to jointly evaluate energy
and pollutant removal efficiencies of WWTPs that use a vari-
ety of wastewater treatment technologies. To do this, energy
efficiencies of five wastewater treatment technologies were
estimated and their potential energy savings were computed.
This paper compares the energy efficiencies of five waste-
water treatment technologies for the first time using a robust
and reliable assessment approach (i.e., DEA metafrontier
method). Although several studies have evaluated energy
efficiencies of WWTPs, none of them have directly com-
pared the energy efficiencies of plants using a variety of
wastewater treatment technologies. Hence, this study pro-
vides a novel approach to assess and compare the energy
efficiencies of WWTPs in relation to the type of technology
they employ.
Methods
All efficiency assessments using a production frontier
approach should analyse decision-making units (WWTPs
in this case) relative to those with similar technological char-
acteristics. It means that conventional efficiency evaluation
models should not be used to compare efficiencies among
units that employ different types of technologies (O’Donnell
et al. 2017) because different technologies have different
production frontiers.
To overcome the limitation of not being able to evaluate
the efficiencies of units (WWTPs in this study) that vary in
the types of technologies they use, the metafrontier approach
was applied to evaluate and compare energy efficiency of
WWTPs. A metafrontier is a function of its dataset, which
can incorporate the elements of all possible production fron-
tiers (Battese et al. 2004). Thus, the metafrontier approach
enables to account for the heterogeneity between WWTP
technologies. In particular, this study employs the non-con-
cave metafrontier approach proposed by Tiedemann et al.
(2011) which evades the problem of infeasible combinations
of inputs and outputs (Molinos-Senante et al. 2015).
Assuming that there are K wastewater treatment technolo-
gies in total, where k = 1, 2, …, K. Group technology Tk is
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1821

the set of all input–output vectors (x, y) ∈ ℜM+L

+
for a unit According to Eq. (8), the efficiency with respect to meta-
belonging to group k, such that: frontier (E*) must be smaller than the efficiency relative to
each technology (Ek).
T k = {(x, y) ∈ ℜM+L ; where x can produce y in group k}. Input distance functions relative to each technological
+
(1) frontier and the metafrontier were computed using DEA
The vectors x ∈ ℜM +
and y ∈ ℜ L represent inputs and
+ approach. Unlike parametric methods such as stochastic
outputs, respectively. The input set associated with Tk is frontier analysis, DEA does not need assumptions about the
defined as: functional relationship between inputs and outputs (Guer-
rini et al. 2015). Assuming that a sample covers n WWTPs
Lk (y) = x ∶ (x, y) ∈ T k . (2)
{ }
(j = 1, …, n) with m inputs and s outputs for each WWTP,
To measure energy efficiency, the input distance function then the following linear programme was solved for each
for each technology k is as follows: WWTP evaluated:
Dk (x, y) = min𝜃 𝜃 > 0 ∶ x𝜃 ∈ Lk (y)
{ }
k = 1, 2, … , K.
Min 𝜃 k
(3) s.t∶
The input distance function designates the maximum n
𝜆j xij ≤ 𝜃 k xi0 (9)
∑
reduction of inputs that a WWTP can achieve while still where i = 1, … , m,
j=1
keeping the vector of outputs constant. Dk(x, y) = 1 involves n
that the WWTP is located on the efficient production frontier
∑
𝜆j yrj ≥ yr0 where r = 1, … , s,
and therefore it is efficient. By contrast, Dk(x, y) > 1 indicates
j=1

that the WWTP belongs to the interior of Lk(y) and therefore n

∑
it can potentially reduce its vector of inputs. It involves that 𝜆j = 1
the WWTP is inefficient. j=1

The metafrontier concept involves that if a particular out- 𝜆j ≥ 0 where j = 1, … , nk ,

put y can be produced by using a given input vector x in any
one of the k groups, then (x, y) belongs to the metatechnol- where xij and yrj represent the quantity of inputs (i = 1, …, m)
ogy T* (Hayami 1969). It is defined as: and outputs (r = 1, …, s) for each WWTP; xi0 and yr0 are
values from the WWTP being assessed; nk is the number of
T ∗ = (x, y) ∈ ℜM+L
{
+
; where x can produce facilities in group k; and θk is a scalar whose value indicates
(4)
y in some group T k (k = 1, 2, … , k) , the energy efficiency of the WWTP being assessed.
}

where T* = {T1 ∪ T2 ∪ … ∪ Tk}.
Then, the input distance function, defined using T*, is
defined as D*(x, y): Case study
D∗ (x, y) = min𝜃 {𝜃 > 0 ∶ x𝜃 ∈ L(y)}. (5) Description of wastewater treatment process
k *
The ratio between D (x, y) and D (x, y), called the techno-
logical gap ratio (TGR​k), measures the degree of closeness WWTPs are facilities designed to eliminate pollutants from
between the group k frontier and the metafrontier (Konto- wastewater using physical, chemical and/or biological pro-
laimou et al. 2012). Efficiency with respect to the group k cesses. Wastewater treatment usually involves one of sev-
technology (Ek) and the metatechnology (E*) is as follows: eral types of processes, referred to as preliminary, primary,
secondary or tertiary treatment. While most of the WWTPs
1
Ek = , (6) present similar preliminary and primary treatment technolo-
Dk (x, y)
gies, secondary or biological processes might differ notably
among them (Sala-Garrido et al. 2012). Moreover, most of
1
E∗ = . (7) the energy in WWTPs is consumed to operate the second-
D∗ (x, y) ary treatment since oxygen must be supplied to microorgan-
Then, TGR​k is defined as: isms in order for them to treat organics under aerobic condi-
tions (Panepinto et al. 2016). The evaluated WWTPs were
1∕ ∗ categorized into five technological types: (1) conventional
D (x, y) E∗
TGRk = / = k ≤ 1. (8) activated sludge (CAS), (2) activated sludge with biological
1 k E
D (x, y) nitrogen and phosphorus removal (AS + BNPR), (3) aerated

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1822
lagoon (AL), (4) trickling filter (TF) and (5) rotating biologi-
cal contactor or biodisk (BD).1
Description of evaluated WWTPs
For this case study, 331 Chilean WWTPs were selected for
sampling based on the availability and quality of the data
associated with them. All WWTPs were operated by private
water companies and monitored by the national water indus-
try regulator, “Superintendencia de Servicios Sanitarios”,
which provided the statistical information about the sampled
facilities. Chile is a Latin-American country which, in the last
20 years, has notably improved wastewater management and
treatment services (Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido 2015).
After the privatization process of urban water companies car-
ried out between 1998 and 2004, the access to wastewater
treatment services increases notably. In fact, about 97% of
urban wastewater is now treated in Chile (SISS 2015).
Because the aim of this paper was to evaluate and compare
energy efficiencies of wastewater treatment technologies, the
input data were comprised of variables that consume energy
to treat the wastewater (and thus should be minimized to
improve plant performance), expressed in kWh/year. Some
previous studies evaluating the energy efficiencies of WWTPs
using the DEA approach (e.g., Hernández-Sancho et al. 2011;
Molinos-Senante et al. 2014; Castellet and Molinos-Senante
2016) measured energy input in economic units, such as €/
year paid by the WWTP company for energy. However,
expressing energy use in kWh/year rather than €/year is more
appropriate for revealing the relative energy efficiencies of
WWTPs. In this context, Aymerich et al. (2016) demonstrated
that energy costs in WWTPs mostly depend on the energy
tariff structure, which is extremely different for each WWTP.
Therefore, reducing energy costs is not necessarily equivalent
to increasing energy efficiency.
Selected outputs used in efficiency assessments must
summarize the function of the facility (Zeng et al. 2017).
This is because the ultimate value of a WWTP lies in its abil-
ity to produce an effluent whose discharge produces minimal
environmental impact (Dong et al. 2017). Four contaminants
constituted the main pollutant outputs from the wastewater
treatment process: (1) organic matter, measured as biologi-
cal oxygen demand after 5 days, (2) suspended solids, (3)
nitrogen and (4) phosphorus. All outputs were expressed as
kilograms of contaminants removed from wastewater per
year. Hence, output variables integrate both the influent and
effluent characteristics of wastewater.
Table 1 summarizes the basic statistics of the input and
output variables associated with wastewater treatment
1
 Specific characteristics of each wastewater treatment technology
can be consulted at Sala-Garrido et al. (2011) and FAO (1992).
13
technologies. For comparative purposes, energy con-
sumption is expressed as kWh/m3 and outputs as pollut-
ant removal efficiency. In average terms, WWTPs using
AS + BNPR treatment provide the largest energy intensity
values, whereas plants using BD treatment used the low-
est quantity of energy per cubic metre of treated wastewa-
ter. Notable differences in removal efficiency of pollutants,
mainly of N and P, are also reported in Table 1. This con-
firms the statement that the energy efficiencies of WWTPs
should be measured with a synthetic index that involves
multiple variables.
Results and discussion
The metafrontier concept relies on the assumption that the
evaluated units are non-homogeneous regarding their tech-
nological frontier. In order to test whether the five wastewa-
ter treatment technologies evaluated in this study complied
with this assumption, the Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric test
was applied. The null hypothesis is that the five wastewater
treatment technologies operate under the same production
frontier (Dong et al. 2017). According to Kruskal and Wallis
(1952), when the p value of the test is less than 0.05, the null
hypothesis can be rejected with a 95% level of significance.
Thus, the rejection of the null hypothesis means that the
evaluated technologies do not operate under the same pro-
duction frontier and, therefore, the metafrontier approach is
needed to compare energy efficiencies among technologies.
Five Kruskal–Wallis tests, one for each variable, were con-
ducted. Table 2 shows that the p values for all variables were
lower than 0.05; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The DEA model (Eq. 9) was next applied to compute the
energy efficiency of each WWTP against the group (technol-
ogy type) frontiers and the metafrontier. Table 3 provides
descriptive statistics for these estimates. Further details are
available in “Appendix”.
Average energy efficiency scores ranged from a minimum
of 0.511 for WWTPs using CAS treatment to a maximum
of 0.808 for WWTPs that biologically removed N and P (in
addition to removing BOD and SS). The energy efficiency
scores differed among the five technologies in the estimated
group (technology type) frontier models. The energy effi-
ciency score allows calculating the potential energy savings
if the plants are operated at their efficient frontiers (i.e., if
they have the same performance as the best performing unit
within their assigned technological type). According to
the average energy efficiency scores calculated (Table 3),
WWTPs using CAS, AS + BNPR, AL, TF and BD tech-
nologies could potentially save 48.9, 19.2, 40.6, 19.9 and
39.1% of their current energy consumption, respectively.
Therefore, from a management perspective, the evaluated
WWTPs could use substantially less energy than the most
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1823

Table 1  Statistics of input and Conventional Activated sludge Aerated lagoon Trickling filter Biodisk
output variables activated sludge with nutrients
removal

Number of WWTPs 177 43 45 21 45

Outputs
 Biological oxygen demand efficiency removal
  Mean 0.92 0.96 0.83 0.83 0.92
  Std. Dev. 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.16 0.06
  Minimum 0.65 0.83 0.36 0.29 0.70
  Maximum 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98
 Suspended solids efficiency removal
  Mean 0.90 0.93 0.81 0.86 0.92
  Std. Dev. 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.15 0.05
  Minimum 0.56 0.79 0.31 0.28 0.79
  Maximum 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.99
 Nitrogen efficiency removal
  Mean 0.33 0.88 0.67 0.53 0.54
  Std. Dev. 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19
  Minimum 0.09 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.13
  Maximum 0.54 0.94 0.84 0.73 0.83
 Phosphorus efficiency removal
  Mean 0.60 0.84 0.40 0.52 0.52
  Std. Dev. 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.18 0.22
  Minimum 0.30 0.56 0.02 0.15 0.02
  Maximum 0.73 0.93 0.55 0.82 0.83
Input
 Energy consumption (kWh/m3)
  Mean 0.52 0.61 0.51 0.55 0.49
  Std. Dev. 0.37 0.36 0.44 0.41 0.24
  Minimum 0.11 0.20 0.01 0.19 0.11
  Maximum 1.78 1.88 1.94 1.82 1.61

Table 2  Kruskal–Wallis test statistics for differences in the five energy efficiency scores and so were the most heterogene-
wastewater treatment technologies ous of the wastewater treatment technologies analysed. This
Variable Chi-squared p value variability might have occurred because the evaluated AL
WWTPs employed two different types of aeration systems:
Biological oxygen demand removed (Kg/ 12.573 < 0.001 fine bubble diffusors and mechanical aerators. In general, the
year)
oxygen transfer efficiency is better for bubble diffusor-based
Suspended solids removed (Kg/year) 13.107 < 0.001
aeration systems. Moreover, inadequate aeration negatively
Nitrogen removed (Kg/year) 8.757 < 0.001
affects pollution removal efficiency because proper aeration
Phosphorus removed (Kg/year) 9.507 < 0.001
is important for keeping lagoon contents mixed and in sus-
Energy consumed (kWh/year) 10.171 < 0.001
pension (Marais et al. 2017).
In an assessment of the energy efficiencies of WWTPs
efficiently operated plants using the same wastewater treat- according to the type of technology implemented, it is
ment technology. important to analyse the percentage of efficient plants in the
Table 3 also shows the variation (standard deviation, Std. population (i.e., plants located on the energy-efficient fron-
Dev.) in energy efficiency scores. Plants using TF technol- tier, which are the most energy-efficient plants). The percent-
ogy presented the lowest variability in terms of energy per- age of plants located at the frontier was low for all five of the
formance. In other words, these WWTPs were similar in analysed technologies (Table 3). For example, only nine of
terms of energy efficiency. By contrast, WWTPs whose sec- the 177 WWTPs (5%) using CAS technology were scored
ondary technology was AL reported the largest variability in as being efficient. Thus, using relative criteria, 95% of the

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1824

Table 3  Average energy Energy efficiency with respect Energy efficiency with respect
efficiency scores with respect to group frontiers to the metafrontier
to group frontiers and to the
metafrontier for wastewater Average Std. Dev. % Energy Average Std. Dev. % Energy
treatment plants using efficient efficient
conventional activated sludge,
activated sludge with biological Conventional activated sludge 0.511 0.260 5.08 0.342 0.239 3.95
nitrogen and phosphorus Activated sludge with nutrients removal 0.808 0.165 18.60 0.403 0.249 0.00
removal, aerated lagoon, Aerated lagoon 0.594 0.297 15.55 0.346 0.256 4.44
trickling filter and biodisk
Trickling filter 0.801 0.140 19.04 0.453 0.243 4.76
Biodisk 0.609 0.258 13.33 0.467 0.222 4.44

sampled plants had the potential to save energy while still

Average energy efficiency score

maintaining their pollutant removal efficiencies. WWTPs
using TF had the largest percentage (19%) of energy-efficient
facilities (i.e., 81% of the WWTPs could save energy if oper-
ated as efficiently as the most efficiently operating plants).
To compare energy efficiencies among various wastewater
treatment technologies, efficiency scores with respect to the
metafrontier were estimated. The lowest mean energy effi-
ciency scores (worst performing) corresponded to WWTPs
using CAS technology, whereas the highest scoring (best per-
forming) WWTPs used BD technology (Table 3). The relative
position of each technology diverged when energy efficiencies
were computed with respect to their individual frontiers or
with the metafrontier (Fig. 1). Moreover, there was a marked
reduction in the percentage of energy-efficient plants when
efficiency scores were calculated relative to the metafron-
tier. In this case, none of the plants using AS + BNPR were
deemed energy efficient, and the best performing technologies
were BD and TF (Fig. 1). BD and TF utilize attached-growth
processes, in which the nutrients are removed by microorgan-
isms that are attached to a support medium. This suggests that
microbial treatment of wastewater with WWTPs using sus-
pended-growth structures is less energy efficient than facilities
using attached-growth structures.
WWTPs using CAS were less energy intensive than
WWTPs that also remove N and P biologically (Table 1). How-
ever, on average, facilities using AS + BNPR technology were
more efficient than WWTPs using CAS technology (Fig. 1).
This finding suggests that the higher energy consumption of
plants using AS + BNPR technology (average = 0.61 kWh/m3)
relative to plants using more biologically mediated AS technol-
ogy (average = 0.52 kWh/m3) to remove nitrogen and phospho-
rus was compensated for by a higher efficiency in the removal
rates of these two contaminants. This result demonstrates the
importance of measuring energy efficiency using a synthetic
indicator that incorporates both energy consumption and pol-
lutant removal efficiency, rather than using a simple indicator
based only on energy consumption (e.g., kWh/m3).
The technological gap ratio (TGR) measures the distance
between each technological frontier and the metafrontier
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
BD TF AS+BNPR AL CAS
Group froner Metafroner
Fig. 1  Average energy efficiency scores with respect to group frontier
and to the metafrontier for wastewater treatment technologies
(Molinos-Senante and Sala-Garrido 2016; Liu et al. 2017).
Figure 2a shows the average TGRs for the five wastewater
treatment technologies we analysed. Figure 2b illustrates the
average potential energy savings for each technology type.
The results for each WWTP are given in “Appendix”.
On average, plants using BD had the least potential to save
energy, given their pollutant removal efficiencies (i.e., these
plants were well operated from an energy efficiency perspec-
tive). In contrast, WWTPs employing AS + BNPR technol-
ogy had substantial potential to save energy; in average terms,
they could potentially save about 50% of their current energy
consumption. This finding reveals that in spite of the recog-
nized importance of conserving energy, the WWTPs using
this technology are not being operated efficiently.
Given the economic and environmental importance
of evaluating and improving the energy performance of
WWTPs, the topic addressed in this paper is relevant from
both policy and management perspectives. The comparison
of the energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technolo-
gies provides essential information to managers to iden-
tify appropriate industry standards regarding energy use.
According to the United Nations (2017), over 80% of all
wastewater at global level is discharged without treatment.
It involves that new WWTPs will need to be built in the
near future. This study provides essential information to
support decision-making in selecting wastewater treatment

13
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index…
a b
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Average TGR
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
CAS AS+BNPR AL TF
Fig. 2  a Average technological gap ratio (TGR) for wastewater treatment technologies. b Average potential energy saving for wastewater treat-
ment technologies
technologies that report the best energy performance taking
into account efficiencies in removal of pollutants.
Conclusions
Improving the energy efficiency of WWTPs can provide
important environmental and economic benefits. Given the
importance of this topic, some previous papers have quanti-
fied the energy consumed (kWh/m3 or kWh/PE) by WWTPs.
Other studies employed more complex and robust methods,
such as data envelopment analysis, to base energy efficiency
assessments relative to the best performing WWTPs (i.e.,
benchmarking). However, those studies ignored the varia-
tion in the secondary treatment technologies of the WWTPs
they analysed, thus assuming that they did not differ. Other
studies computed energy efficiency scores using a single
data envelopment analysis model, assuming that all of the
evaluated plants had the same efficient production frontier.
However, wastewater treatment technology has been shown
to affect the energy intensity of WWTPs. To overcome this
assessment limitation, this study directly compared the
energy efficiencies of five wastewater treatment technologies
using a data envelopment analysis metafrontier approach.
Potential energy savings were also computed at plant level.
The empirical application provided four primary con-
clusions. Firstly, WWTPs using aerated lagoon diverged in
energy efficiency scores within their technological group,
suggesting that there are notable differences in the energy
consumed and pollutant removal efficiencies of WWTPs
using aerated lagoon technology. Secondly, WWTPs using
attached-growth technologies (i.e., trickling filters and bio-
disk) were more energy efficient than WWTPs using sus-
pended-growth technologies (i.e., conventional activated
sludge, activated sludge with nutrients removal and aerated
1825
50.0
Average potenal energy saving (%)
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
BD CAS AS+BNPR AL TF BD
lagoon) as biological treatment approaches. Thirdly, plants
using conventional activated sludge consumed less energy per
cubic metre of treated wastewater (kWh/m3) than WWTPs
that also biologically removed nitrogen and phosphorus. How-
ever, the latter type of WWTP was more energy efficient. This
result reveals that the larger nutrient removal rate of WWTPs
using activated sludge with nutrients removal compensated for
the higher energy consumption required to do so. Finally, on
average, plants using activated sludge with nutrients removal
could save around 50% of the energy they currently use. Such
savings would account for a substantial improvement in eco-
nomic and environmental efficiencies.
Knowledge of the energy efficiencies of wastewater treat-
ment technologies is essential for ensuring the long-term
sustainability of current WWTPs and for planning new ones.
Improving the energy efficiency of WWTPs could reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions and operational costs, with
important repercussions for society. From an economic
perspective, some regulations, such as the European Water
Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), require full cost recov-
ery of water services. Hence, any improvement in the energy
efficiencies of WWTPs could be translated into a reduction
in tariffs paid by citizens for wastewater treatment. Energy
efficiency comparisons between technologies are particularly
relevant to decision-making when planning new WWTPs.
Acknowledgements  This work was supported by CONICYT through
Fondecyt 11160031 and REDI170223.
Appendix: Individual energy efficiency
scores
See Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1826

Table 4  Energy efficiency WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
scores with respect to the respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
metafrontier and to the group (%)
frontier, technological gap ratio
and potential energy saving of WWTP1 0.109 0.131 0.830 17.0
wastewater treatment plants
WWTP2 0.339 0.339 1.000 0.0
(WWTPs) using conventional
activated sludge as secondary WWTP3 0.133 0.142 0.939 6.1
treatment WWTP4 0.110 0.130 0.847 15.3
WWTP5 0.698 0.829 0.843 15.7
WWTP6 0.125 0.225 0.556 44.4
WWTP7 0.133 0.155 0.859 14.1
WWTP8 0.144 0.162 0.888 11.2
WWTP9 0.119 0.127 0.936 6.4
WWTP10 0.133 0.148 0.897 10.3
WWTP11 0.656 0.749 0.875 12.5
WWTP12 0.280 0.437 0.641 35.9
WWTP13 0.539 0.614 0.878 12.2
WWTP14 0.155 0.289 0.536 46.4
WWTP15 0.199 0.219 0.910 9.0
WWTP16 0.125 0.263 0.476 52.4
WWTP17 0.353 0.591 0.597 40.3
WWTP18 0.364 0.566 0.644 35.6
WWTP19 0.193 0.647 0.299 70.1
WWTP20 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP21 0.257 0.400 0.641 35.9
WWTP22 0.301 0.351 0.859 14.1
WWTP23 0.112 0.254 0.440 56.0
WWTP24 0.240 0.324 0.742 25.8
WWTP25 0.589 0.929 0.634 36.6
WWTP26 0.319 0.513 0.621 37.9
WWTP27 0.158 0.381 0.414 58.6
WWTP28 0.151 0.201 0.752 24.8
WWTP29 0.105 0.232 0.451 54.9
WWTP30 0.135 0.308 0.439 56.1
WWTP31 0.542 0.547 0.990 1.0
WWTP32 0.318 0.383 0.830 17.0
WWTP33 0.158 0.281 0.562 43.8
WWTP34 0.172 0.533 0.323 67.7
WWTP35 0.112 0.251 0.444 55.6
WWTP36 0.224 0.478 0.468 53.2
WWTP37 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP38 0.514 0.936 0.549 45.1
WWTP39 0.182 0.341 0.534 46.6
WWTP40 0.176 0.225 0.782 21.8
WWTP41 0.140 0.222 0.631 36.9
WWTP42 0.182 0.229 0.795 20.5
WWTP43 0.171 0.355 0.482 51.8
WWTP44 0.572 0.572 1.000 0.0
WWTP45 0.143 0.291 0.492 50.8

13
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1827

Table 4  (continued) WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
(%)

WWTP46 0.342 0.399 0.857 14.3

WWTP47 0.501 0.772 0.648 35.2
WWTP48 0.196 0.273 0.717 28.3
WWTP49 0.582 0.821 0.709 29.1
WWTP50 0.403 0.896 0.450 55.0
WWTP51 0.178 0.223 0.798 20.2
WWTP52 0.226 0.304 0.742 25.8
WWTP53 0.548 0.870 0.630 37.0
WWTP54 0.132 0.444 0.297 70.3
WWTP55 0.362 0.412 0.879 12.1
WWTP56 0.185 0.202 0.917 8.3
WWTP57 0.134 0.359 0.374 62.6
WWTP58 0.152 0.183 0.829 17.1
WWTP59 0.443 0.586 0.756 24.4
WWTP60 0.104 0.241 0.430 57.0
WWTP61 0.241 0.474 0.509 49.1
WWTP62 0.761 0.789 0.965 3.5
WWTP63 0.298 0.501 0.595 40.5
WWTP64 0.270 0.442 0.611 38.9
WWTP65 0.168 0.216 0.779 22.1
WWTP66 0.847 0.920 0.921 7.9
WWTP67 0.192 0.422 0.454 54.6
WWTP68 0.110 0.176 0.627 37.3
WWTP69 0.767 0.767 1.000 0.0
WWTP70 0.380 0.399 0.954 4.6
WWTP71 0.156 0.262 0.595 40.5
WWTP72 0.551 0.553 0.997 0.3
WWTP73 0.170 0.217 0.784 21.6
WWTP74 0.385 0.434 0.887 11.3
WWTP75 0.489 0.579 0.845 15.5
WWTP76 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP77 0.259 0.676 0.383 61.7
WWTP78 0.174 0.576 0.302 69.8
WWTP79 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP80 0.126 0.172 0.734 26.6
WWTP81 0.255 0.636 0.401 59.9
WWTP82 0.500 0.503 0.993 0.7
WWTP83 0.208 0.570 0.365 63.5
WWTP84 0.645 0.662 0.974 2.6
WWTP85 0.871 0.997 0.873 12.7
WWTP86 0.140 0.149 0.942 5.8
WWTP87 0.115 0.535 0.215 78.5
WWTP88 0.898 0.959 0.937 6.3
WWTP89 0.337 0.756 0.446 55.4
WWTP90 0.222 0.306 0.725 27.5

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1828

Table 4  (continued) WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
(%)

WWTP91 0.881 0.881 1.000 0.0

WWTP92 0.399 0.736 0.542 45.8
WWTP93 0.112 0.250 0.449 55.1
WWTP94 0.192 0.207 0.927 7.3
WWTP95 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP96 0.486 0.627 0.775 22.5
WWTP97 0.160 0.237 0.676 32.4
WWTP98 0.153 0.192 0.796 20.4
WWTP99 0.283 0.465 0.609 39.1
WWTP100 0.526 0.726 0.725 27.5
WWTP101 0.233 0.268 0.869 13.1
WWTP102 0.133 0.577 0.231 76.9
WWTP103 0.240 0.480 0.499 50.1
WWTP104 0.690 0.797 0.866 13.4
WWTP105 0.223 0.436 0.513 48.7
WWTP106 0.489 0.637 0.768 23.2
WWTP107 0.281 0.347 0.809 19.1
WWTP108 0.817 0.817 1.000 0.0
WWTP109 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP110 0.173 0.226 0.768 23.2
WWTP111 0.140 0.232 0.602 39.8
WWTP112 0.333 0.604 0.551 44.9
WWTP113 0.134 0.402 0.334 66.6
WWTP114 0.161 0.228 0.706 29.4
WWTP115 0.411 0.798 0.515 48.5
WWTP116 0.780 0.914 0.853 14.7
WWTP117 0.764 0.804 0.950 5.0
WWTP118 0.319 0.576 0.554 44.6
WWTP119 0.407 0.752 0.541 45.9
WWTP120 0.122 0.665 0.183 81.7
WWTP121 0.292 0.403 0.724 27.6
WWTP122 0.773 0.906 0.853 14.7
WWTP123 0.434 0.717 0.605 39.5
WWTP124 0.173 0.247 0.700 30.0
WWTP125 0.268 0.559 0.480 52.0
WWTP126 0.690 0.928 0.744 25.6
WWTP127 0.485 0.738 0.658 34.2
WWTP128 0.352 0.424 0.830 17.0
WWTP129 0.276 0.343 0.804 19.6
WWTP130 0.580 0.825 0.703 29.7
WWTP131 0.328 0.653 0.503 49.7
WWTP132 0.210 0.446 0.470 53.0
WWTP133 0.330 0.536 0.616 38.4
WWTP134 0.237 0.360 0.659 34.1

13
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1829

Table 4  (continued) WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
(%)

WWTP135 0.206 0.234 0.881 11.9

WWTP136 0.337 0.456 0.740 26.0
WWTP137 0.338 0.899 0.376 62.4
WWTP138 0.159 1.000 0.159 84.1
WWTP139 0.493 0.575 0.857 14.3
WWTP140 0.187 0.718 0.260 74.0
WWTP141 0.119 0.937 0.127 87.3
WWTP142 0.282 0.451 0.625 37.5
WWTP143 0.322 0.379 0.849 15.1
WWTP144 0.250 0.263 0.951 4.9
WWTP145 0.216 0.146 0.676 32.4
WWTP146 0.136 0.181 0.752 24.8
WWTP147 0.199 0.295 0.673 32.7
WWTP148 0.561 0.821 0.683 31.7
WWTP149 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP150 0.895 0.938 0.954 4.6
WWTP151 0.263 0.394 0.668 33.2
WWTP152 0.155 0.305 0.510 49.0
WWTP153 0.176 0.436 0.402 59.8
WWTP154 0.224 0.592 0.378 62.2
WWTP155 0.136 0.178 0.764 23.6
WWTP156 0.297 0.464 0.640 36.0
WWTP157 0.456 0.641 0.712 28.8
WWTP158 0.338 0.708 0.477 52.3
WWTP159 0.180 0.215 0.838 16.2
WWTP160 0.268 0.383 0.700 30.0
WWTP161 0.171 0.212 0.805 19.5
WWTP162 0.107 0.999 0.107 89.3
WWTP163 0.490 0.968 0.506 49.4
WWTP164 0.414 0.606 0.684 31.6
WWTP165 0.143 0.268 0.532 46.8
WWTP166 0.147 0.461 0.319 68.1
WWTP167 0.152 1.000 0.152 84.9
WWTP168 0.273 0.584 0.468 53.2
WWTP169 0.146 0.251 0.583 41.7
WWTP170 0.550 0.704 0.781 21.9
WWTP171 0.675 0.818 0.825 17.5
WWTP172 0.190 0.296 0.642 35.8
WWTP173 0.164 0.394 0.416 58.4
WWTP174 0.190 0.591 0.322 67.8
WWTP175 0.520 0.774 0.672 32.8
WWTP176 0.252 0.470 0.537 46.3
WWTP177 0.312 0.491 0.636 36.4

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1830

Table 5  Energy efficiency WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
scores with respect to the respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
metafrontier and to the group (%)
frontier, technological gap ratio
and potential energy saving of WWTP1 0.281 0.846 0.333 66.7
wastewater treatment plants
WWTP2 0.291 0.831 0.350 65.0
(WWTPs) using activated
sludge with biological nitrogen WWTP3 0.740 0.873 0.848 15.2
and phosphorus removal as WWTP4 0.269 0.898 0.300 70.0
secondary treatment WWTP5 0.744 0.965 0.771 22.9
WWTP6 0.180 0.798 0.226 77.4
WWTP7 0.128 0.943 0.136 86.4
WWTP8 0.247 0.892 0.277 72.3
WWTP9 0.160 0.536 0.298 70.2
WWTP10 0.447 0.686 0.651 34.9
WWTP11 0.223 1.000 0.223 77.7
WWTP12 0.179 0.770 0.232 76.8
WWTP13 0.176 0.928 0.189 81.1
WWTP14 0.343 0.598 0.574 42.6
WWTP15 0.552 0.870 0.634 36.6
WWTP16 0.136 0.578 0.235 76.5
WWTP17 0.364 0.726 0.500 50.0
WWTP18 0.600 0.942 0.636 36.4
WWTP19 0.492 1.000 0.492 50.8
WWTP20 0.421 0.994 0.423 57.7
WWTP21 0.135 0.446 0.303 69.7
WWTP22 0.111 0.753 0.147 85.3
WWTP23 0.403 0.705 0.572 42.8
WWTP24 0.309 0.643 0.480 52.0
WWTP25 0.181 0.827 0.219 78.1
WWTP26 0.481 0.982 0.490 51.0
WWTP27 0.258 0.855 0.302 69.8
WWTP28 0.339 0.675 0.501 49.9
WWTP29 0.124 0.455 0.272 72.8
WWTP30 0.263 0.568 0.463 53.7
WWTP31 0.103 0.565 0.182 81.8
WWTP32 0.259 0.642 0.404 59.6
WWTP33 0.263 0.689 0.382 61.8
WWTP34 0.975 1.000 0.975 2.5
WWTP35 0.677 0.774 0.875 12.5
WWTP36 0.527 1.000 0.527 47.3
WWTP37 0.902 1.000 0.902 9.8
WWTP38 0.683 0.815 0.839 16.1
WWTP39 0.664 1.000 0.664 33.6
WWTP40 0.328 0.914 0.358 64.2
WWTP41 0.597 0.746 0.800 20.0
WWTP42 0.808 1.000 0.808 19.2
WWTP43 0.980 1.000 0.980 2.0

13
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1831

Table 6  Energy efficiency WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
scores with respect to the respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
metafrontier and to the group (%)
frontier, technological gap ratio
and potential energy saving of WWTP1 0.724 0.899 0.805 19.5
wastewater treatment plants
WWTP2 0.455 1.000 0.455 54.5
(WWTPs) using aerated lagoon
as secondary treatment WWTP3 0.101 0.622 0.162 83.8
WWTP4 0.146 0.276 0.529 47.1
WWTP5 0.107 0.764 0.140 86.0
WWTP6 0.167 0.290 0.576 42.4
WWTP7 0.581 0.716 0.812 18.8
WWTP8 0.400 0.593 0.675 32.5
WWTP9 0.245 1.000 0.245 75.5
WWTP10 0.213 0.650 0.328 67.2
WWTP11 0.178 0.450 0.396 60.4
WWTP12 0.496 0.870 0.570 43.0
WWTP13 0.421 0.879 0.479 52.1
WWTP14 0.101 0.101 1.000 0.0
WWTP15 0.890 0.945 0.942 5.8
WWTP16 0.138 0.367 0.376 62.4
WWTP17 0.191 0.211 0.907 9.3
WWTP18 0.298 0.298 1.000 0.0
WWTP19 0.161 0.269 0.599 40.1
WWTP20 0.129 0.442 0.292 70.8
WWTP21 0.126 0.196 0.643 35.7
WWTP22 0.243 0.243 1.000 0.0
WWTP23 0.129 0.211 0.611 38.9
WWTP24 0.210 0.830 0.253 74.7
WWTP25 0.247 0.471 0.525 47.5
WWTP26 0.586 0.742 0.790 21.0
WWTP27 0.152 0.353 0.432 56.8
WWTP28 0.141 0.486 0.290 71.0
WWTP29 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP30 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP31 0.813 0.813 1.000 0.0
WWTP32 0.199 0.821 0.242 75.8
WWTP33 0.335 0.569 0.589 41.1
WWTP34 0.150 0.238 0.629 37.1
WWTP35 0.691 0.880 0.785 21.5
WWTP36 0.413 1.000 0.413 58.7
WWTP37 0.192 0.495 0.388 61.2
WWTP38 0.135 0.279 0.483 51.7
WWTP39 0.565 0.810 0.698 30.2
WWTP40 0.108 0.230 0.472 52.8
WWTP41 0.183 0.218 0.836 16.4
WWTP42 0.102 0.352 0.290 71.0
WWTP43 0.520 1.000 0.520 48.0
WWTP44 0.530 0.833 0.636 36.4
WWTP45 0.665 1.000 0.665 33.5

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1832

Table 7  Energy efficiency WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
scores with respect to the respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
metafrontier and to the group (%)
frontier, technological gap ratio
and potential energy saving of WWTP1 0.205 0.405 0.508 49.2
wastewater treatment plants
WWTP2 0.810 0.842 0.962 3.8
(WWTPs) using trickling filter
as secondary treatment WWTP3 0.144 0.610 0.236 76.4
WWTP4 0.362 0.750 0.483 51.7
WWTP5 0.511 0.786 0.650 35.0
WWTP6 0.809 1.000 0.809 19.2
WWTP7 0.290 0.878 0.330 67.0
WWTP8 0.362 0.804 0.450 55.0
WWTP9 0.470 0.734 0.640 36.0
WWTP10 0.254 1.000 0.254 74.6
WWTP11 0.261 0.802 0.326 67.4
WWTP12 0.408 0.835 0.489 51.1
WWTP13 0.512 0.976 0.524 47.6
WWTP14 0.384 0.405 0.948 5.2
WWTP15 0.336 0.709 0.474 52.6
WWTP16 0.099 0.944 0.105 89.5
WWTP17 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP18 0.352 0.511 0.689 31.1
WWTP19 0.793 0.975 0.813 18.7
WWTP20 0.732 0.877 0.835 16.5
WWTP21 0.404 1.000 0.404 59.6

Table 8  Energy efficiency WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
scores with respect to the respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
metafrontier and to the group (%)
frontier, technological gap
ratio and potential energy WWTP1 0.236 0.490 0.481 51.9
saving of wastewater treatment
WWTP2 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
plants (WWTPs) using
rotating biological contactor as WWTP3 0.466 0.799 0.583 41.7
secondary treatment WWTP4 0.240 0.308 0.779 22.1
WWTP5 0.313 0.328 0.955 4.5
WWTP6 0.896 0.929 0.964 3.6
WWTP7 0.548 0.696 0.788 21.2
WWTP8 0.505 0.646 0.782 21.8
WWTP9 0.423 0.546 0.775 22.5
WWTP10 0.774 1.000 0.774 22.6
WWTP11 0.387 1.000 0.387 61.4
WWTP12 0.166 0.175 0.950 5.0
WWTP13 0.339 0.511 0.664 33.6
WWTP14 0.490 0.509 0.962 3.8
WWTP15 0.314 0.417 0.753 24.7
WWTP16 0.637 1.000 0.637 36.3
WWTP17 0.545 0.708 0.770 23.0
WWTP18 0.338 0.338 1.000 0.0
WWTP19 0.787 0.852 0.924 7.6
WWTP20 0.307 0.536 0.573 42.7
WWTP21 0.715 0.768 0.931 6.9
WWTP22 0.276 1.000 0.276 72.4

13
Comparative energy efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies: a synthetic index… 1833

Table 8  (continued) WWTP Energy efficiency score Energy efficiency score Technology Potential
respect to the metafrontier respect to the group frontier gap ratio energy saving
(%)
WWTP23 0.490 0.490 1.000 0.0
WWTP24 0.253 0.898 0.281 71.9
WWTP25 0.542 0.551 0.984 1.6
WWTP26 0.565 0.629 0.898 10.2
WWTP27 0.421 0.463 0.909 9.1
WWTP28 0.405 0.410 0.988 1.2
WWTP29 0.358 0.396 0.904 9.6
WWTP30 0.123 0.156 0.784 21.6
WWTP31 0.177 0.246 0.717 28.3
WWTP32 0.568 0.806 0.705 29.5
WWTP33 0.163 0.163 1.000 0.0
WWTP34 0.115 0.170 0.675 32.5
WWTP35 0.547 0.547 1.000 0.0
WWTP36 0.308 0.308 1.000 0.0
WWTP37 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.0
WWTP38 0.424 0.685 0.619 38.1
WWTP39 0.537 0.661 0.812 18.8
WWTP40 0.387 0.620 0.624 37.6
WWTP41 0.358 0.504 0.710 29.0
WWTP42 0.846 0.868 0.975 2.5
WWTP43 0.733 0.853 0.859 14.1
WWTP44 0.529 0.788 0.671 32.9
WWTP45 0.498 0.627 0.794 20.6

References FAO (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture - FAO irriga-
tion and drainage paper 47. Rome (Italy)
Gu Y, Dong Y-N, Wang H, Keller A, Xu J, Chiramba T, Li F (2016)
Alidrisi H (2014) Developing an input-oriented data envelopment
Quantification of the water, energy and carbon footprints of waste-
analysis model for wastewater treatment plants. Life Sci J
water treatment plants in China considering a water-energy nexus
11(8):875–879
perspective. Ecol Indic 60:402–409
Aymerich I, Rieger L, Sobhani R, Rosso D, Corominas L (2016) The
Gude VG (2015) Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and
difference between energy consumption and energy cost: model-
power generation systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:52–68
ling energy tariff structures for water resource recovery facilities.
Guerrini A, Romano G, Leardini C, Martini M (2015) Measuring the
Water Res 81:113–123
efficiency of wastewater services through data envelopment analy-
Battese GE, Prasada Rao DS, O’Donnell CJ (2004) A metafrontier
sis. Water Sci Technol 71(12):1845–1851
production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and
Hayami H (1969) Sources of agricultural productivity gap among
technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies.
selected countries. Am J Agric Econ 51:564–575
J Prod Anal 21(1):91–103
Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2011)
Campanelli M, Foladori P, Vaccari M (2013) Consumi elettrici ed effi-
Energy efficiency in Spanish wastewater treatment plants: a non-
cienza energetica del trattamento delle acque reflue [Electrical
radial DEA approach. Sci Total Environ 409(14):2693–2699
consumption and energy efficiency in the water treatment]. Mag-
Kontolaimou A, Kounetas K, Mourtos I, Tsekouras K (2012) Tech-
gioli Editore, Santarcangelo di Romagna (in Italian)
nology gaps in European banking: Put the blame on inputs or
Castellet L, Molinos-Senante M (2016) Efficiency assessment of waste-
outputs? Econ Model 29(5):1798–1808
water treatment plants: a data envelopment analysis approach inte-
Krampe J (2013) Energy benchmarking of South Australian WWTPs.
grating technical, economic, and environmental issues. J Environ
Water Sci Technol 67(9):2059–2066
Manag 167:160–166
Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance
Dong X, Zhang X, Zeng S (2017) Measuring and explaining eco-effi-
analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621
ciencies of wastewater treatment plants in China: an uncertainty
Liu DY, Chiu CR, Liou JL (2017) Environmental performance meas-
analysis perspective. Water Res 112:195–207
urement with technology heterogeneity: cross-region evidence.
Doraisamy P, Nandakumar NB, Maheswari M, Selvamurugan M
Energy Sources Part B 12(3):199–206
(2013) Comparative performance of anaerobic reactors for treat-
Longo S, d’Antoni BM, Bongards M, Chaparro A, Cronrath A, Fatone
ment of sago industry wastewater. Clean Technol Environ Policy
F, Lema JM, Mauricio-Iglesias M, Soares A, Hospido A (2016)
15(2):391–394
Monitoring and diagnosis of energy consumption in wastewater

13
 M. Molinos‑Senante
1834
treatment plants. A state of the art and proposals for improvement.
Appl Energy 179:1251–1268
Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Chenel S, Marín-Navarro D, Moreira
MT, Feijoo G (2015) Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs
using the LCA + DEA method. Water Res 68:637–650
Lozano-Vivas A, Pastor JM (2002) An efficiency comparison of euro-
pean banking systems operating under different environmental
conditions. J Prod Anal 18(1):59–77
Mamais D, Noutsopoulos C, Dimopoulou A, Stasinakis A, Lekkas TD
(2015) Wastewater treatment process impact on energy savings
and greenhouse gas emissions. Water Sci Technol 71(2):303–308
Marais GR, Ekama GA, Wentzel MC (2017) Application of the acti-
vated sludge model to aerated lagoons. Water SA 43(2):238–257
Marques RC, Berg S, Yane S (2014) Nonparametric benchmarking of
Japanese water utilities: institutional and environmental factors
affecting efficiency. J Water Resourc Plan Manag 140(5):562–571
Miller LA, Ramaswami M, Ranjan R (2013) Contribution of water
and wastewater infrastructure to urban energy metabolism and
greenhouse gas emissions in cities in India. J Environ Eng
139(5):738–745
Mizuta K, Shimada M (2010) Benchmarking energy consumption in
municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci Tech-
nol 62(10):2256–2262
Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2015) The impact of privatiza-
tion approaches on the productivity growth of the water industry:
a case study of Chile. Environ Sci Policy 50:166–179
Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2016) Cross-national comparison
of efficiency for water utilities: a metafrontier approach. Clean
Technol Environ Policy 18(5):1611–1619
Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2014)
Benchmarking in wastewater treatment plants: a tool to save
operational costs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:149–161
Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A, Sala-Garrido R (2015) Assessing the
relative efficiency of water companies in the English and welsh
water industry: a metafrontier approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22(21):16987–16996
Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A, Sala-Garrido R (2017) Assessing the
productivity change of water companies in England and Wales: a
dynamic metafrontier approach. J Environ Manag 197:1–9
Naik KS, Stenstrom MK (2016) A feasibility analysis methodology
for decentralized wastewater systems-energy-efficiency and cost.
Water Environ Res 88(3):201–209
13
O’Donnell CJ, Fallah-Fini S, Triantis K (2017) Measuring and analys-
ing productivity change in a metafrontier framework. J Prod Anal
47(2):117–128
Panepinto D, Fiore S, Zappone M, Genon G, Meucci L (2016) Evalua-
tion of the energy efficiency of a large wastewater treatment plant
in Italy. Appl Energy 161:404–411
Sala-Garrido R, Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F (2011).
Comparing the efficiency of wastewater treatment technologies
through a DEA metafrontier model. Chem Eng J 173:766–772
Sala-Garrido R, Hernández-Sancho F, Molinos-Senante M (2012)
Assessing the efficiency of wastewater treatment plants in an
uncertain context: a DEA with tolerances approach. Environ Sci
Policy 18:34–44
Shabani A, Farzipoor Saen R, Torabipour SMR (2014) A new data
envelopment analysis (DEA) model to select eco-efficient tech-
nologies in the presence of undesirable outputs. Clean Technol
Environ Policy 16(3):513–525
SISS (2015) Report about water and sewerage services in Chile. Avail-
able at: http://www.siss.gob.cl/586/w3-prope​rtyva​lue-6415.html
Tiedemann T, Francksen T, Latacz-Lohmann U (2011) Assessing the
performance of German Bundesliga football players: a non-para-
metric metafrontier approach. CEJOR 19(4):571–587
Torregrossa D, Schutz G, Cornelissen A, Hernández-Sancho F,
Hansen J (2016) Energy saving in WWTP: daily benchmarking
under uncertainty and data availability limitations. Environ Res
148:330–337
United Nations (2017) 2017 UN world water development report,
wastewater: the untapped resource. http://www.unesc​o.org/new/
en/natur​al-scien​ces/envir​onmen​t/water​/wwap/wwdr/2017-waste​
water​-the-untap​ped-resou​rce/. Accessed 2 July 2018
Wang H, Yang Y, Keller AA, Li X, Feng S, Dong Y-N, Li F (2016)
Comparative analysis of energy intensity and carbon emissions in
wastewater treatment in USA, Germany, China and South Africa.
Appl Energy 184:873–881
Yang L, Zeng S, Chen J, He M, Yang W (2010) Operational energy
performance assessment system of municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants. Water Sci Technol 62(6):1361–1370
Zeng S, Chen X, Dong X, Liu Y (2017) Efficiency assessment of urban
wastewater treatment plants in China: considering greenhouse gas
emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl 120:157–165