19R V5 6 Ch06 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

Chapter 6: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge
CHAPTER 6
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND

DISCHARGE
2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 6.1
Volume 5: Waste
Authors
Deborah Bartram (USA), Michael D. Short (Australia), Yoshitaka Ebie (Japan), Juraj Farkaš (Slovakia), Céline
Gueguen (France), Gregory M. Peters (Sweden), Nuria Mariana Zanzottera (Argentina), M. Karthik (India)
Contributing Authors
Shuhei Masuda (Japan)
6.2 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Contents
6 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge .......................................................................................................6.7

6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................6.7
6.1.1 Centralised treatment systems ......................................................................................................6.10
6.1.2 Decentralised treatment systems of domestic wastewater (onsite sanitation) ...............................6.11
6.1.3 Emissions from receiving waters ..................................................................................................6.12
6.1.4 Changes compared to 1996 Guidelines and Good Practice Guidance .........................................6.12
6.1.5 Changes compared to 2006 IPCC Guidelines ...............................................................................6.12
6.2 Methane emissions from wastewater .................................................................................................6.13
6.2.1 Methodological issues ..................................................................................................................6.13
6.2.2 Domestic wastewater ....................................................................................................................6.14
6.2.2.1 Choice of method ..............................................................................................................6.14
6.2.2.2 Choice of emission factors ................................................................................................6.18
6.2.2.3 Choice of activity data .......................................................................................................6.21
6.2.2.4 Time series consistency .....................................................................................................6.29
6.2.2.5 Uncertainties ......................................................................................................................6.29
6.2.2.6 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and Documentation ....................................................6.30
6.2.3 Industrial wastewater ....................................................................................................................6.30
6.2.3.1 Choice of method ..............................................................................................................6.30
6.2.3.4 Time series consistency .....................................................................................................6.35
6.2.3.5 Uncertainties ......................................................................................................................6.35
6.2.3.6 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and Documentation ....................................................6.35
6.3 Nitrous oxide emissions from domestic wastewater ..........................................................................6.35
6.3.1.1 Choice of method ..............................................................................................................6.36
6.3.2 Time series consistency ................................................................................................................6.43
6.3.3 Uncertainties .................................................................................................................................6.43
6.3.4 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and Documentation ...............................................................6.44
6.4 Nitrous oxide emissions from industrial wastewater .........................................................................6.44
6.4.1.1 Choice of method ..............................................................................................................6.44
6.4.2 Time series consistency ................................................................................................................6.48
6.4.3 Uncertainties .................................................................................................................................6.49
6.4.4 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and Documentation ...............................................................6.49
Volume 5: Waste
Appendix 6A.1 Non-biogenic (fossil) CO2 emissions from wastewater treatment and discharge: Basis for
Future Methodological Development ......................................................................................6.51
Annex 6A.1 Summary data for pit latrine use, no sanitation facility, and groundwater use by country .....6.54
Annex 6A.2 Derivation of the maximum CH4 producing potential (Bo) for domestic wastewater .............6.57
Annex 6A.3 Estimation of default methane conversion factors for CH4 in centralised wastewater treatment
plants treating domestic wastewater ........................................................................................6.58
Annex 6A.4 Calculation of MCF for methane emissions from sewage discharges .....................................6.59
Annex 6A.5 Estimation of default emission factors for N2O in domestic wastewater treatment plants ......6.61
Annex 6A.6 Estimation of default emission factors for N2O in effluent .....................................................6.63
Annex 6A.7 List of countries by region included in Table 6.10a ................................................................6.64
References ................................................................................................................................................6.65
Equations
Equation 6.1 (Updated) CH4 emissions from domestic wastewater for each treatment/discharge pathway or
system, j ......................................................................................................................6.17
Equation 6.1a (New) Total CH4 emissions from domestic wastewater treatment and discharge ..................6.17
Equation 6.2 CH4 emission factor for each domestic wastewater treatment/discharge pathway or
system .........................................................................................................................6.18
Equation 6.3 (Updated) Total organically degradable material in domestic wastewater ...................................6.21
Equation 6.3a (New) Total organics in domestic wastewater by treatment/discharge pathway or system ...6.22
Equation 6.3b (New) Organic component removed as sludge from aerobic treatment plants .......................6.27
Equation 6.3c (New) Organic component removed as sludge from septic systems ......................................6.28
Equation 6.3d (New) Total organics in treated domestic wastewater effluent .............................................6.28
Equation 6.4 Total CH4 emissions from industrial wastewater ........................................................6.33
Equation 6.5 CH4 emission factor for industrial wastewater ............................................................6.33
Equation 6.9 (Updated) N2O emissions from domestic wastewater treatment plants........................................6.37
Equation 6.7 (Updated) N2O emissions from domestic wastewater effluent .....................................................6.38
Equation 6.10 (New) Total nitrogen in domestic wastewater by treatment pathway ....................................6.40
Equation 6.10a (New) Estimation of protein consumed ..................................................................................6.41
Equation 6.8 (Updated) Total nitrogen in domestic wastewater effluent ..........................................................6.42
Equation 6.11 (New) N2O emissions from industrial wastewater treatment plants .......................................6.44
Equation 6.12 (New) N2O emissions from industrial wastewater effluent ....................................................6.47
Equation 6.13 (New) Total nitrogen in industrial wastewater .......................................................................6.47
Equation 6.14 (New) Total nitrogen in industrial wastewater effluent ..........................................................6.48
Figures
Figure 6.1 (Updated) Wastewater treatment systems and discharge pathways ...............................................6.8
Figure 6.1a (New) Percentage of low-income country populations using pit latrines as a primary sanitation
facility .........................................................................................................................6.12
Figure 6.2 (Updated) Decision tree for CH4 emissions from domestic wastewater.......................................6.15
Figure 6.3 (Updated) Decision tree for CH4 emissions from industrial wastewater treatment ......................6.32
Figure 6.4 (New) Decision tree for N2O emissions from domestic wastewater ......................................6.37
Figure 6.5 (New) Nitrogen in domestic wastewater treatment ................................................................6.40
Figure 6.6 (New) Decision tree for N2O emissions from industrial wastewater ......................................6.46
Figure 6A.1 (New) Correlation between influent total nitrogen (TN) loading and N2O emissions ...........6.61
Volume 5: Waste
Tables
Table 6.1 (Updated) CH4 and N2O emission potentials for wastewater and sludge treatment and discharge
systems ..........................................................................................................................6.9
Table 6.2 Default maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo) for domestic wastewater .................6.18
Table 6.3 (Updated) Default MCF values and resultant EFs for domestic wastewater by type of treatment
system and discharge pathway, j .................................................................................6.20
Table 6.4 Estimated BOD5 values in domestic wastewater for selected regions and
countries ......................................................................................................................6.22
Table 6.5 Suggested values for urbanisation (U) and degree of utilisation of treatment, discharge
pathway or method (Ti,j) for each income group for selected countries ......................6.24
Table 6.6 Example of the application of default values for degrees of treatment utilisation (T)
by income groups ........................................................................................................6.26
Table 6.6a (New) Removal of organic component from wastewater as sludge (Krem) according to
treatment type ..............................................................................................................6.27
Table 6.6b (New) Wastewater treatment organics removal fractions (TOWREM) according to treatment
type ..............................................................................................................................6.28
Table 6.7 (Updated) Default uncertainty ranges for domestic wastewater ...................................................6.29
Table 6.8 (Updated) Default MCF values and resultant EFs for industrial wastewater ...............................6.34
Table 6.8a (New) Default EF values for domestic and industrial wastewater .........................................6.39
Table 6.10a (New) Default factors for domestic wastewater .....................................................................6.41
Table 6.10b (New) Estimate on use of food waste disposal in sewer ........................................................6.42
Table 6.10c (New) Wastewater treatment nitrogen removal fractions (NREM) according to treatment
type ..............................................................................................................................6.43
Table 6.11 (Updated) N2O methodology default data ....................................................................................6.43
Table 6.12 (New) Examples of industrial wastewater data ......................................................................6.48
Table 6.13 (New) Default uncertainty ranges for industrial wastewater ..................................................6.49
Table 6Ap.1 (New) Summary of literature investigating fossil organic carbon in wastewater ...................6.52
Table 6A.1 (New) Summary data for pit latrine use, no sanitation facility, and groundwater use
by country ...................................................................................................................6.54
Table 6A.2 (New) MCFs based on measured CH4 in full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plants ...6.58
Table 6A.3 (New) Summary of literature investigating methane emissions from wastewater
discharge .....................................................................................................................6.60
Table 6A.4 (New) Default N2O emission factors for domestic wastewater treatment plants ...................6.61
Table 6A.5 (New) N2O emission factors in full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plants ..................6.62
Table 6A.6 (New) List of countries by region included in Table 6.10a ....................................................6.64
6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND

DISCHARGE
Users are expected to go to Mapping Tables in Annex 1, before reading this chapter. This is required to correctly
understand both the refinements made and how the elements in this chapter relate to the corresponding chapter
in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Wastewater can be a source of methane (CH4) when treated or disposed anaerobically or when dissolved CH4
enters aerated treatment systems. It can also be a source of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from wastewater are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines because these are generally derived from
modern (biogenic) organic matter in human excreta or food waste and should not be included in national total
emissions. Appendix 6Ap.1 presents a discussion of non-biogenic (fossil) CO2 emissions from wastewater
treatment and discharge, where fossil organic carbon is present in wastewater or treatment sludge.
Wastewater originates from a variety of domestic, commercial and industrial sources and may be treated on site
(uncollected), sewered to a centralised plant (collected) or disposed untreated nearby or via an outfall. Domestic
wastewater is defined as wastewater from household water use, while industrial wastewater is from industrial
practices only. 1 Treatment and discharge systems can sharply differ between countries and for rural and urban
areas. Also, treatment and discharge systems can differ for rural and urban users, and for urban high income and
urban low-income users.
Sewer systems may consist of networks of open channels or closed underground pipes. Occasional stagnant
conditions and heat provide favourable anaerobic condition for methane generation in closed and open sewers. In
urban areas in developing countries and some developed countries, sewer systems may consist of networks of
open canals, gutters, and ditches, which are referred to as open sewers. These systems are subject to heating from
the sun and the sewers may be stagnant allowing for anaerobic conditions to emit CH4 (Doorn et al. 1997). In
most developed countries and in high-income urban areas in other countries, sewers are usually closed and
underground. Wastewater in closed underground sewers likely generate CH4, but there are insufficient data
available to quantify the emissions from these collection systems. However, research shows that significant
amounts of CH4 can be formed within closed sewer collection systems and enters centralised wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) as dissolved CH4 in the wastewater, where it is then emitted during treatment.
The degree of wastewater treatment varies in most developing countries. In some cases, industrial wastewater is
discharged directly into bodies of water, while major industrial facilities may have comprehensive in-plant
treatment. Domestic wastewater is treated in centralised plants, pit latrines, septic systems or disposed of in
unmanaged lagoons or waterways, via open or closed sewers. In some coastal cities domestic wastewater is
discharged directly into the ocean. Pit latrines are lined or unlined holes of up to several metres deep, which may be
fitted with a toilet for convenience. The pits are used alternatively, and the contents used as manure after few
months’ usage.
The most common wastewater treatment methods in developed countries are centralised aerobic wastewater
treatment plants and lagoons for both domestic and industrial wastewater. To avoid high discharge fees or to
meet regulatory standards, many large industrial facilities pre-treat their wastewater before releasing it into the
sewage system. Domestic wastewater may also be treated in on-site septic systems. These are advanced systems
that may treat wastewater from one or several households. They consist of an anaerobic underground tank and a
drainage field for the treatment of effluent from the tank. Some developed countries continue to dispose of
untreated domestic wastewater via an outfall or pipeline into a water body, such as the ocean.
Centralised wastewater treatment methods can be classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. In
primary treatment, physical barriers remove larger solids from the wastewater. Remaining particulates are then
allowed to settle. Secondary treatment consists of a combination of biological processes that promote
biodegradation of wastewater constituents by microorganisms. Secondary treatment processes include aerobic
stabilisation ponds, trickling filters, and activated sludge processes, as well as anaerobic reactors and lagoons.
Tertiary treatment processes are used to further purify the wastewater of pathogens, contaminants, and remaining
1 Because the methodology is on a per person basis, emissions from commercial wastewater are estimated as part of domestic
wastewater. To avoid confusion, the term municipal wastewater is not used in this text. Municipal wastewater is a mix of
household, commercial and non-hazardous industrial wastewater, treated at wastewater treatment plants.
Volume 5: Waste
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. This is achieved using one or a combination of processes
that can include maturation/polishing ponds, biological processes, advanced filtration, carbon adsorption, ion
exchange, and disinfection.
Sludge is produced in all of the primary, secondary and tertiary stages of treatment. Sludge that is produced in
primary treatment consists of solids that are removed from the wastewater.
Sludge produced in secondary and tertiary treatment results from biological growth in the biomass, as well as the
collection of small particles. This sludge must be treated further before it can be safely disposed of. Methods of
sludge treatment include aerobic and anaerobic stabilisation (digestion), conditioning, centrifugation, composting,
and drying. Some sludge is incinerated before land disposal. Emissions from anaerobic sludge digestion, where
the digester’s primary use is for treatment of wastewater treatment solids, should be reported under Wastewater
Treatment. Land disposal, composting, and incineration of sludge is considered in Volume 5, Section 2.3.2 in
Chapter 2, Waste Generation, Composition, and Management Data, Section 3.2 in Chapter 3, Solid Waste
Disposal, Section 4.1 in Chapter 4, Biological Treatment and Disposal, and Chapter 5, Incineration and Open
Burning of Waste, respectively. N2O emissions from sludge and wastewater spread on agricultural land are
considered in Section 11.2, N2O emissions from managed soils, in Chapter 11, N2O Emissions from Managed
Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application, in Volume 4 of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other
Land Use (AFOLU) Sector.
Figure 6.1 from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines has been updated and simplified to show the different pathways for
wastewater treatment and discharge, for wastewater that is not collected and for wastewater that is collected. The
figure specifies whether the discharge or end use of the wastewater is reported in this chapter. Figure 6.1
(Updated) also shows sludge treatment pathways in grey and clarifies whether the emissions are reported in this
chapter. Table 6.1 has been updated to reflect the main wastewater treatment and discharge systems in developed
and developing countries and their potential to emit CH4 and N2O.
Figure 6.1 (Updated) Wastewater treatment systems and discharge pathways
Uncollected wastewater
Freshwater, estuarine or marine environments

Untreated
(Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 6)
Decentralised treatment
Latrines Agricultural soils
Septic tanks (Emissions reported in Volume 4, Chapter 11)
Constructed wetlands
Land disposal of wastewater
Onsite industrial treatment plant Sludge treatment offsite

Collected wastewater
Incineration Composting
(Emissions reported in (Emissions reported in
Volume 5, Chapter 5) Volume 5, Chapter 4)
Untreated
Landfilling Land application

Centralised treatment (Emissions reported in (Emissions reported in
Aerobic Volume 5, Chapter 3) Volume 4, Chapter 11)
Anaerobic
Convention activated sludge
Biological nutrient removal Sludge treatment at wastewater treatment plants
Wastewater Constructed wetlands (Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 6)
Sludge
TABLE 6.1 (UPDATED)

CH4 AND N2O EMISSION POTENTIALS FOR WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEMS
Discharge from Collected or Types of treatment and disposal CH4 and N2O emission potentials
Untreated or Treated Systems

While modulated by oxygen status, CH4 is generated
Uncollected Systems
Freshwater, estuarine, or marine in a range of freshwater and estuarine environments.

discharge Among them, stagnant or oxygen deficient
environments are probable sources of N2O.
Emissions are considered in Volume 4 when applied

Non-aquatic environment (soils)
to agricultural land.
Likely source of CH4/N2O. However, insufficient data

Sewers (closed and underground) exist to quantify emission factors that address the
Untreated
variation in sewer type and operational conditions.
Stagnant, overloaded open collection sewers or

Sewers (open)
ditches/canals are likely significant sources of CH4.
May produce limited CH4 from anaerobic pockets.

May also liberate CH4 generated in upstream sewer
networks during turbulent and/or aerobic treatment
processes.
Aerobic treatment
Centralised aerobic
Poorly designed or managed aerobic treatment
wastewater treatment plants
systems produce higher CH4 due to reduced removal
of organics in sludge during primary treatment.
Plants with nutrient removal processes are sources of
CH4 and N2O.
Unlikely source of CH4/N2O.

Aerobic shallow ponds Poorly designed or managed aerobic systems produce
Collected
CH4.
May be a significant source of CH4.

Anaerobic lagoons
Insignificant source of N2O.
Treated
Anaerobic treatment
Facultative lagoons2 Source of CH4 from anaerobic layer.
May be source of CH4 and N2O. See 2013 Supplement

Constructed wetlands to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (IPCC 2014).
May be a significant source of CH4 if emitted CH4 is

Anaerobic reactors
not recovered or flared.
Sludge may be a significant source of CH4 if emitted

Sludge anaerobic treatment CH4 is not recovered or flared. In addition, sludge
Onsite sludge treatment1
in centralised aerobic digestion and handling may be a source of fugitive

wastewater treatment plant CH4 from biogas recovery operations. See Chapter 4
for more details.
Composting Emissions are considered in Volume 5, Chapter 4.
Incineration and open

Emissions are considered in Volume 5, Chapter 5.
burning
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.1 (UPDATED) (CONTINUED)

CH4 AND N2O EMISSION POTENTIALS FOR WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEMS
Types of treatment and disposal CH4 and N2O emission potentials
Septic tanks (without dispersion field) Source of CH4.
Uncollected
Frequent solids removal reduces CH4 production.

Septic system (including a septic tank and a Source of CH4 (tank) and N2O (soil dispersal system).
soil dispersal system) Frequent solids removal reduces CH4 production.
Open pits/Latrines Pits/latrines are likely to produce CH4 when
temperature and retention time are favourable.
1
For onsite sludge treatment, see Chapters 4 and 5 for emissions methodology, but note that emissions for onsite systems should be
reported under the Wastewater Treatment and Discharge category.
2
Facultative organisms can function in the presence or absence of molecular oxygen. In a facultative lagoon, the layer of water near the
surface contains dissolved oxygen due to atmospheric reaeration and algal respiration, a condition that supports aerobic and facultative
organisms. The bottom layer of the lagoon includes sludge deposits and supports anaerobic organisms. The intermediate anoxic layer–
the facultative zone–ranges from aerobic near the top to anaerobic at the bottom (US EPA 2002b).
6.1.1 Centralised treatment systems

Centralised wastewater treatment systems may include a variety of treatment processes spanning the hierarchy of
treatment levels. Primary treatment involves mechanical processes such as screening, grit removal and
sedimentation. Secondary treatment involves biological processes in which microorganisms convert inorganic
and organic nutrients into settleable solids which can be removed by sedimentation and degradation metabolites
which are transferred to the atmosphere. Secondary biological treatment processes may be augmented with
chemical disinfection. Commonly used secondary treatment processes include activated sludge, trickling filters
and lagoons. In some countries simple disinfection process concludes tertiary treatment; however, elsewhere
more advanced tertiary treatment involves the use of enhanced biological nutrient removal processes
(nitrification–denitrification), and other advanced physical and chemical processes.
Wastewater treatment processes can range from simple technologies such as lagooning and wetlands, to more
technologically advanced treatment technology designed for stringent nutrient removal. Wetlands can be
constructed or semi-natural systems and may be used as the primary method of wastewater treatment, or as a
polishing treatment step following settling and biological treatment. Constructed wetlands develop natural
processes that involve vegetation, soil, and associated microbial assemblages to trap and treat incoming
contaminants through a combination of biodegradation, volatilisation, sorption and sedimentation process (IPCC
2014).
Sewer collection systems provide an environment conducive to the formation of CH4, which can be substantial
depending on the configuration and operation of the collection system (Guisasola et al. 2008). Recent research
has shown that at least a portion of CH4 formed with the collection system enters the centralised system where it
contributes to CH4 emissions from the treatment system (Foley et al. 2015). Although there are insufficient data
to quantify emissions directly from the sewer collection system, the emission factors presented for centralised
treatment plants account for dissolved methane entering the treatment systems.
Soluble organic matter is generally removed using biological processes in which microorganisms consume the
organic matter for maintenance and growth. The resulting biomass (sludge) is removed from the effluent prior to
discharge to receiving environments. Microorganisms can biodegrade soluble organic material in wastewater
under aerobic and/or anaerobic conditions, where the latter condition produces CH4. During collection and
treatment, wastewater may be accidentally or deliberately managed under anaerobic conditions. In addition, the
sludge may be further biodegraded under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, such as with anaerobic digestion.
The generation of N2O may also result from the treatment of domestic wastewater during both nitrification and
denitrification of the nitrogen (N) present, usually in the form of urea, proteins, and ammonia. Ammonia N is
converted to nitrate (NO3−) through the aerobic process of nitrification. Denitrification occurs under
anoxic/anaerobic conditions, whereby aerobic or facultative organisms reduce oxidized forms of nitrogen (e.g.,
nitrite, nitrate) in the absence of free oxygen to produce nitrogen gas (N2). N2O is an intermediate product of
both nitrification and denitrification processes. No matter where N2O is formed it is usually stripped to the air in
aerated parts of the treatment process.
A common example of a centralised treatment system configuration is an activated sludge wastewater treatment
system. Following grit removal and primary treatment for solids removal, wastewater is sent to an activated
sludge reactor for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand removal, followed by secondary clarification where
solids are allowed to settle from the wastewater. Clarified effluent may be disinfected prior to discharge.
Secondary clarifier sludge is pumped out from the bottom of the clarifier. Of this sludge, a portion is sent back to
the activated sludge treatment process (return activated sludge) and the remainder (waste activated sludge) is
combined with primary treatment sludge before being sent to sludge handling (such as gravity thickening). The
thickened sludge may also be processed onsite in an anaerobic digester followed by further dewatering, such as
by centrifuge. Recovered wastewater from thickening and dewatering operations, such as filtrate from the gravity
thickener or centrate from the centrifuge) are returned to the influent stream at the headworks to the wastewater
treatment system.
CH4 generated in the sewer system enters the treatment plant as dissolved methane and is emitted during
turbulent/aerated treatment steps (Daelman et al. 2012). Although the CH4 emissions from centralised aerobic
plants may be small, they are not zero and may be substantial for some plants receiving sewage from expansive
sewer networks (Willis 2017). In addition, anaerobic conditions can form within the treatment system increasing
the potential for CH4 generation from an otherwise aerobic system. These refinements introduce a new MCF
associated with these systems, as well as a revised N2O emission factor for centralised wastewater treatment
systems.
Occasionally wastewater treatment plants could be hydraulically or organically overloaded, resulting in degraded
plant performance. In these cases, organic matter and nutrients that would normally be removed by the treatment
system instead pass through untreated and are discharged to the aquatic environment. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines
previously provided different emission factors for “well managed” centralised aerobic treatment systems versus
“not well managed” centralised aerobic treatment systems. However, these refinements remove those factors and
instead provide one factor for these types of systems. In the case of overloaded systems, the amount of organics
removed by the system in sludge (S) should reflect the performance achieved by the system.
6.1.2 Decentralised treatment systems of domestic

wastewater (onsite sanitation)
Depending on national circumstances, domestic wastewater not connected to a centralised wastewater treatment
plant may be directly discharged in natural aquatic environments (rivers, lakes, oceans, etc.) or treated using
onsite sanitation. The most common onsite treatment systems are holding tanks, septic systems and latrines.
A septic system is usually composed of a septic tank, generally buried in the ground, and a soil dispersal system.
Solids and dense materials contained in the incoming wastewater (influent) settle in the septic tanks as sludge.
Floatable material (scum) is also retained in the tank. The sludge settled on the bottom of the tank undergoes
anaerobic digestion. Partially treated water is discharged in the dispersal system. The liquid fraction remains in
the tank for only a short period, with the hydraulic retention time (HRT) varying from 24 to 72 hours depending
on tank volume and hydraulic load. The solid fraction accumulates and remains in the tank for several years,
during which time it degrades anaerobically. The solids retention time (SRT) depends on the sludge withdrawal
frequency. The gas produced from anaerobic sludge digestion (mainly CH4 and largely biogenic CO2) rise to the
liquid surface and are usually released through vents. Gases produced in the effluent dispersal system (mainly
N2O and biogenic CO2) are released through the soil.
A latrine usually consists of a slab over a pit which may be two metres or more in depth. A wide range of
configuration options exists for latrines (simple pit latrines, ventilated latrines, composting latrines, etc.) having
in common that little (e.g., pour flush latrines) or no water is used to flush excreta into the pit. Pit latrines are
utilised by more than 1.5 billion people throughout the world, especially in low-income countries (see new
Figure 6.1a and new Annex 6A.1). Pit latrine gaseous emissions depend in part on local groundwater level.
Anaerobic conditions favourable to CH4 emissions occur when the water table is high and the organic waste in
the pit is submerged.
In the absence of latrines, people resort to open defecation. Open defecation is not considered as a source of CH4,
as anaerobic conditions are considered unlikely.
In some high-income countries, onsite aerated wastewater treatment systems are used and enable a more
advanced level of treatment than septic tanks in reducing the load of organics and nutrients in domestic effluent.
The process usually involves a first step of sedimentation and anaerobic digestion, a second step of aerobic
treatment and last step of clarification and disinfection. The treated effluent is discharged into the environment
via surface irrigation or infiltration through an absorption trench.
Volume 5: Waste
Figure 6.1a (New) Percentage of low-income country populations using pit latrines as a
primary sanitation facility (Graham & Polizzotto 2013)
6.1.3 Emissions from receiving waters

Dissolved CH4 and N2O that is generated in sewers, or present in untreated or treated discharges, has the
potential to be released (Short et al. 2014; Short et al. 2017). A strong correlation between the condition of the
aquatic environment and the generation of CH4 and N2O has been observed (e.g., Smith et al. 2017). Therefore,
where wastewater is then discharged to aquatic environments with nutrient-impacted/eutrophic conditions (i.e.,
water bodies which are rich in nutrients and very productive in terms of aquatic animal and plant life), the
additional organic matter in the discharged wastewater is expected to increase emissions. Many waterways are
naturally eutrophic, while others have been altered by human impacts and are subject to eutrophication as a result.
Surface marine waters are typically supersaturated (Ward et al. 1987; Conrad & Seiler 1988) and freshwaters
highly supersaturated (Stanley et al. 2016) with CH4 irrespective of their trophic state, so this refinement does
not distinguish between eutrophic and oligotrophic receiving waters, but it does distinguish between default
waters (rivers and streams) and lakes and reservoirs where CH4 emissions are higher.
6.1.4 Changes compared to 1996 Guidelines and Good

Practice Guidance
No refinement.
6.1.5 Changes compared to 2006 IPCC Guidelines

The 2006 IPCC Guidelines included combined equations to estimate CH4 emissions from wastewater and from
sludge removed from the wastewater. However, in some cases, this combined equation caused confusion among
inventory compilers when calculating CH4 emissions from aerobic systems with anaerobic sludge digestion. In
these cases, some compilers estimated zero CH4 emissions from well operated wastewater treatment systems,
and then subtracted emissions associated with sludge digestion operations without first estimating the CH4
emissions from sludge treatment, resulting in negative emissions. In this refinement, we discuss the proper way
to use the equation in such situations, and we present an update to provide guidance on the calculation of the
organic component removed in sludge. Countries must estimate the amount (mass) of sludge they generate from
wastewater treatment and default data are provided for a number of countries. With this additional guidance, the
use of a default value of zero for sludge removal from aerobic treatment systems and septic systems is no longer
applicable.
In addition, certain emission factors for CH4 emissions from domestic and industrial wastewater treatment have
been updated to reflect additional measurement data on emissions from septic systems and centralised WWTPs.
Furthermore, the CH4 emission factors for wastewater discharged to aquatic environments have been updated
and a new emission factor for discharge to reservoirs, lakes, and estuaries is introduced. The calculation of CH4
emissions from effluent discharged to aquatic systems has been updated to include the discharge of treated
effluent and to reflect the removal of organics that occurs during treatment.
The 2019 Refinement also includes new guidance on how to estimate N2O emissions from domestic and
industrial wastewater and presents updated guidance to estimate N2O emissions from centralised WWTPs.
Furthermore, the N2O emission factors for wastewater discharged to aquatic environments have been updated
and the calculation of N2O emissions from effluent discharged to aquatic systems has been updated to reflect the
removal of nitrogen that occurs during treatment.
6.2 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER
6.2.1 Methodological issues

Emissions are a function of the amount of organic waste generated and an emission factor that characterises the
extent to which this waste generates CH4.
Three tier methods for CH4 from this category are summarised below:
The Tier 1 method applies default values for the emission factor and activity parameters. This method is
considered good practice for countries with limited data.
The Tier 2 method follows the same method as Tier 1 but allows for incorporation of a country specific emission
factor and country specific activity data. For example, a specific emission factor for a prominent treatment
system based on field measurements could be incorporated under this method. The amount of sludge removed
for incineration, landfills, composting, and agricultural land should be taken into consideration. In addition,
countries that are able to categorize wastewater discharge by the type of waterbody should use Tier 2 emission
factors for estimating emissions from discharge.
For a country with good data and advanced methodologies, a country specific method could be applied as a Tier
3 method. For example, a more advanced country-specific method could be based on plant-specific data from
large wastewater treatment facilities, using country-specific measurements of organics discharged to aquatic
environments, or may draw on country-specific water quality data for aquatic environments receiving wastewater
inputs.
Wastewater treatment facilities that receive wastewater from collection systems, particularly pressurized sewers
and gravity-fed sewers that are closed, can liberate CH4 in aerobic systems from dissolved CH4 that enters the
treatment system (Daelman et al. 2012; Short et al. 2017).
Wastewater treatment facilities can include anaerobic process steps. CH4 generated at such facilities can be
recovered and combusted in a flare or energy device. The amount of CH4 that is flared or recovered for energy
use should be subtracted from total emissions through the use of a separate CH4 recovery parameter. The amount
of CH4 which is recovered or flared is expressed as R in updated Equation 6.1. R refers to CH4 recovered from
wastewater treatment, such as methane captured on filters exhausted from covered (anaerobic) treatment ponds,
as well as CH4 recovered from anaerobic sludge digestion. The approach to estimation of emissions from
wastewater treatment in this chapter covers all emission sources and sinks (recovery) at a wastewater treatment
plant.
Note that only a few countries may have sludge removal data and CH4 recovery data. The information on sludge
generation has improved and statistical data on sludge can be found in databases of Eurostat and Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The lack of data for CH4 recovery was taken into account in
this refinement by recommending the use of the methodology in Section 4.1, Chapter 4 of Volume 5, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines which estimates emissions on the basis of total sludge anaerobically digested; thus, the information
on R is not required in this calculation. Default sludge removal factors are provided in this refinement. The
default for CH4 recovery is zero. If a country selects to report CH4 recovery, it is good practice to distinguish
between flaring and CH4 recovery for energy generation, which should be reported in the Energy Sector taking
into account the avoidance of double counting emissions from flaring and energy used.
Emissions from flaring are not significant, as the majority of CO2 emissions are of biogenic origin, and the CH4
and N2O emissions are very small so good practice in the Waste Sector does not require their estimation.
However, if it is wished to do so these emissions should be reported under the Waste Sector. A discussion of
emissions from flares and more detailed information are given in Volume 2, Energy, Chapter 4.2. Emission from
flaring is not treated at Tier 1.
Volume 5: Waste
6.2.2 Domestic wastewater

6.2.2.1 C HOICE OF METH OD
An updated decision tree for domestic wastewater is included as updated Figure 6.2 and should be used to
determine the tier approach that is applicable to the country.
This section is an update to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. In general, the overall steps for good practice in
inventory preparation for CH4 from domestic wastewater have been updated as follows:
Figure 6.2 (Updated) Decision tree for CH 4 emissions from domestic wastewater
Start
Are wastewater Are activity data

Is a country-
treatment pathways available to categorise Yes specific method
characterised? discharge by type of
available?
No waterbody?
Collect data on No No
the share of
Yes wastewater
Yes
treatment in Tier 1 for discharge: Tier 2 for discharge:
each pathway Estimate emissions from discharge Estimate emissions from discharge
to all aquatic environments using to aquatic environments using
default Tier 1 emission factor and default Tier 2 emission factors and
methodology. methodology.
Tier 3 for discharge:

Are facility-specific Estimate emissions from discharge
CH4 emissions data to aquatic environments using
available? country-specific emissions data
Yes
and methodology.
Tier 3 for treatment:

Is a country- Estimate emissions from
specific method Yes treatment using country-specific
No available? method based on measured
emissions data from facilities.
No

Are country- Estimate emissions using
specific emission factors country-specific emission
Yes
available for the key factors (Bo, MCF, etc.) and/or
pathways? activity data and default
methodology.
No
Develop country-
specific emissions
Is this a key
Yes factors and/or
category1?
collect activity data

Estimate emissions from
No treatment using default
emission factors and
methodology.
1
See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section
4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
Volume 5: Waste
Step 1: Use updated Equation 6.3 to estimate organically degradable material TOW in wastewater prior to
treatment. Use new Equation 6.3a to estimate total organics in domestic wastewater for each
wastewater treatment/discharge pathway or system, j (TOWj). Use new Equation 6.3d to estimate
total organics in treated wastewater effluent discharged (TOWEFFtreat).
Step 2: Use new Equations 6.3b and 6.3c to estimate the amount of organic component removed in sludge, S,
from aerobic treatment plants and septic systems.
Step 3: Select the pathway and systems (see updated Figure 6.1) according to country activity data. Use
Equation 6.2 or the updated Table 6.3 to obtain the emission factor for each domestic wastewater
treatment/discharge pathway or system.
Step 4: Use updated Equation 6.1 to estimate emissions and adjust for possible sludge removal and/or CH4
recovery of treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in inventory year. Use new Equation 6.1a to
sum the emissions across all treatment/discharge pathways or systems.
Step 5: Use Equation 4.1 and emission factors in Table 4.1 to estimate methane emissions from anaerobic
digestion of sludge.
To determine the use of each type of treatment or discharge system, it is good practice to refer to national
statistics (e.g., from regulatory authorities). If these data are not available, wastewater associations or
international organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) may have data on the system usage.
Otherwise, consultation with sanitation experts can help, and expert judgment can also be applied (see Chapter 2,
Approaches to Data Collection, in Volume 1). Urbanisation statistics may provide a useful tool, e.g., city sizes
and income distribution.
These updates are presented because, in some cases, the original Equation 6.1 caused confusion among inventory
compilers when calculating CH4 emissions across multiple wastewater treatment/discharge pathways or systems
across multiple income groups. These updates allow for a more stepwise process in estimating emissions
throughout the country.
It is good practice for countries to treat the wastewater treatment system and onsite sludge treatment system as
separate pathways. As an example, for an activated sludge treatment process, calculate the emissions directly
associated with the aerobic treatment system as one pathway, and calculate the emissions and report any CH4
recovery directly associated with the anaerobic sludge digestion system as a separate pathway using the
emissions methodology provided in Table 4.1, Chapter 4 of Volume 5. Net emissions from both systems should
be summed together and reported under wastewater treatment and discharge. In no circumstances should a
country report negative emissions. As discussed in Chapter 4, the reporting of anaerobic digestion of sludge is
under biological treatment only if transferred from the wastewater treatment plant to anaerobic facilities co-
digesting sludge with MSW or other waste.
It is important that CH4 emissions from sludge that is managed using landfills, incineration, composting, biogas
production, or used in agriculture are not included in the wastewater treatment and discharge category. The data
should be consistent across the sectors, and categories, amount disposed at SWDS, applied to agricultural land,
incinerated or used elsewhere should be equal to the amount organic component removed as sludge in updated
Equation 6.1. Wastewater and sludge that is applied on agricultural land should be considered in Volume 4 for
AFOLU Sector, Section 11.2, N2O emissions from managed soils, in Chapter 11, N2O Emissions from Managed
Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application.
Wastewater treatment system/pathway usage often differs for rural and urban residents. Also, in developing
countries, there are likely to be differences between urban high-income and urban low-income residents. Hence,
emissions are calculated by each income group fraction. It is good practice to treat the three categories: rural
population, urban high-income population, and urban low-income population separately. It is suggested to use a
spreadsheet, as shown in Table 6.5.
Equation 6.1 should be used to estimate CH4 emissions from every treatment system and discharge pathway j
(hereafter referred to as treatment/discharge pathway or system), presented in Table 6.3 (Updated) that are
appropriate for the country, including the discharge of treated or untreated wastewater.
CH4 emissions from the following discharge pathways must be considered in the inventory for treated and
untreated wastewaters (if occurring in the country):
• Discharge to reservoirs, lakes, and estuaries;
• Discharge to aquatic environments other than to reservoirs, lakes, and estuaries;
• Discharge to sewers (with a distinction between stagnant and flowing (open or closed) sewers).
For the discharge of treated wastewater, the TOW should reflect the organics in the wastewater as discharged
(see Equation 6.3d (New). As noted in the table, discharges to soil should be reported in Volume 4.
CH4 emissions from the following wastewater treatment systems must be considered in the inventory (if
occurring in the country):
• Centralised, aerobic treatment plant;
• Anaerobic reactor (e.g., upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digestion (UASB));
• Anaerobic lagoons (with a distinction between shallow and facultative lagoons and deep lagoons);
• Constructed wetlands;
• Septic systems (with a distinction between stand-alone septic tanks and septic tanks with land dispersal
field);
• Latrines (depending of the climate).
Emissions from anaerobic digestion of wastewater treatment sludge should be estimated using Equation 4.1 and
included in the sum of emissions using Equation 6.1A (New). The emission factor used in Equation 4.1 accounts
for CH4 recovery, therefore the amount of methane recovered from anaerobic digestion should not be subtracted.
EQUATION 6.1 (UPDATED)

CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER FOR EACH TREATMENT/DISCHARGE PATHWAY
OR SYSTEM, J
=
CH 4 Emissions (TOW j − S j ) • EFj − R j 
j  
Where:
CH4 Emissionsj = CH4 emissions from treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in inventory year, kg
CH4/yr
TOWj = organics in wastewater of treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in inventory year,
kg BOD/yr. See Equation 6.3a.
Sj = organic component removed from wastewater (in the form of sludge) from
treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in inventory year, kg BOD/yr. See Equations
6.3b and 6.3c. For wastewater discharged to aquatic environments, there is no sludge
removal (Sj = 0) and no CH4 recovery (Rj = 0). For wastewater treatment systems, please
see Section 6.2.2.3 for additional guidance on how to estimate S, organic component
removed as sludge, if country-specific data are not available.
j = each treatment/discharge pathway or system
EFj = emission factor for treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, kg CH4/kg BOD. See
Equation 6.2 or updated Table 6.3.
Rj = amount of CH4 recovered or flared from treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in
inventory year, kg CH4/yr. Default value is zero.
EQUATION 6.1A (NEW)

TOTAL CH4 EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE
=
CH 4 Emissions ∑ [CH
j
4 Emissions j ] • [10−6 ]
Where:
CH4 Emissions = CH4 emissions in inventory year, kg CH4/yr
CH4 Emissionsj = CH4 emissions from treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, in inventory year, kg
CH4/yr
10-6 = conversion of kg to Gg
Volume 5: Waste
6.2.2.2 C HOICE OF EMISSI ON FACTORS
This section represents an update to Section 6.2.2.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
The emission factor for a wastewater treatment and discharge pathway and system is a function of the maximum
CH4 producing potential (Bo) and the methane correction factor (MCF) for the wastewater treatment and
discharge system, as shown in Equation 6.2. The Bo is the maximum amount of CH4 that can be produced from a
given quantity of organics (as expressed in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) in the wastewater and represents the complete conversion of organic C to biogas. The MCF indicates the
extent to which the CH4 producing capacity (Bo) is realised in each type of treatment and discharge pathway and
system. Thus, it is an indication of the degree to which the system is anaerobic.
EQUATION 6.2
CH4 EMISSION FACTOR FOR
EACH DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT/DISCHARGE PATHWAY OR SYSTEM
EF=
j Bo • MCFj
Where:
EFj = emission factor, kg CH4/kg BOD
Bo = maximum CH4 producing capacity, kg CH4/kg BOD
MCFj = methane correction factor (fraction). See updated Table 6.3.
Table 6.2 includes default maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo) for domestic wastewater. It is good practice to
use country-specific data if available for emission factors, which are made up of Bo and MCF values. If a country
chooses to introduce country-specific data for Bo based on independent wastewater analyses, they must also
update the MCF because the MCFs presented in Table 6.3 were developed using the default Bo values. For
domestic wastewater, a COD-based value of Bo can be converted into a BOD-based value by multiplying with a
factor of 2.4. New Annex 6A.2 provides further explanation of the basis for these default Bo values to allow
countries to consider if these values are appropriate for the specific characteristics of their waste streams.
TABLE 6.2
DEFAULT MAXIMUM CH4 PRODUCING CAPACITY (BO) FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
0.6 kg CH4/kg BOD

0.25 kg CH4/kg COD
Based on expert judgment by lead authors and on Doorn et al. (1997)
Because the Bo and MCF values must be used together, updated Table 6.3 now also includes the resultant default
CH4 emission factors for each wastewater treatment and discharge pathway. In addition, the MCFs in Table 6.3
of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines have been updated to reflect revisions to the following specific wastewater
treatment and discharge pathways and systems (see also new Annex 6A.3).
DISCH ARGE FROM TREATED OR UNTREATED SYSTEMS
Updated Table 6.3 presents updated default MCFs associated with the discharge of wastewater to a water body
and it is good practice to apply the Tier 1 MCF to discharges of both treated and untreated wastewater. The BOD
of treated wastewater is typically 5–25 mg/L (Hammer & Hammer Jr. 2012; Tchobanoglous et al. 2014), which
provides a substrate for the formation of CH4 in a receiving water body. Furthermore, much of the dissolved CH4
that is generated in sewers is released either in the treatment plant headworks or to the receiving water body in
the case of untreated or primary treated discharges (Short et al. 2014; Short et al. 2017). Recent evidence points
to the operation of both microbial and non-microbial methanogenic pathways in nature (e.g., Jugold et al. 2012)
and strong relationships between the nutrient status of a receiving water body and the rate of generation of CH4
have been observed (e.g., Smith et al. 2017). Despite this relationship, most rivers, estuaries and coastal waters
are considerably supersaturated with CH4, irrespective of their nutrient status (Patra et al. 1998; Grunwald et al.
2009; Ward et al. 2017), while open oceans are slightly supersaturated (Tilbrook & Karl 1995; Oudot et al. 2002;
Castro-Morales et al. 2014). Supersaturated conditions occur when the rate of methanogenesis exceeds the rate at
which the CH4 is oxidised and/or transferred to the atmosphere and is important as it governs the driving force
(mass transfer coefficient) and likely water-to-air CH4 emission from a receiving environment. So, while the
conditions of the receiving water body play a modulating role in relation to the rate of methanogenesis, the
addition of organic matter from sewer discharges is generally expected to increase CH4 emissions in freshwater
and coastal environments. Recent reviews of measurements of CH4 generation indicate that a significant
proportion of the CH4 emitted from freshwater systems has its origins in carbon deposited on sediments (Deemer
et al. 2016) which is one reason why methanogenesis is more intense in lakes and reservoirs than fast-flowing
rivers.
Using the same stoichiometric relationship as was used to calculate the default Bo value (see new Annex 6A.2), a
ratio of 0.938 kg C per kg COD is obtained. Deemer et al. (2016) performed an extensive review of
measurements of CH4 and CO2 originating in aquatic systems, and independent measurements of both CH4 and
CO2 emission fluxes around the world. Using these data in combination with information on the partitioning of
global carbon flows in freshwater systems Tranvik et al. (2009) and a default Bo of 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD, a Tier
2 MCF of 0.035 is calculated for rivers. Where it is possible to separately identify discharges to slow-flowing
systems such as lakes and reservoirs, a Tier 2 MCF of 0.19 is presented (see updated Table 6.3 and new Annex
6A.4).
If countries are not able to collect activity data regarding the distribution of discharge to reservoirs, lakes, and
estuaries as compared to discharges to other aquatic environments, they should use the default Tier 1 factors. The
default Tier 1 MCF for CH4 generation for discharges to all aquatic environments is presented as the mean of the
two Tier 2 MCFs, or 0.11.
Concerning decentralised treatment systems for domestic wastewater, CH4 and N2O emissions from effluent
infiltration into soil must be considered.
CENTRALISED, AEROBIC TREATMENT PLANTS
The MCF for centralised aerobic treatment plants has been updated in Table 6.3 to reflect the potential for
generation of CH4 from these systems. In addition, there are no longer separate MCFs for “well managed” and
“not well managed” systems and it is good practice to estimate CH4 from all centralised, aerobic treatment plants.
If country-specific data are available to differentiate whether systems are overloaded or not well managed, these
situations should be reflected in the calculation of TOW (for inflow overload) or Smass (for systems that are not
well managed and therefore not achieving the expected removal of sludge).
IMPACT OF TEMPERATURE O N DECENTRALISED TREATMENT SYSTEMS
OF DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Temperature affects wastewater treatment processes, in particular decentralised systems where no external
supplemental heat is provided (uncontrolled temperature) and anaerobic digestion for which the optimal
temperature is 30–38°C. At lower temperatures, the rate of anaerobic digestion decreases and CH4 production
becomes unlikely below 12°C. Inside septic tanks, the temperature is uncontrolled and is related to atmospheric
temperature as well as volumes of household hot and cold water used and discharged. There may also be a
gradient of temperature inside the septic tank, with warmer conditions at the bottom (sludge layer) and colder at
the top (Leverenz et al. 2010). Therefore, in countries having seasonal temperature variability, when the
temperature in septic tanks cools, the rate of digestion slows, the SRT increases, sludge accumulates, and CH4
emissions decrease. When the liquid temperature warms, the rate of digestion increases, sludge accumulated
during the cold season decomposes, gas solubility in the liquid decreases and CH4 emissions increase. This
situation can produce a ‘spring boil’ phenomenon, wherein warmer weather conditions give rise to increased
anaerobic microbial activity, increased gas production, and decreased solids removal efficiency due to the
resuspension of settled and incoming solids. Accordingly, there is a seasonal variability of CH4 emissions
(Leverenz et al. 2010); however, at this time, insufficient data exist to establish a temperature-dependent
emission factor associated with these systems. Countries that experience significant seasonal temperature
variations may wish to consider the development of a country-specific emission factor.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.3 (UPDATED)

DEFAULT MCF VALUES AND RESULTANT EFS FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER BY TYPE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM AND
DISCHARGE PATHWAY, J1
Type of treatment EF2 EF2

MCF 1
and discharge Comments (kg CH4/kg (kg CH4/kg
pathway or system (Range)
BOD) COD)
Discharge from treated or untreated system
Most aquatic environments including rivers
Discharge to are supersaturated in CH4. Nutrient
aquatic oversupply will increase CH4 emissions. 0.11
0.068 0.028
environments (Tier Environments where carbon accumulates in (0.004 – 0.27)
1) sediments have higher potential for
methane generation.
Discharge to
aquatic
environments Most aquatic environments including rivers
0.0353
other than are supersaturated in CH4. Nutrient 0.021 0.009
(0.004 – 0.06)
reservoirs, lakes, oversupply will increase CH4 emissions.
and estuaries (Tier
2)
Discharge to
Environments where carbon accumulates in
reservoirs, lakes, 0.193
sediments have higher potential for 0.114 0.048
and estuaries (Tier (0.08 – 0.27)
methane generation.
2)
Sludge and/or wastewater discharge to soil
Discharge to soil Emissions reported in Volume 4
may be a source of CH4 for fertilisation
0.5
Stagnant sewer Open and warm 0.3 0.125
(0.4 – 0.8)
Flowing sewer Fast moving, clean. (Insignificant amounts
0 0 0
(open or closed) of CH4 from pump stations, etc.)
Wastewater treatment system
Some CH4 can be emitted from settling
basins and other anaerobic pockets. May
also emit CH4 generated in upstream sewer
networks during turbulent and/or aerobic
Centralised, aerobic 0.034
treatment processes. For treatment plants 0.018 0.0075
treatment plant (0.003 – 0.09)
that are receiving wastewater beyond the
design capacity, inventory compilers
should judge the amount of organic
material removed in sludge accordingly.
Anaerobic reactor
(e.g., upflow
0.8
anaerobic sludge CH4 recovery is not considered here. 0.48 0.2
(0.8 – 1.0)
blanket digestion
(UASB))
Anaerobic shallow
Depth less than 2 metres, use expert 0.2
lagoon and 0.12 0.05
judgment. (0 – 0.3)
facultative lagoons
Anaerobic deep 0.8
Depth more than 2 metres 0.48 0.2
lagoon (0.8 – 1.0)
Constructed See 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
wetlands Wetlands (IPCC 2014)
0.55
Septic tank Septic tanks emit CH4 0.3 0.125
(0.4 – 0.72)
Septic tank + land Septic tanks emit CH4; negligible emissions 0.55
0.3 0.125
dispersal field come from land dispersal field (0.4 – 0.72)

DEFAULT MCF VALUES AND RESULTANT EFS FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER BY TYPE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM AND
DISCHARGE PATHWAY, J1
Type of treatment EF2 EF2

MCF 1
and discharge Comments (kg CH4/kg (kg CH4/kg
pathway or system (Range)
BOD) COD)
Dry climate, ground water table lower than 0.1
Latrine 0.06 0.025
latrine, small family (3–5 persons) (0.05 – 0.15)
Dry climate, ground water table lower than 0.5
Latrine 0.3 0.125
latrine, communal (many users) (0.4 – 0.6)
Wet climate/flush water use, ground water 0.7
Latrine 0.42 0.175
table higher than latrine (0.7 – 1.0)
Sludge treatment system
Anaerobic digester
See Chapter 4 for emissions methodology See Chapter 4, Table 4.1
for sludge
Composting Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 4 See Chapter 4, Table 4.1
Incineration and
Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 5 See Chapter 5
open burning
Sources:
1
Based on expert judgment by Lead Authors of this section.
2
Emission factors calculated using default Bo and default MCF.
3
See Annex 6A.4.
4
See Annex 6A.3 (Czepiel et al. 1993; Kozak et al. 2009; Bellucci et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2011; Daelman et al. 2013; Kyung et al.
2015; Delre et al. 2017).
5
Leverenz et al. 2010; Diaz-Valbuena et al. 2011; Truhlar et al. 2016.
6.2.2.3 C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA
The activity data for this source category is the total amount of organically degradable material in the wastewater
(TOW). This parameter is a function of human population and BOD generation per person. It is expressed in
terms of biochemical oxygen demand (kg BOD/year). The equation for TOW is:

TOTAL ORGANICALLY DEGRADABLE MATERIAL IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
TOW =
P • BOD • 0.001 • 365
Where:
TOW = total organics in wastewater in inventory year, kg BOD/yr
P = country population in inventory year, (person)
BOD = country-specific per capita BOD5 in inventory year, g/person/day. See Table 6.4.
0.001 = conversion from grams BOD to kg BOD
Total population statistics should be readily available from national statistics agencies or international agencies
(e.g., United Nations Statistics, see https://population.un.org/wpp/). Table 6.4 includes BOD default values for
selected countries. It is good practice to select a BOD default value from a nearby comparable country when
country-specific data are not available. The degree of urbanisation for a country can be retrieved from various
sources, (e.g., Global Environment Outlook, United Nations Environment Programme and World Development
Indicators, World Health Organization). The urban high-income and urban-low income fractions can be
determined by expert judgment when statistical or other comparable information is not available.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.4
ESTIMATED BOD5 VALUES IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER FOR SELECTED REGIONS AND COUNTRIES
BOD5
Country/Region Range Reference
(g/person/day)
Africa 37 35 – 45 1
Egypt 34 27 – 41 1
Asia, Middle East, Latin America 40 35 – 45 1
India 34 27 – 41 1
West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestine) 50 32 – 68 1
Japan 42 40 – 45 1
Brazil 50 45 – 55 2
Canada, Europe, Russia, Oceania 60 50 – 70 1
Denmark 62 55 – 68 1
Germany 62 55 – 68 1
Greece 57 55 – 60 1
Italy 60 49 – 60 3
Sweden 75 68 – 82 1
Turkey 38 27 – 50 1
United States 85 50 – 120 4
Note: These values are based on an assessment of the literature. Please use national values, if available.
Reference:
1. Doorn and Liles (1999).
2. Feachem et al. (1983).
3. Masotti (1996).
4. Metcalf and Eddy (2003).
This section is updated to include a new equation for the calculation of total organics in wastewater (TOWj) by
treatment/discharge pathway or system (see new Equation 6.3a).
EQUATION 6.3A (NEW)

TOTAL ORGANICS IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER BY TREATMENT/DISCHARGE PATHWAY OR
SYSTEM
=
TOW j ∑ [TOW • U
i
i • Tij • I j ]
Where:
TOWj = total organics in wastewater in inventory year, kg BOD/yr, for income group i and
treatment/discharge pathway or system, j.
TOW = total organics in wastewater in inventory year, kg BOD/yr. See updated Equation 6.3 for
TOW in wastewater prior to treatment or wastewater that is discharged without treatment and
new Equation 6.3d for TOW in treated wastewater effluent.
Ui = fraction of population in income group i in inventory year. See Table 6.5.
Tij = degree of utilisation of treatment/discharge pathway or system, j, for each income group
fraction
Ij = correction factor for additional industrial BOD discharged into treatment/discharge pathway
or system j (for collected the default is 1.25, for uncollected the default is 1.00)
The factor I values in new Equation 6.3a are from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. It expresses the BOD from
industries and establishments (e.g., restaurants, butchers or grocery stores) that is co-discharged with
domestic wastewater. In some countries, information from industrial discharge permits may be available
to improve I. Otherwise, expert judgment is recommended.
Table 6.5 includes default values of Ui and Ti,j for selected countries.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.5
SUGGESTED VALUES FOR URBANISATION (U) AND DEGREE OF UTILISATION OF TREATMENT, DISCHARGE PATHWAY OR METHOD (TI,J) FOR EACH INCOME GROUP FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES
Urbanisation(U) 1 Degree of utilisation of treatment or discharge pathway or method for each income group (Ti,j )3
Fraction of Population U=rural U= urban high income U=urban low income
Septic Septic Septic
Country Rural urban-high2 urban-low2 Latrine Other Sewer4 None Latrine Other Sewer4 None Latrine Other Sewer4 None
Tank Tank Tank
Africa
Nigeria 0.52 0.10 0.38 0.02 0.28 0.04 0.10 0.56 0.32 0.31 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.34 0.20
Egypt 0.57 0.09 0.34 0.02 0.28 0.04 0.10 0.56 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.70 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.34 0.20
Kenya 0.62 0.08 0.30 0.02 0.28 0.04 0.10 0.56 0.32 0.31 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.34 0.20
South Africa 0.39 0.12 0.49 0.10 0.28 0.04 0.10 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.17 0.24 0.05 0.34 0.20
Asia
China 0.59 0.12 0.29 0.00 0.47 0.50 0.00 0.3 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.67 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.68 0.05
India 0.71 0.06 0.23 0.00 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.18 0.08 0.07 0.67 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.53 0.20
Indonesia 0.54 0.12 0.34 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.10 0.43 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.53 0.20
Pakistan 0.65 0.07 0.28 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.10 0.43 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.53 0.20
Bangladesh 0.72 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.10 0.43 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.03 0.53 0.20
Japan 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.10 0 0 0.90 0
Europe
Russia 0.27 0.73 0.00 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
Germany5 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
United Kingdom 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
France 0.24 0.76 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
Italy 0.32 0.68 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
North America
United States 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
Canada 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
Latin America
and Caribbean
Brazil 0.16 0.25 0.59 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.20
Mexico 0.25 0.19 0.56 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.20
Oceania
Australia and
0.08 0.92 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA
New Zealand
TABLE 6.5 (CONTINUED)

SUGGESTED VALUES FOR URBANISATION (U) AND DEGREE OF UTILISATION OF TREATMENT, DISCHARGE PATHWAY OR METHOD (TI,J) FOR EACH INCOME GROUP FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES
Notes:
1. Urbanization projections for 2005 (United Nations, 2002).
2. Suggested urban-high income and urban low income division. Countries are encouraged to use their own data or best judgment.
3. Ti.j values based on expert judgment, (Doorn and Liles, 1999).
4. Sewers may be open or closed, which will govern the choice of MCF, see Table 3.3
5. Destatis, 2001.
Note: These values are from the literature or based on expert judgment. Please use national values, if available.
Volume 5: Waste
Example
Table 6.6 includes an example. Categories with negligible contributions are not shown. Note that the table can
easily be expanded with a column for MCF for each category. The degree of urbanization for this country is 65
percent.
TABLE 6.6
EXAMPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF DEFAULT VALUES
FOR DEGREES OF TREATMENT UTILISATION (T) BY INCOME GROUPS
Treatment or discharge system or pathway T (%) Notes

Urban high-income To sea 10 No CH4
To aerobic plant1 20 Add industrial component
To septic systems 10 Uncollected
Urban low-income To sea 10 Collected
To pit latrines 15 Uncollected
Rural To rivers, lakes, sea 15
To pit latrines 15 Uncollected
To septic tanks 5
Total 100% Must add up to 100%
1
The degree of treatment utilisation (T) does not take into account emissions associated with the discharge of
treated effluent.
Reference: Doorn and Liles (1999)
This section is updated to also include new equations for the calculation of organic components removed as
sludge from aerobic treatment plants and from septic systems (see Equations 6.3b and 6.3c, respectively). Note
that the estimate of TOWij in Equation 6.3a is specific to the wastewater treatment system or pathway. Inventory
compilers should consider that sludge recovered from septic tanks may be transferred to centralised WWTPs. In
these cases, it is good practice to include this additional organic load when estimating TOW in influent to the
centralised WWTP.
The organic component removed from wastewater as sludge, S, in Equations 6.1 and 6.4, is not explained in
detail in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This section provides an update through the introduction of new Equations
6.3b and 6.3c, which provide default calculations of S for aerobic treatment plants and septic systems,
respectively. The default value of S for all other systems is zero. For aerobic treatment systems, some inventory
compilers incorrectly defined the variable “S” in Equation 6.1 as the mass of sludge removed rather than the
organic component removed from wastewater as sludge. It is important to note that the organic component
removed from wastewater as sludge is not equivalent to the mass (tonnes) of sludge produced from wastewater
treatment. Instead, the organic component removed as sludge is a function of sludge produced from wastewater
treatment (Smass) and a sludge factor (Krem) which indicates how much organic matter is removed from the
treatment process in sludge per kilogram of sludge produced.
EQUATION 6.3B (NEW)

ORGANIC COMPONENT REMOVED AS SLUDGE FROM AEROBIC TREATMENT PLANTS
Saerobic = ( Smass • K rem • 1000 )
Where:
Saerobic = organic component removed from wastewater (in the form of sludge) in aerobic treatment
plants, kg BOD/yr
Smass = amount of raw sludge removed from wastewater treatment as dry mass, tonnes/year
Krem = sludge factor, kg BOD/kg sludge. See Table 6.6a.
1000 = conversion factor for tonnes to kilograms
New Table 6.6a provides factors associated with the amount of organics in wastewater removed in sludge.
Aerobic WWTPs with primary treatment only remove about 0.5 kg of influent BOD per kg of primary sludge by
sedimentation. The aerobic stage of treatment removes 1.5 kg BOD per kg of secondary sludge. The sludge
produced in aerobic WWTPs with primary sedimentation contains approximately 70 percent of primary sludge
and 30percent of secondary sludge by weight. Aerobic WWTPs without primary treatment remove about 1.16 kg
BOD per kg of sludge, depending on process type. Countries where data are available should estimate a country-
specific Krem as a ratio between BOD removed and sludge generated for each process listed in Table 6.6a.
Country-specific Krem should be estimated as a weighted average by individual processes.
TABLE 6.6A (NEW)

REMOVAL OF ORGANIC COMPONENT FROM WASTEWATER AS SLUDGE (KREM) ACCORDING TO TREATMENT
TYPE1,2
Default Range
Treatment Type (kg BOD/kg dry mass
sludge)
Mechanical treatment plants (primary sedimentation sludge) 0.5 0.4 – 0.6
Aerobic treatment plants with primary treatment (mixed primary and secondary
0.8 0.65 – 0.95
sludge, untreated or treated aerobically)
Aerobic treatment plants with primary treatment and anaerobic sludge digestion
1.0 0.8 – 1.2
(mixed primary and secondary sludge, treated anaerobically)
Aerobic wastewater treatment plants without separate primary treatment 1.16 1.0 – 1.5
Sources:
1
BOD, or biochemical oxygen demand, is a proxy indicator of the quality (or organic content) of the waste, but it is not a
direct mass measurement of the organic content. Just as the mass of oxygen in carbon dioxide is greater than the mass of
carbon, it is feasible for the BOD of a carbon-containing molecule to exceed 1 when the molecule is metabolised to carbon
dioxide.
2
Based on expert judgment by Lead Authors of this section using the following references: Pescod (1992); Davies (2005);
Foladori et al. (2010); WEF (2010); Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2010); Serón et al. (2011).
Concerning septic systems, emissions depend on the fraction of the population managing their septic tank in
accordance with the sludge removal instructions of their septic tank/system (F in new Equation 6.3c). The default
value for F is 0.5 and corresponds to the situation where 50percent of the population managing their septic
system are complying with the sludge removal instructions. This default value is for countries where there is no
effective regulation or administrative requirements for sludge removal in septic systems. In countries with such
regulations or requirements, some evidence of maintenance controls should be provided (for instance the
existence of a local public service responsible for onsite sanitation). It is good practice to assess the F value
using available data on sludge removal practices among the population using septic systems.
Volume 5: Waste
EQUATION 6.3C (NEW)

ORGANIC COMPONENT REMOVED AS SLUDGE FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS
=
S septic TOWseptic • F • 0.5
Where:
Sseptic = organic component removed from wastewater (in the form of sludge) in septic systems, kg
BOD/yr
TOWseptic = total organics in wastewater in septic systems inventory year, kg BOD/yr
F = fraction of the population managing their septic tank in compliance with the sludge removal
instruction of their septic system
0.5 = fraction of organics in wastewater removed in sludge when septic tank is managed in
accordance with sludge removal instructions
For discharges of treated wastewater, inventory compilers should estimate the amount of TOW in effluent
(TOWEFFLUENT) as shown in new Equation 6.3d.
EQUATION 6.3D (NEW)

TOTAL ORGANICS IN TREATED DOMESTIC WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
TOW=
EFFtreat ∑ TOW • T j • (1 − TOWREM , j ) 
j
Where:
TOWEFFtreat = total organics in the treated wastewater effluent discharged to aquatic environments in
inventory year, kg BOD/yr
TOW = total organically degradable material in domestic wastewater in inventory year, kg
BOD/yr. See Equation 6.3 (Updated).
TJ = degree of utilisation of treatment system j in inventory year ( ∑T
i
ij
). See Table 6.5.
j = each wastewater treatment type used in inventory year

TOWREM,j = fraction of total wastewater organics removed during wastewater treatment per
treatment type j. See new Table 6.6b. Pathways for organics removal include loss to
sludge and biological decomposition.
TABLE 6.6B (NEW)

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ORGANICS REMOVAL FRACTIONS (TOWREM) ACCORDING TO
TREATMENT TYPE
Treatment Type Default Range

Untreated systems 0 0 – 0.1
Primary (mechanical treatment plants) 0.40 0.25 – 0.50
Primary + Secondary (biological treatment plants) 0.85 0.80 – 0.90
Primary + Secondary + Tertiary (advanced
0.90 0.80 – 0.95
biological treatment plants)
Septic tank/septic system 0.625 0.50 – 0.60
Latrines – Dry climate, groundwater table lower
0.1 0.05 – 0.15
than latrine, small family (3–5 persons)
Latrines – Dry climate, groundwater table lower
0.5 0.4 – 0.6
than latrine, communal (many users)
Latrines – Wet climate/flush water use,
0.7 0.7 – 1.0
groundwater table higher than latrine
TABLE 6.6B (NEW) (CONTINUED)

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ORGANICS REMOVAL FRACTIONS (TOWREM) ACCORDING TO
TREATMENT TYPE
Sources:
1
Based on expert judgment by Lead Authors of this section using the following references: Pescod (1992);
WEF (2009); Schaider et al. (2017) .
6.2.2.4 T IME SERI ES CONSISTENCY
No refinement.
6.2.2.5 U NCERTAINTIES
Chapter 3, Uncertainties, in Volume 1 provides advice on quantifying uncertainties in practice. It includes
guidance on eliciting and using expert judgments which in combination with empirical data can provide overall
uncertainty estimates. This section provides an update to Table 6.7 to provide default uncertainty ranges for new
or updated emission factor and activity data of domestic wastewater. The following parameters are believed to be
very uncertain:
• The degrees to which wastewater in developing countries is treated in latrines, septic tanks, or removed by
sewer, for urban high, urban low income groups and rural population (Ti,j).
• The fraction of sewers that are ‘open’, as well as the degree to which open sewers in developing countries
are anaerobic and will emit CH4. This will depend on retention time and temperature, and on other factors
including the presence of a facultative layer and possibly components that are toxic to anaerobic bacteria
(e.g., certain industrial wastewater discharges).
• The amount of industrial TOW that is discharged into open or closed domestic sewers for each country is
very difficult to quantify.
TABLE 6.7 (UPDATED)

DEFAULT UNCERTAINTY RANGES FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Parameter Uncertainty Range
Emission Factor
Maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo) ± 30%
Fraction treated anaerobically (MCF) The MCF is technology dependent. See Table 6.3. Thus, the
uncertainty range is also technology dependent. The uncertainty range
should be determined by expert judgment, bearing in mind that MCF
is a fraction and must be between 0 and 1. Suggested ranges are
provided below.
Untreated systems, ± 50%
Lagoons ± 30%
Centralised plant, digester, reactor, ± 10%
Activity Data
Human population (P) ± 5%
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) ± 30%
Fraction of population income group (U) Good data on urbanisation are available, however, the distinction
between urban high income and urban low income may have to be
based on expert judgment. ± 15%
Degree of utilisation of treatment/ Can be as low as ± 3% for countries that have good records and only
discharge pathway or system for each one or two systems. Can be ± 50% for an individual method/pathway.
income group (Ti,j) Verify that total Ti,j = 100%
Correction factor for additional industrial For uncollected, the uncertainty is zero %. For collected the
BOD discharged into sewers (I) uncertainty is ± 20%
Volume 5: Waste

DEFAULT UNCERTAINTY RANGES FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Amount of sludge removed from ± 30%
wastewater treatment (Smass)
Sludge factor (Krem) ± 25%
Fraction of the population managing their Can be as low as ± 3% for countries that have good records on
septic system complying with the sludge implementation. Can be ± 50% if based on expert judgment.
removal instruction (F)
Amount of CH4 recovered or flared (R) For systems with measured data, the uncertainty is equal to the
uncertainty of the measurement system.
Source:
6.2.2.6 QA/QC, C OMPLETENESS , R EPORTI NG AND

D OCUMENTATION
No refinement.
6.2.3 Industrial wastewater

Industrial wastewater may be treated on site or released into domestic sewer systems. If it is released into the
domestic sewer system, the emissions are to be included with the domestic wastewater emissions. This section
deals with estimating CH4 emissions from on-site industrial wastewater treatment. Only industrial wastewater
with significant carbon loading that is treated under intended or unintended anaerobic conditions will produce
CH4. Organics in industrial wastewater are often expressed in terms of COD, which is used here.
Assessment of CH4 production potential from industrial wastewater streams is based on the concentration of
degradable organic matter in the wastewater, the volume of wastewater, and the propensity of the industrial
sector to treat their wastewater in anaerobic systems. Using these criteria, major industrial wastewater sources
with high CH4 gas production potential can be identified as follows:
• pulp and paper manufacture;
• meat and poultry processing (slaughterhouses);
• alcohol, beer, starch production;
• organic chemicals production;
• other food and drink processing (dairy products, vegetable oil, fruits and vegetables, canneries, juice making,
etc.).
Both the pulp and paper industry and the meat and poultry processing industries produce large volumes of
wastewater that contain high levels of degradable organics. The meat and poultry processing facilities typically
employ anaerobic lagoons to treat their wastewater, while the paper and pulp industry also use lagoons and
anaerobic reactors. The non-animal food and beverage industries produce considerable amounts of wastewater
with significant organic carbon levels and are also known to use anaerobic processes such as lagoons and
anaerobic reactors. Anaerobic reactors treating industrial effluents with biogas facilities are usually linked with
recovery of the generated CH4 for energy. Emissions from the combustion process for energy should be reported
in the Energy Sector.
The method for estimating emissions from industrial wastewater is similar to the one used for domestic
wastewater. An updated decision tree for industrial wastewater is included as updated Figure 6.3 and should be
used to determine the tier approach that is applicable to the country.
The development of emission factors and activity data is more complex because there are many types of
wastewater, and many different industries to track. The most accurate estimates of emissions for this source
category would be based on measured data from point sources. Due to the high costs of measurements and the
potentially large number of point sources, collecting comprehensive measurement data is very difficult. It is
suggested that inventory compilers use a top-down approach that includes the following general steps:
Step 1: Use Equation 6.6 to estimate total organically degradable carbon in wastewater (TOW) for industrial
sector i
Step 2: Select the pathway and systems (updated Figure 6.1) according to country activity data. Use Equation
6.5 to obtain emission factor. For each industrial sector estimate the emission factor using maximum
methane producing capacity and the average industry-specific MCF.
Step 3: Use Equation 6.4 to estimate emissions, adjust for possible sludge removal and or CH4 recovery and
sum the results.
Volume 5: Waste
Figure 6.3 (Updated) Decision tree for CH 4 emissions from industrial wastewater treatment
Start
Identify major industrial

sectors with large potentials
for CH4 emissions (see
Section 6.2.3.1).
For these Tier 3 for treatment and

industrial sectors, is a country-specific discharge:
Yes
method from individual facilities or Estimate emissions using
companies available? bottom-up data.
No
For these Are Estimate emission factors

industrial sectors, are country-specific emission using a review of
Yes No
COD and wastewater outflow factors for selected industrial industry wastewater
data available? sectors available? treatment practices.
No

Is Collect COD and Estimate CH4 emissions using country-
Industrial wastewater a Yes outflow for each specific emission factors for treatment
Yes
key category1? industrial sector. and estimate emissions from discharge
to aquatic environments using default
Tier 2 emission factors.
No
Tier 2 for discharge:

Estimate outflow using
Estimate emissions from discharge to
industrial production Yes
aquatic environments using default Tier
data.
Are activity 2 emission factors and methodology
data available to categorise
discharges by type of
waterbody?
Estimate all emissions
using default emission Tier 1 for discharge:
factors (Bo, MCF, etc.) Estimate emissions from discharge to
No
and methodology. aquatic environments using default Tier 1
emission factor and methodology
1
See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources),
for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
The general equation to estimate CH4 emissions from industrial wastewater is as follows:
EQUATION 6.4
TOTAL CH4 EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
=
CH 4 Emissions ∑ ( TOW
i
i − Si ) • EFi − Ri  • 10−6
Where:
CH4 Emissions = CH4 emissions in inventory year, Gg CH4/yr
TOWi = total organically degradable material in wastewater from industry i in inventory year,
kg COD/yr
i = industrial sector
Si = organic component removed from wastewater (in the form of sludge) in inventory
year, kg COD/yr
EFi = emission factor for industry i, kg CH4/kg COD for treatment/discharge pathway or
system(s) used in inventory year
If more than one treatment practice is used in an industry this factor would need to be
a weighted average.
Ri = amount of CH4 recovered or flared in inventory year, kg CH4/yr
10-6 = conversion of kg to Gg
The amount of CH4 which is recovered or flared is expressed as R in Equation 6.4.
This section represents an update to Section 6.2.3.2 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
As stated in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, there are significant differences in the CH4 emitting potential of different
types of industrial wastewater dependent on the type and form of constituents present in the wastewater. To the
extent possible, data should be collected to determine the maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo) in each
industry.
As mentioned before, the MCF indicates the extent to which the CH4 producing potential (Bo) is realised in each
type of treatment method. Thus, it is an indication of the degree to which the system is anaerobic. See Equation
6.5.
EQUATION 6.5
CH4 EMISSION FACTOR FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
EF=
j Bo • MCFj
Where:
EFj = emission factor for each treatment/discharge pathway or system, kg CH4/kg COD,
(See Table 6.8.)
Bo = maximum CH4 producing capacity, kg CH4/kg COD
MCFj = methane correction factor (fraction). See Table 6.8.
Good practice is to use country- and industry-sector specific data that may be available from government
authorities, industrial organisations, or industrial experts. If country-specific data are available to determine the
Bo for a particular industry, industry-specific MCFs must be developed for the calculation of CH4 emissions.
However, if country-specific data are not available, it is good practice to use the IPCC default factors listed in
Table 6.2.
In determining the MCF, which is the fraction of waste treated anaerobically, expert judgment is recommended.
A peer-reviewed survey of industry wastewater treatment practices is one useful technique for estimating these
data. Surveys should be conducted frequently enough to account for major trends in industry practices (i.e., every
3-5 years). Chapter 2, Approaches to Data Collection, in Volume 1, describes how to elicit expert judgment for
Volume 5: Waste
uncertainty ranges. Similar expert elicitation protocols can be used to obtain the necessary information for other
types of data if published data and statistics are not available. Table 6.8 includes default MCF values, which are
based on expert judgment.
In addition, the MCFs in Table 6.8 have been updated to reflect revisions to certain wastewater treatment and
discharge pathways and systems, as described in Section 6.2.2.2.
TABLE 6.8 (UPDATED)

DEFAULT MCF VALUES AND RESULTANT EFS FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Type of
treatment and EF2 EF2
MCF 1
discharge Comments (kg CH4/kg (kg CH4/kg
pathway or (Range)
BOD) COD)
system
Discharge from treated or untreated system
Discharge to are supersaturated in CH4. Nutrient
aquatic oversupply will increase CH4 emissions. 0.11
0.068 0.028
environments Environments where carbon accumulates in (0.004 – 0.27)
(Tier 1) sediments have higher potential for methane
generation.
Discharge to
aquatic
environments
other than 0.0353
are supersaturated in CH4. Nutrient 0.021 0.009
reservoirs, (0.004 – 0.06)
oversupply will increase CH4 emissions.
lakes, and
estuaries (Tier
2)
Discharge to
reservoirs, Environments where carbon accumulates in
0.193
lakes, and sediments have higher potential for methane 0.114 0.048
(0.08 – 0.27)
estuaries (Tier generation.
2)
Discharge to Sludge and/or wastewater discharge to soil
Emissions reported in Volume 4
soil may be a source of CH4 for fertilisation
Wastewater treatment system
Some CH4 can be emitted from settling
basins and other anaerobic pockets. For
Centralised, treatment plants that are receiving
0
aerobic wastewater beyond the design capacity, 0 0
(0 – 0.1)
treatment plant inventory compilers should judge the amount
of organic material removed in sludge
accordingly.
Anaerobic
reactor (e.g.,
upflow
0.8
anaerobic CH4 recovery is not considered here. 0.48 0.2
(0.8 – 1.0)
sludge blanket
digestion
(UASB))
Anaerobic
shallow lagoon Depth less than 2 metres, use expert 0.2
0.12 0.05
and facultative judgment. (0 – 0.3)
lagoons
Anaerobic 0.8
Depth more than 2 metres. 0.48 0.2
deep lagoon (0.8 – 1.0)
Constructed See 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
wetlands Wetlands (IPCC 2014)

DEFAULT MCF VALUES AND RESULTANT EFS FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Type of
treatment and EF2 EF2
MCF 1
discharge Comments (kg CH4/kg (kg CH4/kg
pathway or (Range)
BOD) COD)
system
Anaerobic
digester for See Chapter 4 for emissions methodology See Chapter 4, Table 4.1
sludge
Composting Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 4 See Chapter 4, Table 4.1
Incineration
and open Emissions reported in Volume 5, Chapter 5 See Chapter 5
burning
Sources:
1
2
Emission factors calculated using default Bo and default MCF.
3
See Annex 6A.4.
No refinement.
6.2.3.4 T IME SERI ES CONSISTENCY
No refinement.
6.2.3.5 U NCERTAINTIES
No refinement.
6.2.3.6 QA/QC, C OMPLETENESS , R EPORTI NG AND

D OCUMENTATION
No refinement.
6.3 NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM

DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
This section refines Section 6.3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by providing update and new guidance for
estimating domestic N2O emissions from WWTPs and provides new guidance on the estimation of N2O
emissions from wastewater after disposal of untreated wastewater or treated wastewater effluent into aquatic
environments by accounting for losses of nitrogen prior to disposal.

Nitrous oxide emissions can occur as emissions from WWTPs or as emissions from receiving aquatic
environments following the disposal of untreated or treated wastewater effluent. This section describes how to
estimate the N2O produced during wastewater treatment, sludge treatment that occurs within the wastewater
treatment system, and disposal of the wastewater. More recent research and field surveys have revealed that
emissions in sewer networks and from nitrification or nitrification-denitrification processes at WWTPs,
previously judged to be a minor source, may in fact result in more substantial emissions. N2O is generated as a
by-product of nitrification, or as an intermediate product of denitrification. There are many factors affecting N2O
Volume 5: Waste
emissions from wastewater treatment systems such as the temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration of the
wastewater, and the specific operational conditions.
Emissions also result from untreated wastewater or wastewater treatment effluent that is discharged into aquatic
environments. It is important to note that emissions are dependent on the nutrient-impacted status and
oxygenation level of the aquatic environment receiving the wastewater discharge. The current methodology in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines appropriately captures discharge to relatively clean and/or well-oxygenated
environments. However, in the case of discharge to nutrient-impacted waters such as eutrophic lakes, estuaries
and rivers, or locations where stagnant conditions occur, emissions can be significantly higher.
Three tiers of methods for estimating N2O emissions from this category are summarised below:
The Tier 1 method applies default values for the emission factor and activity parameters. This method is
considered good practice for countries with limited data.
The Tier 2 method follows the same method as Tier 1 but allows for incorporation of a country-specific emission
factor and country-specific activity data. For example, a specific emission factor for a prominent treatment
system based on field measurements could be incorporated under this method. Use of country-specific emission
factor in the same region or climate area is also good practice. The amount of sludge removed for incineration,
landfills, and agricultural land should be taken into consideration.
For a country with good data and advanced methodologies, a country-specific method could be applied as a Tier
3 method. For example, a more advanced country-specific method could be based on plant-specific emissions
data from large wastewater treatment facilities or using country-specific measurements of nitrogen discharged to
aquatic environments of varying nutrient-impacted status. Direct measurement methods would provide a more
accurate measurement of N2O production from each treatment plant.
A decision tree for domestic wastewater is included in new Figure 6.4.

The steps for good practice in inventory preparation for N2O from domestic wastewater are as follows:
Step 1: Use new Equation 6.10 to estimate total nitrogen in wastewater and updated Equation 6.8 to estimate
total nitrogen in wastewater effluent.
Step 2: Select the pathway and systems (see updated Figure 6.1) according to country activity data. Select the
emission factor for each domestic wastewater treatment/discharge pathway or system.
Step 3: Use updated Equation 6.9 to estimate emissions from wastewater treatment and sum the results for
each treatment pathway/system.
Step 4: Use updated Equation 6.7 to estimate emissions from effluent, accounting for losses of nitrogen that
occur within the wastewater treatment process including sludge removal and sum the results for each
pathway/system. Emissions should also be calculated for nitrogen discharged as untreated wastewater.
As described earlier, the wastewater characterisation will determine the fraction of wastewater treated or
disposed of by a particular system. To determine the use of each type of treatment or discharge system, it is good
practice to refer to national statistics (e.g., from regulatory authorities). If these data are not available,
wastewater associations or international organisations such as the WHO may have data on the system usage.
Otherwise, consultation with sanitation experts can help, and expert judgment can also be applied (see Chapter 2,
Approaches to Data Collection, in Volume 1). Urbanisation statistics may provide a useful tool, e.g., city sizes
and income distribution.
If activity data are available to categorize discharges to nutrient-impacted environments, these refinements
introduce a new Tier 3 emission factor for those discharges.
Figure 6.4 (New) Decision tree for N 2 O emissions from domestic wastewater
Start
Collect data on
Are wastewater the share of Are activity data
treatment pathways Is a country-
No wastewater available to categorise Yes
characterised? specific method
treatment in discharge by type of
available?
each pathway waterbody?
Yes
No
No
Yes Tier 1 for discharge: Tier 3 for discharge:

Estimate emissions from discharge Estimate emissions from
to reservoirs, lakes, and estuaries discharge to reservoirs, lakes, and
using default emissions factors estuaries using country-specific
and methodology. emissions data and methodology.

Are facility-specific Is a country- Estimate emissions from
N2O emissions data Yes specific method Yes treatment using country-specific
available? available? method based on measured
emissions data from facilities.
No
No

Are country- Estimate emissions from
specific emission factors treatment using country-
Yes
and/or activity data specific emission factors and/or
available? activity data and default
methodology.
No
Develop country-
Is this a key specific emissions
Yes
category1? factors and/or
collect activity data

Estimate emissions from
No treatment using default
emission factors and
methodology.
1
See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section
4.1.2 on limited resources), for discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.

N2O EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
 
 ∑ ( U i • Tij • EF j ) • TN DOM •
44
N 2O Plants=
DOM
 i, j  28
Where:
Volume 5: Waste
N2O Plants DOM = N2O emissions from domestic wastewater treatment plants in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
TNDOM = total nitrogen in domestic wastewater in inventory year, kg N/yr. See new Equation 6.10.
Ui = fraction of population in income group i in inventory year. See Table 6.5.
Tij = degree of utilisation of treatment/discharge pathway or system j, for each income group
fraction i in inventory year. See Table 6.5.
i = income group: rural, urban high income and urban low income
EFj = emission factor for treatment/discharge pathway or system j, kg N2O-N/kg N
The factor 44/28 is for the conversion of kg N2O-N into kg N2O.
It is also required to estimate direct N2O emissions arising from the discharge of wastewater (treated or untreated)
into aquatic receiving environments. The methodology for emissions from effluent is similar to that of N2O
emissions explained in Volume 4, Section 11.2.2 in Chapter 11 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2
Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. The simplified general equation is as follows:

N2O EMISSIONS FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
44
N 2 OEFFLUENT , DOM= N EFFLUENT , DOM • EFEFFLUENT •
28
Where:
N2OEFFLUENT,DOM = N2O emissions from domestic wastewater effluent in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
NEFFLUENT,DOM = nitrogen in the effluent discharged to aquatic environments, kg N/yr. See updated
Equation 6.8.
EFEFFLUENT = emission factor for N2O emissions from wastewater discharged to aquatic systems,
kg N2O-N/kg N
The factor 44/28 is the conversion of kg N2O-N into kg N2O.
New Table 6.8a includes default Tier 1 EF values for use in estimation of N2O emissions from waters receiving
treated or untreated effluent (see Annex 6A.5). These refinements to the emission factors build on the current
default value for EFEFFLUENT provided in Table 6.11 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. This existing emission factor
is adequate for all discharges when using the Tier 1 methodology. However, it is expected to generate an
underestimate of N2O emissions in the case of discharge to nutrient-impacted waters such as eutrophic lakes,
estuaries and rivers, or locations where stagnant conditions occur. Research published between 1978 and 2017
provide data indicating that higher N2O emissions occur when wastewater is discharged to nutrient-impacted
(eutrophic) or hypoxic aquatic receiving environments. Accordingly, Table 6.8a provides a new EFEFFLUENT of
0.019 g N2O-N/g N (95percent confidence limits 0.0041–0.091) for use with a Tier 3 method (see Annex 6A.6
for a discussion of information used to develop this new emission factor). The compiler can make use of many
different indications of whether this higher EF value should be employed. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are
the two most common symptoms of waterway nutrient over-enrichment (eutrophication). One possibility is to
consider the dissolved oxygen status of the receiving waters. Waterway hypoxia is becoming increasingly
common globally and definitions of hypoxia can vary depending on temperature, salinity, and the particular biota
of interest. Dissolved oxygen concentrations of between 0.1–3.0 mg/L (or <30percent of the oxygen saturation
concentration) are typically classified as hypoxic (Vaquer-Sunyer & Duarte 2008; Naqvi et al. 2010; Rabalais et
al. 2010) and are likely to result in increased N2O yields from microbial metabolism of discharged wastewater
nitrogen.
Oxygen status can be a highly dynamic indicator in practice, and compilers may have better access to
information regarding the nutrient (trophic) status of receiving waters. Various thresholds for the boundary
between mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions have been proposed, such as Secchi depth (suggestions range
from 2 to 3.6 m), total phosphorus (20–75 μg/L), total nitrogen (0.3–5 mg/L), benthic chlorophyll (70 mg/m2)
and suspended chlorophyll concentration (5–30 μg/L) (Dodds et al. 1998; Burns et al. 2009; Mateo-Sagasta &
Burke 2010). Compilers may also consider whether there have been reports of algal blooms, sulphurous odours,
fish kills or other indications of eutrophic and/or hypoxic conditions in the discharge environment. Global
datasets exist which may assist compilers in assessing the risk of nutrient impacts in different regions (Diaz et al.
2011; Xie & Ringler 2017). It is important to note that the context for application of this new Tier 3 EFEFFLUENT
factor is not necessarily the same as for nitrogen runoff from agriculture, due to the combination of reducing
conditions and high organic loading in many wastewaters which are unlikely to exist in agricultural runoff
systems.
TABLE 6.8A (NEW)

DEFAULT EF VALUES FOR DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Type of treatment and EF1 (kg N2O-
Comments Range
discharge pathway or system N/kg N)
Discharge from treated or untreated system, EFEFFLUENT
Based on limited field data and on specific
Freshwater, estuarine, and assumptions regarding the occurrence of
0.0052 0.0005 – 0.075
marine discharge (Tier 1) nitrification and denitrification in rivers
and in estuaries
Higher emissions are associated with
Nutrient-impacted and/or
nutrient-impacted/hypoxic water such as
hypoxic freshwater, estuarine,
eutrophic lakes, estuaries and rivers, or 0.0192 0.0041 – 0.091
and marine environments (Tier
locations where stagnant conditions occur.
3, if needed)
See section 6.3.1.2 for more information.
Discharge to soil Emissions reported in Volume 4
Wastewater treatment system, EFplants
Centralised, aerobic treatment
N2O is variable and can be significant 0.0161 0.00016 – 0.045
plant
Anaerobic reactor N2O is not significant 0 0 – 0.001
Anaerobic lagoons N2O is not significant 0 0 – 0.001
See 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Constructed wetlands
Inventories: Wetlands (IPCC 2014)
Septic tank N2O is not significant 0 0 – 0.001
Septic tank + land dispersal
N2O is emitted by the soil dispersal system 0.0045 0 – 0.001
field
Latrine N2O is not significant 0 0 – 0.001
Anaerobic digester for sludge N2O is not significant 0 0
Composting See Chapter 4 for emissions methodology See Chapter 4, Table 4.1
Incineration and open burning See Chapter 5 for emissions methodology See Chapter 5
Sources: Based on scientific literature and expert judgment by Lead Authors of this section.
1
See Annex 6A.5.
2
See Annex 6A.6.
The methodology to calculate the amount of N content in wastewater effluent (NEFFLUENT,DOM) presented in
Equation 6.8 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines currently does not account for the removal of ammonia-N via
nitrification-denitrification processes in the sewer and the WWTP, or the removal of N in sludge, which can
result in a significant overestimate of N discharged to aquatic receiving environments. Typical total N
concentration in raw urban sewage is about 40 mg/L (range 20–70 mg/L) (Tchobanoglous et al. 2014), whereas
effluent treated in conventional activated sludge facilities (with nitrification) has a total of about 25 mg/L. Plants
with biological nutrient removal (with denitrification) regularly achieve an effluent total N of 5 mg/L or less. The
difference is due both to N removed in sludge (see Table 2.4A (New), Chapter 2 of Volume 5 regarding the N
content of sewage sludge) versus N loss to the atmosphere (see new Figure 6.5).
Volume 5: Waste
This section updates the methodology presented in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines to estimate the amount of N
content in wastewater entering treatment (TNDOM), the loss or removal of N through the treatment process (either
through biological conversion or removal with sludge) (NREM), and the N content in wastewater discharged to
aquatic systems (NEFFLUENT,DOM).
Figure 6.5 (New) Nitrogen in domestic wastewater treatment
N2, N2O losses to

Industrial and atmosphere during
commercial protein transport and
disposed to sewer treatment
(FIND-COM)
Nitrogen in
household
products (NHH)
Nitrogen in Nitrogen in N2O
protein available Nitrogen in
protein consumed Wastewater emissions
(ProteinSUPPLY ● treated
after
FNPR) (Protein ● FNPR) treatment
wastewater
discharge
Food waste
disposed to sewer Nitrogen
(FNON-CON) removed in
sludge
NITROGEN I N DOMESTI C WASTEWATER ( TN D O M )

The activity data that are needed for estimating TNDOM in domestic wastewater include the population associated
with the wastewater, the average annual per capita protein consumed (kg/person/yr), and factors to account for N
in non-consumed protein entering the wastewater and other N from household, industrial, and commercial
sources co-discharged into the sewer system. The total N in wastewater for each treatment pathway is estimated
as follows:
EQUATION 6.10 (NEW)

TOTAL NITROGEN IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER BY TREATMENT PATHWAY
TN DOM _ j = ( Ptreatment _ j • Protein • FNPR • N HH • FNON −CON • FIND −COM )
Where:
TNDOM_j = total annual amount of nitrogen in domestic wastewater for treatment pathway j, kg N/yr
Ptreatment_j = human population who are served by the treatment pathway j, person/yr
Protein = annual per capita protein consumption, kg protein/person/yr
FNPR = fraction of nitrogen in protein, default = 0.16 kg N/kg protein
FNON-CON = factor for nitrogen in non-consumed protein disposed in sewer system, kg N/kg N. See
new Table 6.10a.
FIND-COM = factor for industrial and commercial co-discharged protein into the sewer system, kg
N/kg N
NHH = additional nitrogen from household products added to the wastewater, default is 1.1
(some country data are in new Table 6.10a).
If national statistics on protein consumed or protein supply are not available, Food Balance Sheets of FAOSTAT
can be used as activity data on per capita “protein supply quantity.” This information represents the total amount
of protein available to the population but must be adjusted to reflect the fraction of protein consumed (FPC),
according to the new Equation 6.10a.
EQUATION 6.10A (NEW)

ESTIMATION OF PROTEIN CONSUMED
Protein = ProteinSUPPLY • FPC
Where:
ProteinSUPPLY = annual per capita protein supply, kg protein/person/yr
FPC = Fraction of protein consumed. Default regional values are listed in the new Table 6.10a
Food that is not consumed may be disposed to the sewer (e.g., as result of the use of food waste disposals in
some countries) and a factor for non-consumed protein (FNON-CON) should be used to reflect this additional N
entering wastewater (see new Table 6.10a). If food waste is disposed with solid waste, it is assumed that no
additional N is entering wastewater and FNON-CON = 1.
Bath and laundry water may contain household chemicals (detergents, shampoos, softeners, dishwashing agents,
WC fresheners, cosmetics, etc.) and a factor for N from household products (NHH) should be used. The default
factor for NHH is 1.1 (Henze et al. 2008; Tjandraatmadja et al. 2008), but additional regional factors are provided
in Table 6.10a.
TABLE 6.10A (NEW)

DEFAULT FACTORS FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Protein FNON-CON2 in case Additional N
consumed2 as food waste is from
Region1
fraction of protein disposed in sewer households’
supply chemicals
Europe 0.85 1.09 1.08
1.17 (USA)
North America and Oceania 0.80 1.13
1.07 (Australia)
Industrialised Asia 0.86 1.08 No data
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.98 1.01 No data
North Africa, West and central Asia 0.90 1.06 No data
South and Southeast Asia 0.96 1.02 1.13 (India)
Latin America 0.92 1.04 No data
1
See Annex 6A.7 for a list of countries by region
2
Based on FAO (2011)
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.10B (NEW)

ESTIMATE ON USE OF FOOD WASTE DISPOSAL IN SEWER1
Share of households disposing food waste in
Country
sewer
USA 50%
Canada 10%
Australia 12%
New Zealand 30%
UK 5%
Ireland 1 – 2%
Italy Supported
Czech Republic <1% / not allowed
Denmark Rare
Belgium Restricted / not allowed
The Netherlands Not allowed
Germany Not allowed
1 Based on EPA (2008) and expert judgment by Lead Authors
Wastewater from industrial or commercial sources that is discharged into the sewer may contain protein (e.g.,
from grocery stores and butchers). The default for this fraction is 1.25 for centralised treatment and 0 for
decentralised treatment systems (septic system, latrines, discharge).
NITROGEN I N WASTEWATER EFFLUENT ( N E F F L U E N T , D O M )

The total nitrogen in wastewater effluent is estimated as follows:

TOTAL NITROGEN IN DOMESTIC WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
=
N EFFLUENT , DOM ∑ (TN DOM • T j ) • (1 − N REM , j ) 
j
Where:
NEFFLUENT,DOM = total nitrogen in the wastewater effluent discharged to aquatic environments in
inventory year, kg N/yr
TNDOM = total nitrogen in domestic wastewater in inventory year, kg N/yr. See new Equation
6.10.
Tj = degree of utilisation of treatment system j in inventory year ( ∑Ti
ij
). See Table 6.5

NREM = fraction of total wastewater nitrogen removed during wastewater treatment per
treatment type j. See new Table 6.10c. Pathways for N removal include transfer to
sludge and nitrification–denitrification with concomitant N loss to the atmosphere.
TABLE 6.10C (NEW)

WASTEWATER TREATMENT NITROGEN REMOVAL FRACTIONS (NREM)
ACCORDING TO TREATMENT TYPE
Treatment Type Default Range

No treatment 01–3 01–3
Primary (mechanical) 0.101–3 0.05 – 0.201–3
Secondary (biological) 0.401–3 0.35 – 0.551–3
Tertiary (advanced biological) 0.801–4 0.45 – 0.851–4
Septic tank 0.151–3 0.10 – 0.251–3
Septic tank + land dispersal field 0.685 0.62 – 0.735
Latrine 0.126 0.07 – 0.216
Sources:
1
Kristensen et al. (2004)
2
Van Drecht et al. (2009)
3
4
Ekama and Wentzel (2008)
5
Andreoli et al. (1979)
6
EMEP/EAA (2016)
6.3.2 Time series consistency

No refinement.
6.3.3 Uncertainties
Large uncertainties are associated with the IPCC default factors for N2O. Updated Table 6.11 below includes
uncertainty ranges based on expert judgment.
TABLE 6.11 (UPDATED)

N2O METHODOLOGY DEFAULT DATA
Definition Default Value Range
Emission Factor
EF N2O emission factor See Table 6.8a See Table 6.8a
Activity Data
P Number of people in country Country-specific ± 10 %
Protein Annual per capita protein consumption Country-specific ± 10 %
Fraction of nitrogen in protein
FNPR 0.16 0.15 – 0.17
(kg N/kg protein)
Tplant Degree of utilisation of large WWT plants Country-specific ± 20 %
1.0 for countries with no
Factor to adjust for non-consumed protein, based in-sink disposals,
0.9 – 1.2
on available protein 1.1 for countries with in-
sink disposals
FNON-CON
1.1 for countries with no
Factor to adjust for non-consumed protein, based in-sink disposals,
1.0 – 1.4
on consumed protein 1.25 for countries with in-
sink disposals
Factor to allow for co-discharge of industrial
nitrogen into sewers. For countries with significant
FIND-COM 1.25 1.0 – 1.5
fish processing plants, this factor may be higher.
Expert judgment is recommended.
Volume 5: Waste

N2O METHODOLOGY DEFAULT DATA
Definition Default Value Range
Factor to account for losses of nitrogen prior to
NREM See Table 6.10c See Table 6.10c
discharge
6.3.4 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and

Documentation
No refinement.
6.4 NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

This section refines the 2006 IPCC Guidelines by adding new guidance for estimating N2O emissions from
industrial WWTPs and refines the estimation of N2O emissions from wastewater after disposal of untreated
wastewater or wastewater treatment effluent into aquatic environments by accounting for losses of nitrogen prior
to disposal.
A decision tree for industrial wastewater is included in new Figure 6.6.

The steps for good practice in inventory preparation for N2O from industrial wastewater are as follows:
Step 1: Use new Equation 6.13 to estimate total nitrogen in wastewater.
Step 2: Select the pathway and systems (see updated Figure 6.1) according to country activity data. Select the
emission factor for each industrial wastewater treatment/discharge pathway or system.
Step 3: Use new Equation 6.11 to estimate emissions from wastewater treatment and sum the results for each
pathway/system.
Step 4: Use new Equation 6.12 to estimate emissions from effluent, accounting for losses of nitrogen that
occur within the wastewater treatment process, including sludge removal, and sum the results for each
pathway/system.
As described earlier, the wastewater characterisation will determine the fraction of wastewater treated or
disposed of by a particular system. To determine the use of each type of treatment or discharge system, it is good
practice to refer to national statistics (e.g., from regulatory authorities). If these data are not available, industry
associations may have data on the system usage. Otherwise, consultation with industry experts can help, and
expert judgment can also be applied (see Chapter 2 Approaches to Data Collection, Volume 1).
EQUATION 6.11 (NEW)

N2O EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
  44
=  ∑ (Ti. j • EFj • TN INDi )  •
N 2 O PlantsIND
 i  28
Where:
N2O PlantsIND = N2O emissions from industrial wastewater treatment plants in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
TNINDi = total nitrogen in wastewater from industry i in inventory year, kg N/yr. See new
Equation 6.13.
Ti,j = degree of utilisation of treatment/discharge pathway or system j, for each industry i in
inventory year
i = industry

EFj = emission factor for treatment/discharge pathway or system j, kg N2O-N/kg N. See Table
6.8a (New).
Volume 5: Waste
Figure 6.6 (New) Decision tree for N 2 O emissions from industrial wastewater
Start
Identify major industrial

sectors with large potentials
for N2O emissions
(see Table 6.12).
Are activity data

Is a country-
available to categorise Yes specific method
discharge by type of
available?
waterbody?
For these
industrial sectors, Tier 3 for treatment:
is a country-specific method Estimate emissions Yes
Yes No
from individual facilities using bottom-up data.
or companies No
available?
Tier 1 for discharge: Tier 3 for discharge:

Estimate emissions from Estimate emissions from
discharge to reservoirs, discharge to reservoirs, lakes,
No lakes, and estuaries using and estuaries using country-
default emissions factors and specific emissions data and
methodology. methodology.
For these Estimate emission factors

Are country-specific
industrial sectors, are using a review of industry
Yes emission factors for selected No
N and wastewater outflow wastewater treatment
industrial sectors available?
data available? practices.
No
Collect N
Is industrial and outflow
wastewater a key Yes for each Tier 2 for treatment:
category1? industrial Yes
Estimate N2O emissions
sector. using country-specific
emission factors.
No
Estimate outflow Tier 1 for treatment:

using industrial Estimate emissions using
production data. default data.
1
See Volume 1 Chapter 4, "Methodological Choice and Identification of Key Categories" (noting Section 4.1.2 on limited resources), for
discussion of key categories and use of decision trees.
It is also required to estimate N2O emissions from wastewater treatment effluent that is discharged into aquatic
environments. The methodology for emissions from effluent is like that of N2O emissions explained in Volume 4,
Section 11.2.2, Chapter 11, N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea
Application. The simplified general equation is as follows:
EQUATION 6.12 (NEW)

N2O EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
44
N 2 OEffluentIND= N EFFLUENT , IND • EFEFFLUENT •
28
Where:
N2OEffluentIND = N2O emissions from industrial wastewater effluent in inventory year, kg N2O/yr
N EFFLUENT, IND = nitrogen in the industrial wastewater effluent discharged to aquatic environments, kg
N/yr. See new Equation 6.14.
EFEFFLUENT = emission factor for N2O emissions from wastewater discharged to aquatic systems, kg
N2O-N/kg N
New Table 6.8a includes default EF values for N2O emissions.
TOTAL NI TRO GEN IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER (TN I N D )

The activity data for this source category is the amount of total nitrogen (TN) in the industrial wastewater
entering treatment (TNIND). This parameter is a function of industrial output (product) P (tonnes/yr), wastewater
generation W (m3/ton of product), and total N concentration in the untreated wastewater (kg TN/m3). See new
Equation 6.13. The following steps are required for determination of TNIND:
(i) Identify the industrial sectors that generate wastewater with large quantities of N, by evaluating
total industrial product, N in the wastewater, and wastewater produced.
(ii) Identify industrial sectors that use treatment systems with N2O emissions factors (see new Table
6.8a). Experience has shown that usually three or four industrial sectors are key.
For each selected sector estimate total N in the industrial wastewater (TNIND).
EQUATION 6.13 (NEW)

TOTAL NITROGEN IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
TNINDi = Pi • Wi • TN i
Where:
TNINDi = total nitrogen in wastewater entering treatment for industry i, kg TN/yr
i = industrial sector
Pi = total industrial product for industrial sector i, t/yr
Wi = wastewater generated for industrial sector i, m3/t product
TNi = total nitrogen in untreated wastewater for industrial sector i, kg TN/m3
Industrial production data and wastewater generation rates may be obtained from national statistics, regulatory
agencies, wastewater treatment associations or industry associations. In some cases, quantification of the N
loading in the wastewater may require expert judgment. In some countries, N content and total water usage per
sector data may be available directly from a regulatory agency. New Table 6.12 provides examples that could be
used as default values for industries that may be considered key sources of N2O. These values should be used
with caution, because they are industry-, process-, and country-specific.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6.12 (NEW)

EXAMPLES OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DATA
Industry Type Wastewater Generation W Range for W Total Nitrogen (TN) TN Range
(m3/tonne) (m3/tonne) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
Alcohol refining 242 16 – 322 2.42 0.94 – 3.862
Beer & malt 6.32 5.0 – 9.02 0.0553 0.025 – 0.083
Fish processing 52 2 – 82 0.602 0.21 – 0.982
Iron and steel
51 0.004 – 10.44 0.251 0.0004 – 0.5244
manufacturing
Meat & poultry 132 8 – 182 0.192 0.17 – 0.202
Nitrogen fertiliser 2.892 0.46 – 8.32 0.52 0.1 – 0.82
Plastics & resins 0.65 0.3 – 1.25 0.256 No range provided
Starch production 92 4– 182 0.92 0.8 – 1.102
1
2
IPCC (2014)
3
Simate et al. (2011)
4
US EPA (2002a)
5
Doorn et al. (1997)
6
Li et al. (2016)
NITROGEN REMOVED FROM WASTEWATER ( N R E M )

Nitrogen removal by different treatment facilities can range from 10–85 percent. Default values for the fraction
of nitrogen removed by type of wastewater treatment system are presented in Table 6.10c.
NITROGEN I N WASTEWATER EFFLUENT ( N E F F L U E N T , I N D )
The total nitrogen in the industrial wastewater effluent is estimated as follows:
EQUATION 6.14 (NEW)

TOTAL NITROGEN IN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
=
N EFFLUENT , IND ∑ TN INDi • T j • (1 − N REM , j ) 
j
Where:
NEFFLUENT, IND = total annual amount of nitrogen in the industrial wastewater effluent, kg N/yr
TNINDi = total nitrogen in wastewater entering treatment for industry i, kg TN/yr
Tj = degree of utilisation of treatment system j in inventory year ( ∑T i
ij
). See Table 6.5.

NREM,j = fraction of total wastewater nitrogen removed during wastewater treatment per treatment
type j. See new Table 6.10c.
6.4.2 Time series consistency

Once an industrial sector is included in the inventory calculation, it should be included for each subsequent year.
If the inventory compiler adds a new industrial sector to the calculation, then he or she should re-calculate the
entire time series so that the method is consistent from year to year. General guidance on recalculation of
estimates through time series is provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5, Time Series Consistency.
If a country decides to incorporate plant emissions into the estimate, this change must be made for the entire time
series. Potential sludge removal should be treated consistently across years in the time series.
6.4.3 Uncertainties
Uncertainty estimates for EF, P, W and TN are provided in new Table 6.13. The estimates are based on expert
judgment.
TABLE 6.13 (NEW)

DEFAULT UNCERTAINTY RANGES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Emission Factor
N2O emission factor ± 30%
Activity Data
Industrial production (P) ± 25%
Use expert judgment regarding the quality of data source to assign more
accurate uncertainty range.
Wastewater/unit production (W) These data can be very uncertain as the same sector might use different
waste handling procedures at different plants and in different countries.
The product of the parameters (W•TN) is expected to have less
TN/unit wastewater (TN) uncertainty. An uncertainty value can be attributed directly to TN
concentration. –50 %, +100% is suggested (i.e., a factor of 2).
Source: Expert Judgment by Lead Authors of this section.
6.4.4 QA/QC, Completeness, Reporting and

Documentation
QUALI TY ASSURANCE / Q UALITY CO NTROL (QA/QC)
It is good practice to conduct quality control checks and quality assurance procedures as outlined in Chapter 6,
QA/QC and Verification, of Volume 1. Below, some fundamental QA/QC procedures include:
• For industrial wastewater, inventory compilers may review the secondary data sets (e.g., from national
statistics, regulatory agencies, wastewater treatment associations or industry associations) that are used to
estimate and rank industrial TN waste output. Some countries may have regulatory control over industrial
discharges, in which cases significant QA/QC protocols may already be in place for the development of the
wastewater characteristics on an industry basis.
• For industrial wastewater, inventory compilers should cross-check values for EFs against those from other
national inventories with similar wastewater characteristics.
• If sludge removal is reported in the wastewater inventory, check for consistency with the estimates for
sludge applied to agriculture soils, sludge incinerated, and sludge deposited in solid waste disposal.
• For countries that use country-specific parameters or higher tier methods, inventory compilers should cross-
check the national estimates with emissions using the IPCC default method and parameters.
COMPLETENESS
Completeness for estimating emissions from industrial wastewater depends on an accurate characterisation of
industrial sectors that produce nitrogen-laden wastewater. In most countries, approximately 3–4 industrial sectors
will account for the majority of the nitrogenous wastewater volume, so the inventory compilers should ensure
that these sectors are covered. Periodically, the inventory compilers should re-survey industrial sources,
particularly if some industries are growing rapidly.
This category should only cover industrial wastewater treated onsite. Emissions from industrial wastewater
released into domestic sewer systems should be addressed and included with domestic wastewater.
Some sludge from industrial wastewater treatment may be incinerated or deposited in landfills or on agricultural
lands. This constitutes an amount of N that should be subtracted from effluent N. It is good practice to be
consistent across sectors: the amount of N that is removed as sludge should be equal to the amount of sludge
disposed at landfills, applied to agricultural soils, incinerated, or treated elsewhere.
Volume 5: Waste
REPORTI NG AND DOCUMENTATION

It is good practice to document and report a summary of the methods used, activity data and emission factors.
When country-specific methods and/or emission factors are used, the reasoning for the choices as well as
references to how the country-specific data (measurements, literature, expert judgment, etc.) have been derived
(measurements, literature, expert judgment, etc.) should be documented and included in the reporting.
If sludge is incinerated, landfilled, or spread on agricultural lands, the quantities of sludge and associated emissions
should be reported in the waste incineration, solid waste disposal systems, or agricultural categories, respectively.
More information on reporting and documentation can be found in Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11
Documentation, archiving and reporting.
Appendix 6A.1 Non-biogenic (fossil) CO2 emissions from

wastewater treatment and discharge: Basis for Future
Methodological Development
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines assume that organic carbon present in wastewater derives from modern (biogenic)
organic matter in human excreta or food waste (Doorn et al. 2006). Consequently, CO2 emissions from
wastewater treatment according to those Guidelines are also considered wholly biogenic and are discounted from
international greenhouse gas accounting inventories, since they do not represent a transfer of carbon from the
lithosphere to the atmosphere. In comparison, fossil organic carbon (that with turnover timescales exceeding 106
years) is considered to have a role in climate change and is accounted for in international greenhouse gas
emissions inventories. In the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, it is assumed that emissions from biogas flaring are not
significant because the CO2 emissions are of biogenic origin and the CH4 and N2O emissions are very small so
good practice in the Waste Sector does not require their estimation. If countries wish to report such emissions,
they should be reported under the Waste Sector. A discussion of emissions from flares and more detailed
information are given in Volume 2, Energy, Chapter 4.2. However, the presence of fossil organic carbon in
sewage also implies the emission of additional fossil CO2 from wastewater treatment facilities, sludge
management, and environmental recipients of treated or untreated wastewater.
Data emerging since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines indicate that wastewater contains an appreciable amount of non-
biogenic (fossil) organic carbon, with this fossil carbon thought to be derived from the use of petroleum-based
products (domestically and commercially). These products include: cosmetics; pharmaceuticals; surfactants;
detergents and food additives (Law et al. 2013). Additionally, direct dosing of synthetic, fossil-derived organic
substrates (e.g., methanol) can occur at wastewater treatment plants to enhance denitrification performance
(Schneider et al. 2015). Despite early indications of the potential for significant fossil organic carbon fractions in
sewage sludge (Turekian & Benoit 1981), fossil carbon in wastewater was first detailed by Griffith et al. (2009)
following the sampling of treated effluent from 12 predominantly domestic wastewater treatment plants within
the Hudson and Connecticut River watersheds, USA. Since then, several studies have surveyed fossil organic
carbon in wastewater from Japan (Nara et al. 2010; Toyoda et al. 2011), Australia (Law et al. 2013), Denmark
(Yoshida et al. 2014) and North America (Schneider et al. 2015).
Research published since the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Griffith et al. 2009; Law et al. 2013; Yoshida et al. 2014;
Schneider et al. 2015; Tseng et al. 2016) gives an emerging consensus figure for the fossil wastewater organic
carbon fraction at some 4–14percent; although more recent work suggests this can be as high as 28percent
(Tseng et al., 2016) or 51percent (Nara et al. 2010; recalculated by Tseng et al. 2016) in some influents.
Schneider et al. (2015) put the fossil content of activated sludge process off-gases at 10–15percent. Law et al.
(2013) put the subsequent fossil carbon fraction in anaerobic digester biogas CO2 at 2.1±0.2percent due to
greater recalcitrance of fossil carbon during anaerobic digestion, and total additional scope 1 wastewater
treatment plant emission load from previously unaccounted fossil carbon somewhere between 2–12percent.
Tseng et al. (2016) put this figure at some 13 to 24percent higher without and with energy recovery respectively.
Based on the above data, countries are encouraged to evaluate if such emissions should be reported, particularly
those countries that have higher levels of fossil carbon in wastewater. In addition, future improvements to the
IPCC Guidelines should include a method for estimating these non-biogenic emissions associated with
wastewater treatment operations and wastewater discharges.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6AP.1 (NEW)

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE INVESTIGATING FOSSIL ORGANIC CARBON IN WASTEWATER
Fossil C fraction in various
Wastewater treatment system Detection/measurement approach Reference Comments
wastewater streams
Effluent from 12 WWTPs Effluent grab samples; 14C analysed 25% of treated wastewater dissolved Griffith et al. (2009) WWTPs handle predominantly domestic
(using conventional activated via isotope ratio mass spectrometry organic carbon (DOC) and 14% of wastewater. Secondary treated effluent
sludge) sampled, USA treated wastewater particulate organic sampled only (i.e. not raw influent), so
carbon (POC) results may overestimate true fossil carbon
fraction in raw sewage, since heterotrophic
bacteria are known to preferentially utilize
young (14C-enriched) carbon for assimilation
(Raymond & Bauer 2001). Average reported
effluent DOC concentration was 8.7 mg/L.
Four large activated sludge Range of sampling locations Fossil fraction of total organic carbon Law et al. (2013) Higher fossil C fractions in WWTPs
WWTPs in Brisbane, Australia (influent, primary- and secondary- (TOC) in domestic WWTP influent 4– receiving industrial wastewater load.
(two receiving domestic treated effluent, waste activated 7% and 8–14% for WWTPs receiving Equivalent concentrations of fossil organic
sewage and two receiving 15% sludge (WAS), digested biosolids) 15% industrial load (5–14% overall carbon in raw wastewater were between 6–35
industrial load) range); ≈29–50% of this influent mg/L. Majority of fossil organic carbon in
fossil C is transformed to CO2 during raw wastewater is present in particulate form
secondary activated sludge treatment (>80%; 5 to 29 mg/L), whereas dissolved
(1.4–6.3% of influent TOC). Higher fossil carbon levels are relatively small (1–6
fossil C fraction in WAS from mg/L).
WWTPs receiving industrial load (8–
14%) versus domestic WWTPs (6–
7%). 2.1(±0.2)% of biogas CO2 is
fossil in origin.
Influent to Avedøre WWTP, Single 24-hour flow proportionate 14(±3)% in influent wastewater Yoshida et al. (2014) Avedøre WWTP receives 15% industrial
Denmark composite influent sample collected load from adjacent pharmaceuticals industry.
in February 2013. Radiocarbon Figure of 14% is corrected for cellulosic
isotope ratio method (ASTM- biogenic carbon from toilet paper which may
D6866-12). contain elevated levels of 14C due to
historical atomic bomb detonations and
underestimate fossil C fraction.
14C content of emitted CO
Modified Ludzack–Ettinger 2 11.4–15.1% (mean 12.83%) based on Schneider et al. (2015)
(MLE) activated sludge measured twice a day for five days measured CO2 emissions from
process with biological in early spring using floating secondary treatment reactor
nitrification–denitrification, chambers
USA
Three municipal WWTPs and Raw and partially treated 2–28% in the primary influent Tseng et al. (2016) Article provides a tabulation of results from 6
waste stabilisation ponds, two wastewater, gas and sludge samples separate research papers.
industrial WWTPs taken during 2010–2013
TABLE 6AP.1 (NEW) (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE INVESTIGATING FOSSIL ORGANIC CARBON IN WASTEWATER
Fossil C fraction in various
Wastewater treatment system Detection/measurement approach Reference Comments
wastewater streams
Assumed conventional Fresh domestic sewage, primary- ∆14C values (‰) of sewage DOC was Nara et al. (2010) No information on relative fossil C fraction
activated sludge-based WWTP treated and secondary-treated more negative (14C ages in the order given.
with primary gravity wastewater sampled of ≈1000–5000 years) than nearby
sedimentation, Japan lake and river water; no fossil C
fraction given.
A2O WWTP, Japan 13 wastewater samples collected δ13C signature of −50.7‰ (depleted Toyoda et al. (2011) WWTP received municipal wastewater
along the treatment train during with respect to background air)
March, 2008
Volume 5: Waste
Annex 6A.1 Summary data for pit latrine use, no sanitation

facility, and groundwater use by country
TABLE 6A.1 (NEW)
SUMMARY DATA FOR PIT LATRINE USE, NO SANITATION FACILITY, AND GROUNDWATER USE BY COUNTRY
Pit Latrine Use Groundwater
Data Report No Sanitation
Country for Sanitation Use for
Source1 Year Facility (%)
(%) Drinking (%)
Afghanistan MICS 2010–2011 42.5 17.7 62.9
Albania DHS 2008–2009 24.0 0.0 20.8
Algeria MICS 2006 2.2 4.9 13.4
Angola MICS 2001 31.0 38.7 37.5
Armenia DHS 2010 30.4 0.0 2.5
Azerbaijan DHS 2006 58.8 0.3 25.7
Bangladesh DHS 2007 60.1 7.5 90.8
Belarus MICS 2005 27.5 0.0 12.5
Belize MICS 2006 40.7 2.1 7.5
Benin DHS 2006 11.7 69.5 38.6
Bhutan MICS 2010 52.7 3.4 1.5
Bolivia DHS 2008 25.7 28.4 7.9
Bosnia and
MICS 2006 2.5 0.1 15.7
Herzegovina
Botswana MICS 2000 57.2 16.2 2.9
Brazil DHS 1996 42.2 21.3
Burkina Faso MICS 2006 1.0 62.6 68.9
Burundi MICS 2005 92.7 3.0 69.0
Cambodia DHS 2010 5.7 55.3 50.0
Cameroon MICS 2006 82.6 7.5 49.9
Central African
MICS 2006 75.4 22.3 69.1
Republic
Chad DHS 2004 24.3 74.1 77.2
China CHS04 2004 49.9 2.3 20.1
Colombia DHS 2010 0.7 4.8 3.2
Comoros MICS 2000 95.0 0.7 7.9
Congo DHS 2005 84.4 10.2 30.6
Côte d'Ivoire MICS 2006 42.7 34.0 51.8
Cuba MICS 2010–2011 25.7 1.0 18.2
Democratic People's
MICS 2009 37.4 0.0 10.8
Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of
MICS 2010 80.0 14.5 59.1
the Congo
Djibouti MICS 2006 73.4 3.9 2.7
Dominican Republic DHS 2007 47.6 36.0 9.7
Egypt DHS 2008 0.4 4.0
Eritrea DHS 2002 9.0 74.3 45.2
TABLE 6A.1 (NEW) (CONTINUED)

(%) Drinking (%)
Ethiopia DHS 2011 56.0 38.2 50.6
Gabon DHS 2000 92.8 3.0 40.0
Gambia MICS 2005–2006 80.6 4.4 41.0
Georgia MICS 2005 57.8 0.0 25.7
Ghana MICS 2010–2011 56.6 0.5 0.1
Guatemala DHS 1998–1999 40.9 13.2 14.9
Guinea DHS 2005 67.2 30.3 60.7
Guinea-Bissau MICS 2006 4.0 31.1 79.1
Guyana DHS 2009 43.3 1.0 3.5
Haiti DHS 2005–2006 32.0 0.0 45.0
Honduras DHS 2005–2006 39.8 16.7 15.8
India DHS 2005–2006 12.9 56.2 58.6
Indonesia DHS 2007 3.8 8.1 52.3
Iraq MICS 2006 28.9 2.5 3.4
Jamaica MICS 2005 77.2 0.6 3.3
Jordan DHS 2009 43.5 0.0 0.0
Kazakhstan MICS 2006 62.3 0.0 22.5
Kenya DHS 2008–2009 67.3 14.5 41.4
Kyrgyzstan MICS 2005–2006 82.0 0.1 10.1
Lao People's
MICS 2006 31.7 50.1 48.7
Democratic Republic
Lesotho DHS 2009 66.8 35.6 36.2
Liberia DHS 2007 20.1 54.7 76.2
Madagascar DHS 2008–2009 35.1 43.7 53.3
Malawi DHS 2010 84.9 9.9 75.3
Maldives DHS 2009 27.8 1.0 1.3
Mali DHS 2006 60.2 19.6 69.9
Mauritania MICS 2007 35.1 45.5 37.7
Mongolia MICS 2005 67.1 13.4 60.7
Montenegro MICS 2005–2006 7.7 0.3 9.2
Morocco DHS 2003–2004 1.7 15.9 16.3
Mozambique MICS 2008 52.7 41.8 55.9
Myanmar MICS 2009–2010 74.9 7.0 73.6
Namibia DHS 2006–2007 11.7 53.4 16.6
Nepal DHS 2011 21.0 38.4 46.9
Nicaragua DHS 2001 59.1 13.9 25.3
Niger DHS 2006 21.5 78.0 74.3
Nigeria MICS 2007 58.9 27.7 47.6
Pakistan DHS 2006–2007 13.7 28.4 55.6
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6A.1 (NEW) (CONTINUED)

(%) Drinking (%)
Peru DHS 2011 1.9 12.0 6.6
Philippines DHS 2008 11.7 9.6 39.0
Republic of Moldova DHS 2005 62.5 0.0 56.0
Rwanda DHS 2010 96.6 1.1 59.0
Samoa DHS 2009 10.0 0.1 3.8
Sao Tome and Principe DHS 2008–2009 23.1 57.7 5.9
Senegal DHS 2010–2011 57.1 16.5 27.6
Serbia MICS 2010 4.5 0.0 8.5
Sierra Leone MICS 2010 63.4 28.9 54.1
Somalia MICS 2006 37.2 53.8 25.6
South Africa DHS 2003 36.7 8.1 3.8
Sudan MICS 2000 55.2 32.4 40.7
Suriname MICS 2006 19.6 6.3 3.1
Swaziland MICS 2010 69.7 15.4 19.3
Syrian Arab Republic MICS 2006 18.2 1.0 7.7
Tajikistan MICS 2005 85.5 0.4 14.2
TFYR Macedonia MICS 2005 6.9 3.1 7.0
Thailand MICS 2005–2006 1.4 0.8 12.3
Timor-Leste DHS 2009–2010 28.0 35.8 48.7
Togo MICS 2010 31.5 55.7 55.2
Trinidad and Tobago MICS 2006 15.0 0.1 1.2
Turkey DHS 2003 22.8 0.5 7.3
Turkmenistan DHS 2000 71.3 0.6 22.9
Uganda DHS 2006 66.4 11.8 73.5
Ukraine DHS 2007 47.2 0.0 28.0
United Republic of
DHS 2010 78.8 15.9 48.3
Tanzania
Uzbekistan MICS 2006 87.4 0.0 20.1
Vanuatu MICS 2007 77.3 3.2 22.7
Venezuela MICS 2000 6.7 4.4 2.1
Viet Nam MICS 2010–2011 18.2 6.4 43.7
Yemen MICS 2006 42.1 21.4 35.9
Zambia DHS 2007 57.1 23.5 47.1
Zimbabwe DHS 2010–2011 42.6 28.3 64.0
Sources:
1
MICS: Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, UNICEF (http://www.childinfo.org/mics.html); DHS: Demographic and Health Surveys,
USAID (http://www.measuredhs.com); CHS04: Economic, Population, Nutrition, and Health Survey, data accessed from WHO/UNICEF
Joint Monitoring Programme reports (http://wssinfo.org)
Annex 6A.2 Derivation of the maximum CH4 producing potential

(Bo) for domestic wastewater
The maximum CH4 producing potential (Bo) for domestic wastewater is calculated theoretically by the anaerobic
decomposition of glucose considering the total degradation of organic matter:
C6 H12 O6 → 3CO2 + 3CH 4

One mole of glucose weighs 180 g and produces 3 moles of methane which weighs 3 × 16 = 48 g. Therefore, the
methane production rate per gram of glucose is 48 g /180 g = 0.27 g methane / g glucose.
The complete oxidation of one mole of glucose (180 g) requires six moles of oxygen (6 × 32 g = 192 g)
C6 H12 O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6 H 2 O

Then, the oxygen demand rate per gram of glucose is 192 g / 180 g = 1.067 g oxygen / g glucose
Finally, the maximum CH4 producing potential (Bo) for domestic wastewater based of COD content is 48 g CH4
/ 192 g oxygen = 0.25 kg CH4 / kg COD.
The COD/BOD ratio of a specific wastewater indicates the amount of organic matter difficult to degrade. For
domestic wastewater, a typical COD/BOD ratio is 2.4 based on empirical tests. However, the ratio between the
components in any given domestic wastewater stream may vary due to contributions from other sources,
particularly wastewater contributions from commercial or industrial sources. The expected range of COD/BOD
ratios is between 1.5 and 3.5 (Henze et al. 2008).
Inventory compilers should compare country-specific data on COD/BOD ratio in domestic wastewater to IPCC
default values of 2.4. If inventory compilers use country-specific COD/BOD ratio, they should provide
documented justification why their country-specific values are more appropriate for their national circumstances.
It should be noted that the emission factors are made up of a) the maximum CH4 producing capacity (Bo) and b)
MCF which indicates the extent to which the Bo is released in each wastewater treatment/discharge pathways or
systems. If a country chooses to introduce country-specific data for Bo based on measured composition of
wastewater, they must also update the MCF because the MCFs were developed using the default Bo values.
Volume 5: Waste
Annex 6A.3 Estimation of default methane conversion factors for

CH4 in centralised wastewater treatment plants treating domestic
wastewater
We reviewed scientific literature to find measured CH4 emissions from full-scale domestic wastewater treatment
plants (excluding anaerobic sludge digestion). Although much literature exists, relatively few studies relate to
full-scale treatment plants and provide key information such as influent organics in wastewater or organics
removed in sludge. We reviewed and accepted data from 14 wastewater treatment plants. MCFs were calculated
from data presented in studies, including measured CH4 emissions from wastewater treatment plant (not
including sludge digesters), influent organics in wastewater, estimates of organics removed in sludge, and the
IPCC default Bo value. Some data were not accepted for use because the treatment system co-treated a
significant percentage of non-domestic wastewater, such as food waste. The references used, along with the type
of treatment system studied and the resulting MCF, are listed in Table 6A.2. Although CH4 emissions vary by
the type of wastewater treatment system used, more on-site exhaustive monitoring data are required to develop
different MCFs for different treatment processes. Overall, an MCF of 0.03 was calculated for aerobic wastewater
treatment systems with a standard deviation of 0.024 and a range of 0.003–0.09.
TABLE 6A.2 (NEW)

MCFS BASED ON MEASURED CH4 IN FULL-SCALE DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Type of treatment process
Reference MCF1
(Name of plant)
Activated sludge (Stickney) Bellucci et al. (2010) 0.017
Activated sludge (Northside) Bellucci et al. (2010) 0.004
Activated sludge (Egan) Bellucci et al. (2010) 0.014
Activated sludge Czepiel et al. (1993) 0.013
Biological nutrient removal (Kralingseveer) Daelman et al. (2013) 0.03
Biological nutrient removal (Kortenoord) Daelman et al. (2013) 0.02
Biological nutrient removal (Papendrecht) Daelman et al. (2013) 0.04
Sequencing batch reactor (Holbæk) Delre et al. (2017) 0.038
Activated sludge (Källby) Delre et al. (2017) 0.048
Biological nutrient removal (Lundtofte) Delre et al. (2017) 0.014
Biological nutrient removal (Lynetten) Delre et al. (2017) 0.015
Activated sludge Kozak et al. (2009) 0.09
5-stage Bardenpho Kyung et al. (2015) 0.07
Anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O) process Wang et al. (2011) 0.003
1
MCF shown was calculated from data presented in studies, including measured CH4 emissions from wastewater treatment plant (not
including sludge digesters), influent organics in wastewater, estimates of organics removed in sludge, and the IPCC default Bo value.
Annex 6A.4 Calculation of MCF for methane emissions from

sewage discharges
Data were obtained from a recent global review article by Deemer et al. (2016) for CO2 and CH4 emissions from
different environments. At equilibrium with current atmospheric conditions, CO2 is relatively soluble (over 500
μg/L) compared with CH4 (about 40 ng/L) at 25 degrees Celsius. Therefore, a reliance on studies that only
measure diffusive flux will underestimate the relative emission of CH4. Deemer et al. (2016) raised previous
estimates of CH4 emissions by excluding data from sources that did not include assessment of ebullition.
Regarding emissions from all kinds of reservoirs, this exclusion had the effect of increasing the relative CH4 flux
(CH4-C/(CH4-C + CO2-C)) to 27 percent (first data row in Table 6A.3) which is higher than previously thought.
For an estimate of this effect on the other data, it is noted that about 52 percent of the data listed by Deemer and
colleagues included ebullition, and for this about 40–60 percent of the total ebullitive and diffusive flux was due
to ebullition. To illustrate the potential effect of adding ebullition to the reservoir studies a scaling factor of 1.48
= 0.52/1 + 0.48/0.5 is applied for reservoirs and hydroelectric reservoirs in the table. Deemer et al. (2016) used
(Bastviken et al. 2011) for an estimate of methane emissions from lakes and the original data (Table 1 in
Bastviken and colleauges) suggests a smaller correction factor for that lake data of 1.23. For rivers, Stanley et al.
(2016) reports a relationship similar to Deemer et al’s observation – that of total flux, 46 percent is ebullitive
among those studies reporting both kinds of fluxes (see Table 1 in Stanley et al. 2016). Correcting the average of
the larger dataset in Stanley et al. (2016) with this figure, suggests a range of riverine yields of 0.4–6 percent.
Note that the riverine CO2 figure in Deemer et al. (2016) of 7,954 mg C/m2/day was based on original 1,800 Tg
C/y datum in Raymond et al. (2013), which has been reduced using the Lauerwald et al. (2015) updated estimate
of 659 Tg C/y figure and is thus 2,872 mg C/m2/day.
Considering the data in Table 6A.3, the average yield for reservoirs and lakes is 19percent (8–27 percent) while
the average for rivers is much lower at 3.5 percent (0.4–6 percent). Data ranges rather than standard deviations
are given owing to the potential for overlap between the underlying datasets. These CH4 yield data are used to
estimate the MCF. On the same basis as the Bo calculation, 1.067 kg of O2 are required to oxidise one kg of
glucose. Considering that 40 percent of glucose is carbon, this implies the COD of glucose on a carbon basis is
2.67 kg COD/kg C. So 0.19 kg CH4-C/kg (CH4-C + CO2-C) corresponds to 0.071 kg CH4-C/kg COD. Taking a
global perspective, Tranvik et al. (2009) state that approximately 1.4 Pg of carbon is emitted from inland waters
at CO2 and a further 0.1 Pg as CH4, the remainder being sequestered in sediments or lost to the ocean. Thus of
3.0 Pg of carbon inputs, 50 percent is emitted to the atmosphere. Correcting the previous figure for this yield and
converting to kg CH4 suggests 0.071 [kg CH4-C/kg COD] × (12.01 + 1.00797×4)/12.01 [kg CH4/kg CH4-C] ×
0.5 = 0.048 kg CH4/kg COD. For use in conjunction with Bo then MCF = 0.048/0.25 = 0.19 (0.08–0.27) for lakes
and reservoirs. In the same way, MCF = 0.035 (0.004–0.06) for rivers and streams.
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6A.3 (NEW)

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE INVESTIGATING METHANE EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
CH4 flux corrected
Type of CH4 flux (mg n (reservoirs, for ebullition CO2 flux (mg Approx.
Yield Reference
Waterbody C/m2/day) lakes or rivers) C/m2/day) revised yield
(mg C/m2/day)
Reservoirs 120 75 120 330 27% 27% Deemer et al. (2016)
Reservoirs CH4: Bastviken et al. (2011), St. Louis
82–96 161 121–142 498 14–16% 20–22% et al. (2000); CO2: St Louis et al.
(2000)
Hydroelectric Barros et al. (2011); Li and Zhang
24–112 85, 104 48–224 386–660 6–15% 8–20%
reservoirs (2014)
Lakes CH4: Bastviken et al. (2011); CO2
40 66 80 216 16% 19%
Raymond et al. (2013)
Rivers CH4: Bastviken et al. (2011), Stanley
6–98 21, 26 11–183 2872 0.21–3.3% 0.39–6.0% et al. 2016; CO2: Lauerwald et al.
(2015)
Annex 6A.5 Estimation of default emission factors for N2O in

domestic wastewater treatment plants
We reviewed scientific literature to find emission factors from full-scale domestic wastewater treatment plants.
Although much literature exists regarding N2O emission from wastewater treatment processes, relatively few
studies relate to full-scale treatment plants and provide key information such as influent nitrogen load. We
collected 30 data and found that N2O emission correlated with influent nitrogen load (Figure 6A.1). Emission
factors and references are listed in Table 6A.4 and Table 6A.5. Specific and relatively new/uncommon treatment
processes such as membrane bioreactors were intentionally excluded from this list in order to develop emission
factors for the most typical and widely used treatment processes globally. Although N2O emissions vary by the
type of nitrogen removal process used, more on-site exhaustive monitoring data are required to develop different
N2O emission factors for different treatment processes.
Figure 6A.1 (New) Correlation between influent total nitrogen (TN) loading and N 2 O emissions
TABLE 6A.4 (NEW)

DEFAULT N2O EMISSION FACTORS FOR DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
N2O emission factor (kg N2O-N/kg N) SD Maximum Minimum
0.016 0.012 0.045 0.00016
Volume 5: Waste
TABLE 6A.5 (NEW)

N2O EMISSION FACTORS IN FULL-SCALE DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Type of treatment N2O emission factor
Categories References
process1 (kg N2O-N/kg N)
Biological Nitrogen Daelman et al. (2015)
AO 0.028
Removal (BNR)
AO BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.021
AO BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.045
A2O BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.013
SBR BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.023
OD BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.0080
IA BNR Kimochi et al. (1998) 0.0005
EA BNR Foley et al. (2010) 0.015
A2O BNR Wang et al. (2016) 0.013
CAS BNR Aboobakar et al. (2013) 0.00036
AO BNR Rodriguez-Caballero et al. (2014) 0.12
OD BNR Masuda et al. (2018) 0.00016
AO BNR Masuda et al. (2018) 0.0013
AO BNR Masuda et al. (2018) 0.0049
Separate-stage BNR BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.00019
Bardenpho BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0036
Step-feed BNR BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.011
MLE BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0007
MLE BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0006
OD BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0003
Step-feed BNR BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.015
Step feed, plug flow BNR Ni et al. (2015); Pan et al. (2016) 0.019
SBR BNR Bao et al. (2016) 0.029
SBR BNR Rodriguez-Caballero et al. (2015) 0.038
Plug flow Non-BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.004
Plug flow Non-BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0062
Step-feed non-BNR Non-BNR Ahn et al. (2010) 0.0018
Plug flow Non-BNR Masuda et al. (2015) 0.023
AO Non-BNR Bao et al. (2016) 0.013
IA Non-BNR de Mello et al. (2013) 0.0016
1
AO; Anaerobic-oxic activated sludge process, A2O; Anaerobic-anoxic-oxic activated sludge process, SBR; Sequencing batch reactor, OD;
Oxidation ditch, IA; Intermittent aeration process, EA; Extended aeration process, CAS; Conventional activated sludge process, MLE;
Modified Ludzack-Ettinger.
Annex 6A.6 Estimation of default emission factors for N2O in

effluent
Table 6.11 in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines was based on expert judgment. For the refinement of these guidelines,
literature was reviewed for reported yields of N2O from environments with known oxygen saturation conditions.
A total of 62 data points for well-oxygenated environments and 59 for low-oxygen environments were obtained
from the following literature: Kaplan et al. (1978); McElroy et al. (1978); Goreau et al. (1980); McCarthy et al.
(1984); Seitzinger et al. (1984); Kaplan and Wofsy (1985); Seitzinger (1988); Yoshida (1988); Mantoura et al.
(1993); Kester et al. (1997); Seitzinger and Kroeze (1998); Punshon and Moore (2004); Frame and Casciotti
(2010); Beaulieu et al. (2011); Yan et al. (2012); Zhu et al. (2013); Ji et al. (2015); Wang et al. (2015); He et al.
(2017).
These data suggested a mean yield of 0.019 kg N2O-N/kg-N for low oxygen environments (for use in Tier 3
methodologies, if needed) and 0.005 kg N2O-N/kg-N for well-oxygenated environments (default Tier 1 factor).
Calculation of a simple standard deviation is inappropriate for this data, since it is a proportion. Therefore,
confidence intervals for these averages were calculated using the adjusted Wald method for small proportions
(Bonett & Price 2012). The resulting 95percent (two tailed) limits are 0.0041–0.0912 and 0.0–0.0753
respectively.
Volume 5: Waste
Annex 6A.7 List of countries by region included in Table 6.10a

Table 6.10a in Section 6.3.1.3 presents default factors for protein consumed as a fraction of protein supplied,
fraction of food not consumed and disposed in sewer, and a fraction to represent additional nitrogen introduced
to the sewer from household chemicals. The information is provided be geographic region. The list of countries
by region can be found in Table 6A.6.
TABLE 6A.6 (NEW)

LIST OF COUNTRIES BY REGION INCLUDED IN TABLE 6.10A
Region Country
Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Europe Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Macedonia, Moldova,
Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian
Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Ukraine, United Kingdom
North America and Oceania Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States of America
Industrialized Asia Japan, China, South Korea
Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central
African Rep., Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Cote d’Ivoire,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea,
Sub-Saharan Africa Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,
Lebanon, Libya, Mongolia, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
North Africa, West and Central Asia
Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Utd Arab Emirates,
Uzbekistan, Yemen
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos,
South and Southeast Asia Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Vietnam
Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Dominican Rep., Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,
Latin America
Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela
References
References newly cited in the 2019 Refinement
Aboobakar, A., Cartmell, E., Stephenson, T., Jones, M., Vale, P. & Dotro, G. (2013) Nitrous oxide Emissions
and Dissolved Oxygen Profiling in a Full-Scale Nitrifying Activated Sludge Treatment Plant. Water
Research 47(2): 524-534.
Ahn, J.H., Kim, S., Park, H., Rahm, B., Pagilla, K. & Chandran, K. (2010) N2O Emissions from Activated
Sludge Processes, 2008-2009: Results of a National Monitoring Survey in the United States. Environ Sci
Technol 44(12): 4505-4511.
Andreoli, A., Bartilucci, N., Forgione, R. & Reynolds, R. (1979) Nitrogen Removal in a Subsurface Disposal
System. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) 51(4): 841-854.
Bao, Z., Sun, S. & Sun, D. (2016) Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emission from A/O and SBR Wastewater
Treatment Plants in Beijing, China. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 108: 108-114.
Barros, N., Cole, J.J., Tranvik, L.J., Prairie, Y.T., Bastviken, D., Huszar, V.L.M., del Giorgio, P. & Roland, F.
(2011) Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nature Geoscience
4: 593.
Bastviken, D., Tranvik, L.J., Downing, J.A., Crill, P.M. & Enrich-Prast, A. (2011) Freshwater Methane
Emissions Offset the Continental Carbon Sink. Science 331(6013): 50.
Beaulieu, J.J., Tank, J.L., Hamilton, S.K., Wollheim, W.M., Hall, R.O., Mulholland, P.J., Peterson, B.J.,
Ashkenas, L.R., Cooper, L.W., Dahm, C.N., Dodds, W.K., Grimm, N.B., Johnson, S.L., McDowell, W.H.,
Poole, G.C., Valett, H.M., Arango, C.P., Bernot, M.J., Burgin, A.J., Crenshaw, C.L., Helton, A.M., Johnson,
L.T., O'Brien, J.M., Potter, J.D., Sheibley, R.W., Sobota, D.J. & Thomas, S.M. (2011) Nitrous oxide
emission from denitrification in stream and river networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(1): 214-219.
Bellucci, F., Kozak, J.A., Heraty, L., Carbone, J., Sturchio, N.C., Connor, C., Kollias, L. & Lanyon, R. (2010)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Three Chicago Wastewater Treatment Plants. In: Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2010, pp. 4179-4199. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation,
WEFTEC 2010.
Bonett, D.G. & Price, R.M. (2012) Adjusted Wald Confidence Interval for a Difference of Binomial Proportions
Based on Paired Data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 37(4): 479-488.
Burns, N., McIntosh, J. & Scholes, P. (2009) Strategies for Managing the lakes of the Rotorua District, New
Zealand. Lake and Reservoir Management 25(3): 284-296.
Castro-Morales, K., Macías-Zamora, J.V., Canino-Herrera, S.R. & Burke, R.A. (2014) Dissolved Methane
Concentration and Flux in the Coastal Zone of the Southern California Bight-Mexican Sector: Possible
Influence of Wastewater. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 144: 65-74.
Conrad, R. & Seiler, W. (1988) Methane and hydrogen in seawater (Atlantic Ocean). Deep Sea Research Part A.
Oceanographic Research Papers 35(12): 1903-1917.
Czepiel, P.M., Crill, P.M. & Harriss, R.C. (1993) Methane emissions from municipal wastewater treatment
processes. Environmental Science & Technology 27(12): 2472-2477.
Daelman, M.R., van Voorthuizen, E.M., van Dongen, U.G., Volcke, E.I. & van Loosdrecht, M.C. (2012)
Methane Emission During Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Water Research 46(11): 3657-3670.
Daelman, M.R., van Voorthuizen, E.M., van Dongen, U.G., Volcke, E.I. & van Loosdrecht, M.C. (2015)
Seasonal and Diurnal Variability of N2O Emissions from a Full-Scale Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Sci Total Environ 536: 1-11.
Daelman, M.R.J., Voorthuizen, E.M.v., Dongen, L.G.J.M.v., Volcke, E.I.P. & Loosdrecht, M.C.M.v. (2013)
Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Municipal Wastewater Treatment – Results from a Long-Term
Study. Water Science and Technology 67(10): 2350-2355.
Volume 5: Waste
Davies, P.S. (2005) The Biological Basis of Wastewater Treatment. In: Strathkelvin Instruments Ltd, Glasgow
UK. Available at <http://www.s-can.nl/media/1000154/thebiologicalbasisofwastewatertreatment.pdf>.
de Mello, W.Z., Ribeiro, R.P., Brotto, A.C., Kligerman, D.C., Piccoli, A.d.S. & Oliveira, J.L.M. (2013) Nitrous
oxide emissions from an intermittent aeration activated sludge system of an urban wastewater treatment plant.
Química Nova 36: 16-20.
Deemer, B.R., Harrison, J.A., Li, S.Y., Beaulieu, J.J., Delsontro, T., Barros, N., Bezerra-Neto, J.F., Powers, S.M.,
dos Santos, M.A. & Vonk, J.A. (2016) Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A New
Global Synthesis. Bioscience 66(11): 949-964.
Delre, A., Mønster, J. & Scheutz, C. (2017) Greenhouse gas emission quantification from wastewater treatment
plants, using a tracer gas dispersion method. Science of The Total Environment 605-606: 258-268.
Diaz, R., Selman, M. & Chique, C. (2011) Global Eutrophic and Hypoxic Coastal Systems. World Resources
Institute. Eutrophication and Hypoxia: Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters. In: World Resources Institute,
<https://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/eutrophication-hypoxia-map-data-set>.
Diaz-Valbuena, L.R., Leverenz, H.L., Cappa, C.D., Tchobanoglous, G., Horwath, W.R. & Darby, J.L. (2011)
Methane, Carbondioxide, and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Septic Tank Systems. Environ Sci Technol
45(7): 2741-2747.
Dodds, W.K., Jones, J.R. & Welch, E.B. (1998) Suggested classification of stream trophic state: distributions of
temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Research 32(5): 1455-1462.
Doorn, M.R.J., Strait, R.P., Barnard, W. & Eklund, B. (1997) Estimate of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment. In: U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-97-091, September
1997.
Doorn, M.R.J., Towprayoon, S., Vieira, S.M.M., Irving, W., Palmer, C., Pipatti, R. & Wang, C. (2006) Chapter 6:
Wastewater Treatment and Discharge. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Volume 5 - Waste, eds. H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara & K. Tanabe, The National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayama,
Kanagawa, Japan.
Ekama, G.A. & Wentzel, M.C. (2008) Organic Matter Removal. In: Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Principles, Modelling and Design. Henze, M., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Ekama, G.A. and Brdjanovic, D.
(Eds), pp. 53-86,. IWA Publishing.
EMEP/EAA. (2016) 2016 EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook: 5.D Wastewater handling. In:
European Environment Agency, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at
<https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2016/part-b-sectoral-guidance-chapters/5-
waste/5-d-wastewater-handling-2016/view>.
EPA. (2008) Examining the Use of Food Waste Disposers. In: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ireland.
FAO. (2011) Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. In: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Foladori, P., Andreottola, G. & Ziglio, G. (2010) Sludge composition and production in full-plants. In: Sludge
Reduction Technologies in Wastewater Treatment Plants, pp. 6-19. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Yuan, Z. & Lant, P. (2010) Nitrous Oxide Generation in Full-Scale Biological Nutrient
Removal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Research 44(3): 831-844.
Foley, J., Yuan, Z., Keller, J., Senante, E., Chandran, K., Willis, J., Shah, A., Loosdrecht, M.v. & Voorthuizen,
E.v., eds. (2015) N2O and CH4 Emission from Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems: State of the
Science Report and Technical Report. GWRC Report Series. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Frame, C.H. & Casciotti, K.L. (2010) Biogeochemical Controls and Isotopic Signatures of Nitrous Oxide
Production by a Marine Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacterium. Biogeosciences 7(9): 2695-2709.
Goreau, T.J., Kaplan, W.A., Wofsy, S.C., McElroy, M.B., Valois, F.W. & Watson, S.W. (1980) Production of
NO2– and N2O by nitrifying bacteria at reduced concentrations of oxygen. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 40(3): 526-532.
Graham, J.P. & Polizzotto, M.L. (2013) Pit Latrines and their Impacts on Groundwater Quality: A Systematic
Review. Environ Health Perspect 121(5): 521-530.
Griffith, D.R., Barnes, R.T. & Raymond, P.A. (2009) Inputs of Fossil Carbon from Wastewater Treatment Plants
to U.S. Rivers and Oceans. Environmental Science & Technology 43(15): 5647-5651.
Grunwald, M., Dellwig, O., Beck, M., Dippner, J.W., Freund, J.A., Kohlmeier, C., Schnetger, B. & Brumsack,
H.J. (2009) Methane in the Southern North Sea: Sources, Spatial Distribution and Budgets. Estuarine
Coastal and Shelf Science 81(4): 445-456.
Guisasola, A., de Haas, D., Keller, J. & Yuan, Z. (2008) Methane formation in sewer systems. Water Research
42(6–7): 1421-1430.
Hammer, M.J. & Hammer Jr., M.J. (2012) Water and wastewater technology Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, N.J.
He, Y., Wang, X., Chen, H., Yuan, X., Wu, N., Zhang, Y., Yue, J., Zhang, Q., Diao, Y. & Zhou, L. (2017) Effect
of Watershed Urbanization on N2O Emissions from the Chongqing Metropolitan River Network, China.
Atmospheric Environment 171: 70-81.
Henze, M., Loosdrecht, M.C.M.v., Ekama, G.A. & Brdjanovic, D. (2008) Biological Wastewater Treatment:
Principles Modelling and Design. London, UK: IWA Publishing.
IPCC. (2014) 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories:
Wetlands. In: eds. T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, B. Jamsranjav, M. Fukuda & T. Troxler, p.
354. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Switzerland.
Ji, Q., Babbin, A.R., Jayakumar, A., Oleynik, S. & Ward, B.B. (2015) Nitrous Oxide Production by Nitrification
and Denitrification in the Eastern Tropical South Pacific Oxygen Minimum Zone. Geophysical Research
Letters 42(24): 10,755-710,764.
Jugold, A., Althoff, F., Hurkuck, M., Greule, M., Lenhart, K., Lelieveld, J. & Keppler, F. (2012) Non-microbial
methane formation in oxic soils. Biogeosciences 9(12): 5291-5301.
Kaplan, W.A., Elkins, J.W., Kolb, C.E., McElroy, M.B., Wofsy, S.C. & Durán, A.P. (1978) Nitrous oxide in
fresh water systems: An estimate for the yield of atmospheric N2O associated with disposal of human waste.
Pure and Applied Geophysics 116(2): 423-438.
Kaplan, W.A. & Wofsy, S.C. (1985) The Biogeochemistry of Nitrous Oxide: a Review. Advances in Aquatic
Microbiology 3: 181-202.
Kester, R.A., de Boer, W. & Laanbroek, H.J. (1997) Production of NO and N2O by pure cultures of nitrifying
and denitrifying bacteria during changes in aeration. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63(10): 3872–
3877.
Kimochi, Y., Inamori, Y., Mizuochi, M., Xu, K.-Q. & Matsumura, M. (1998) Nitrogen Removal and N2O
Emission in a Full-Scale Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant with Intermittent Aeration. Journal of
Fermentation and Bioengineering 86(2): 202-206.
Kozak, J.A., O’Connor, C., Granato, T., Kollias, L., Belluci, F. & Sturchio, N. (2009) Methane and Nitrous
Oxide Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plant Processes. In: Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation, WEFTEC 2009, pp. 5347-5361.
Volume 5: Waste
Kristensen, P., Fribourg-Blanc & Nixon, S. (2004) Outlooks on Nutrient Discharges in Europe from Urban
Waste Water Treatment Plants (final draft). In: European Environment Agency. EEA European Topic Centre
on Water, Copenhagen, 33 p.
Kyung, D., Kim, M., Chang, J. & Lee, W. (2015) Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Hybrid
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Journal of Cleaner Production 95: 117-123.
Lauerwald, R., Laruelle, G.G., Hartmann, J., Ciais, P. & Regnier, P.A.G. (2015) Spatial patterns in CO2 evasion
from the global river network. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 29(5): 534-554.
Law, Y., Jacobsen, G.E., Smith, A.M., Yuan, Z. & Lant, P. (2013) Fossil organic carbon in wastewater and its
fate in treatment plants. Water Research 47(14): 5270-5281.
Leverenz, H.L., Tchobanoglous., G. & Darby, J.L. (2010) Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Septic
Systems, Water Environment Research Foundation Final Report. . In: Co-published by IWA Publishing,
London, UK.
Li, E., Chao, P. & Chow, B. (2016) British Petroleum/Shanghai SECCO Acrylonitrile Plant Wastewater Reuse
Project. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2016(7): 3119-3128.
Li, S. & Zhang, Q. (2014) Carbon emission from global hydroelectric reservoirs revisited. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research 21(23): 13636-13641.
Mantoura, R.F.C., Law, C.S., Owens, N.J.P., Peter, Burkill, H., Woodward, E.M.S., Howland, R.J.M. &
Llewellyn, C.A. (1993) Nitrogen Biogeochemical Cycling in the Northwestern Indian Ocean. Deep-Sea
Research II 40: 651-671.
Masuda, S., Sano, I., Hojo, T., Li, Y.Y. & Nishimura, O. (2018) The Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in Sewage Treatment Plants with Different Treatment Processes. Chemosphere 193: 581-590.
Masuda, S., Suzuki, S., Sano, I., Li, Y.Y. & Nishimura, O. (2015) The Seasonal Variation of Emission of
Greenhouse Gases from a Full-Scale Sewage Treatment Plant. Chemosphere 140: 167-173.
Mateo-Sagasta, J. & Burke, J. (2010) Agriculture and Water Quality Interactions: A Global Review. In: SOLAW
Background Thematic Report - TR08. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Available at
<http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl092e.pdf>.
McCarthy, J.J., Kaplan, W. & Nevins, J.L. (1984) Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Plankton Dynamics. 2. Sources
and Sinks of Nitrite. Limnology and Oceanography 29: 84-98.
McElroy, M.B., Elkins, J.W., Wofsy, S.C., Kolb, C.E., Dura’n, A.P. & Kaplan, W.A. (1978) Production and
Release of N2O from the Potomac Estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 23(6): 1168-1182.
Naqvi, S.W.A., Bange, H.W., Farias, L., Monteiro, P.M.S., Scranton, M.I. & Zhang, J. (2010) Marine
hypoxia/anoxia as a source of CH4 and N2O. Biogeosciences 7(7): 2159-2190.
Nara, F.W., Imai, A., Matsushige, K., Komatsu, K., Kawasaki, N. & Shibata, Y. (2010) Radiocarbon
measurements of dissolved organic carbon in sewage-treatment-plant effluent and domestic sewage. Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
268(7): 1142-1145.
Ni, B.J., Pan, Y., van den Akker, B., Ye, L. & Yuan, Z. (2015) Full-Scale Modeling Explaining Large Spatial
Variations of Nitrous Oxide Fluxes in a Step-Feed Plug-Flow Wastewater Treatment Reactor. Environ Sci
Technol 49(15): 9176-9184.
Oudot, C., Jean-Baptiste, P., Fourré, E., Mormiche, C., Guevel, M., Ternon, J.-F.-c. & Corre, P.L. (2002)
Transatlantic Equatorial Distribution of Nitrous Oxide and Methane. Deep-Sea Research Part I:
Oceanographic Research Papers 49(7): 1175-1193.
Pan, Y., van den Akker, B., Ye, L., Ni, B.J., Watts, S., Reid, K. & Yuan, Z. (2016) Unravelling the Spatial
Variation of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from a Step-Feed Plug-Flow Full Scale Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Scientific Report 6: 20792.
Patra, P.K., Lal, S., Venkataramani, S., Gauns, M. & Sarma, V.V.S.S. (1998) Seasonal Variability in
Distribution and Fluxes of Methane in the Arabian Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 103(C1):
1167-1176.
Pescod, M.B. (1992) Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture - FAO irrigation and drainage paper 47.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla.
Punshon, S. & Moore, R.M. (2004) Nitrous oxide production and consumption in a eutrophic coastal embayment.
Marine Chemistry 91(1-4): 37-51.
Rabalais, N.N., Díaz, R.J., Levin, L.A., Turner, R.E., Gilbert, D. & Zhang, J. (2010) Dynamics and distribution
of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7(2): 585-619.
Raymond, P.A. & Bauer, J.E. (2001) Use of 14C and 13C Natural Abundances for Evaluating Riverine, Estuarine,
and Coastal DOC and POC Sources and Cycling: A Review and Synthesis. Organic Geochemistry 32: 469-
485.
Raymond, P.A., Hartmann, J., Lauerwald, R., Sobek, S., McDonald, C., Hoover, M., Butman, D., Striegl, R.,
Mayorga, E., Humborg, C., Kortelainen, P., Dürr, H., Meybeck, M., Ciais, P. & Guth, P. (2013) Global
carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503: 355.
Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Aymerich, I., Marques, R., Poch, M. & Pijuan, M. (2015) Minimizing N2O Emissions
and Carbon Footprint on a Full-Scale Activated Sludge Sequencing Batch Reactor. Water Res 71: 1-10.
Rodriguez-Caballero, A., Aymerich, I., Poch, M. & Pijuan, M. (2014) Evaluation of process conditions
triggering emissions of green-house gases from a biological wastewater treatment system. Sci Total Environ
493: 384-391.
Schaider, L.A., Rodgers, K.M. & Rudel, R.A. (2017) Review of Organic Wastewater Compound Concentrations
and Removal in Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environ Sci Technol 51(13): 7304-7317.
Schneider, A.G., Townsend-Small, A. & Rosso, D. (2015) Impact of direct greenhouse gas emissions on the
carbon footprint of water reclamation processes employing nitrification–denitrification. Science of the Total
Environment 505: 1166-1173.
Seitzinger, S.P. (1988) Denitrification in Freshwater and Coastal Marine Ecosystems: Ecological and
Geochemical Significance. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33(4, part 2): 702-724.
Seitzinger, S.P. & Kroeze, C. (1998) Global Distribution of Nitrous Oxide Production and N Inputs in
Freshwater and Coastal Marine Ecosystems. Global Biochemical Cycles 12(1): 911-917.
Seitzinger, S.P., Nixon, S.W. & Pilson, M.E.Q. (1984) Denitrification and Nitrous Oxide Production in a Coastal
Marine Ecosystem. Limnology and Oceanography 29(l): 73-83
Serón, N., Puig, S., Meijer, S.C.F., Balaguer, M.D. & Colprim, J. (2011) Sludge production based on organic
matter and nitrogen removal performances. Water Practice and Technology 6(2): wpt2011029.
Short, M.D., Daikeler, A., Peters, G.M., Mann, K., Ashbolt, N.J., Stuetz, R.M. & Peirson, W.L. (2014)
Municipal Gravity Sewers: an Unrecognised Source of Nitrous Oxide. Sci Total Environ 468-469: 211-218.
Short, M.D., Daikeler, A., Wallis, K., Peirson, W.L. & Peters, G.M. (2017) Dissolved Methane in the Influent of
Three Australian Wastewater Treatment Plants Fed by Gravity Sewers. Sci Total Environ 599-600: 85-93.
Simate, G.S., Cluett, J., Iyuke, S.E., Musapatika, E.T., Ndlovu, S., Walubita, L.F. & Alvarez, A.E. (2011) The
treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse: State of the art. Desalination 273(2): 235-247.
Volume 5: Waste
Smith, R.M., Kaushal, S.S., Beaulieu, J.J., Pennino, M.J. & Welty, C. (2017) Influence of infrastructure on water
quality and greenhouse gas dynamics in urban streams. Biogeosciences 14(11): 2831-2849.
St. Louis, V.L., Kelly, C.A., Duchemin, É., Rudd, J.W.M. & Rosenberg, D.M. (2000) Reservoir Surfaces as
Sources of Greenhouse Gases to the Atmosphere: A Global Estimate. Bioscience 50(9): 766-775.
Stanley, E.H., Casson, N.J., Christel, S.T., Crawford, J.T., Loken, L.C. & Oliver, S.K. (2016) The ecology of
methane in streams and rivers: patterns, controls, and global significance. Ecological Monographs 86(2):
146-171.
Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, H., Tsuchihashi, R., Burton, F., Abu-Orf, M., Bowden, G. & Pfrang, W. (2014)
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. New York: McGraw Hill.
Tilbrook, B.D. & Karl, D.M. (1995) Methane Sources, Distributions and Sinks from California Coastal Waters
to the Oligotrophic North Pacific Gyre. Marine Chemistry 49(1): 51-64.
Tjandraatmadja, G., Diaper, C., Gozukara, Y., Burch, L., Sheedy, C. & Price, G. (2008) Sources of critical
contaminants in domestic wastewater: contaminant contribution from household products. In: CSIRO: Water
for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship Report.
Toyoda, S., Suzuki, Y., Hattori, S., Yamada, K., Fujii, A., Yoshida, N., Kouno, R., Murayama, K. & Shiomi, H.
(2011) Isotopomer Analysis of Production and Consumption Mechanisms of N2O and CH4 in an Advanced
Wastewater Treatment System. Environmental Science & Technology 45(3): 917-922.
Tranvik, L.J., Downing, J.A., Cotner, J.B., Loiselle, S.A., Striegl, R.G., Ballatore, T.J., Dillon, P., Finlay, K.,
Fortino, K., Knoll, L.B., Kortelainen, P.L., Kutser, T., Larsen, S., Laurion, I., Leech, D.M., McCallister, S.L.,
McKnight, D.M., Melack, J.M., Overholt, E., Porter, J.A., Prairie, Y., Renwick, W.H., Roland, F., Sherman,
B.S., Schindler, D.W., Sobek, S., Tremblay, A., Vanni, M.J., Verschoor, A.M., von Wachenfeldt, E. &
Weyhenmeyer, G.A. (2009) Lakes and reservoirs as regulators of carbon cycling and climate. Limnology and
Oceanography 54(6part2): 2298-2314.
Truhlar, A.M., Rahm, B.G., Brooks, R.A., Nadeau, S.A., Makarsky, E.T. & Walter, M.T. (2016) Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Septic Systems in New York State. J Environ Qual 45(4): 1153-1160.
Tseng, L.Y., Robinson, A.K., Zhang, X., Xu, X., Southon, J., Hamilton, A.J., Sobhani, R., Stenstrom, M.K. &
Rosso, D. (2016) Identification of Preferential Paths of Fossil Carbon within Water Resource Recovery
Facilities via Radiocarbon Analysis. Environ Sci Technol 50(22): 12166-12178.
Turekian, K.K. & Benoit, G.J. (1981) Radiocarbon in New York Bight sediments and the use of carbon isotopes
in delineating carbon sources. In: Proceedings of Flux of Organic Carbon by Rivers to the Oceans, Woods
Hole, MA, USA, 21-25 September, pp. 314-330. Carbon Dioxide Effects Research and Assessment Program.
United States Department of Energy, Springfield.
US EPA. (2002a) Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
(4303T), Washington, DC 20460. EPA-821-R-02-004.
US EPA. (2002b) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Facultative Lagoons. In: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 832-F-02-014.
Van Drecht, G., Bouwman, A.F., Harrison, J. & Knoop, J.M. (2009) Global Nitrogen and Phosphate in Urban
Wastewater for the Period 1970 to 2050. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23, GB0A03.(4).
Vaquer-Sunyer, R. & Duarte, C.M. (2008) Thresholds of hypoxia for marine biodiversity. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 105(40): 15452.
Wang, J., Chen, N., Yan, W., Wang, B. & Yang, L. (2015) Effect of Dissolved Oxygen and Nitrogen on
Emission of N2O from Rivers in China. Atmospheric Environment 103: 347-356.
Wang, J., Zhang, J., Xie, H., Qi, P., Ren, Y. & Hu, Z. (2011) Methane Emissions from a Full-Scale A/A/O
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bioresour Technol 102(9): 5479-5485.
Wang, Y., Lin, X., Zhou, D., Ye, L., Han, H. & Song, C. (2016) Nitric Oxide and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from
a Full-Scale Activated Sludge Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic Process. Chemical Engineering Journal 289: 330-340.
Ward, B.B., Kilpatrick, K.A., Novelli, P.C. & Scranton, M.I. (1987) Methane oxidation and methane fluxes in
the ocean surface layer and deep anoxic waters. Nature 327(6119): 226-229.
Ward, N.D., Bianchi, T.S., Medeiros, P.M., Seidel, M., Richey, J.E., Keil, R.G. & Sawakuchi, H.O. (2017)
Where Carbon Goes When Water Flows: Carbon Cycling across the Aquatic Continuum. Frontiers in
Marine Science 4: 1-27.
WEF. (2009) Following the Flow- An Inside Look at Wastewater Treatment. In: Water Environment Federation
(WEF), Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
WEF. (2010) Wastewater Treatment Operator Training Manual: Fundamentals of Utility Management. In: Water
Environment Federation (WEF), Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Willis, J.L. (2017) GHG Methodologies for Sewer CH4, Methanol-Use CO2 and Biogas-Combustion CH4 and
their Significance for Centralized Wastewater Treatment. In: School of Chemical Engineering, The
University of Queensland. PhD Thesis. Available at
<https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:705938/S42830878_final_thesis.pdf>.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2010) Advanced Activated Sludge Study Guide: December 2010
Edition. In: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Science Services, Madison, WI 53707.
Available at <http://dnr.wi.gov/regulations/opcert/documents/wwsgactsludgeadv.pdf>.
Xie, H. & Ringler, C. (2017) Agricultural nutrient loadings to the freshwater environment: the role of climate
change and socioeconomic change. Environmental Research Letters 12(10): 104008.
Yan, W., Yang, L., Wang, F., Wang, J. & Ma, P. (2012) Riverine N2O concentrations, exports to estuary and
emissions to atmosphere from the Changjiang River in response to increasing nitrogen loads. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 26(4): GB4006.
Yoshida, H., Clavreul, J., Scheutz, C. & Christensen, T.H. (2014) Influence of data collection schemes on the
Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Water Research 56(0): 292-303.
Yoshida, N. (1988) N-depleted N2O as a product of nitrification. Nature 335: 528-529.
Zhu, X., Burger, M., Doane, T.A. & Horwath, W.R. (2013) Ammonia Oxidation Pathways and Nitrifier
Denitrification are Significant Sources of N2O and NO Under Low Oxygen Availability. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A 110(16): 6328-6333.
References copied from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines

Destatis (2001). "Öffentliche Wasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung 2001, Tabelle 1 "Übersichtstabelle
Anschlussgrade" (Statistical Office Germany (http://www.destatis.de/)
Doorn, M.R.J., Strait, R., Barnard, W. and Eklund, B. (1997). Estimate of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Industrial and Domestic Wastewater Treatment, Final Report, EPA-600/R-97-091, Prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Doorn, M.R.J. and Liles, D. (1999). Global Methane, Quantification of Methane Emissions and Discussion of
Nitrous Oxide, and Ammonia Emissions from Septic Tanks, Latrines, and Stagnant Open Sewers in the
World. EPA-600/R-99-089, Prepared for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Feachem, R.G., Bradley, D.J., Gareleck H. and Mara D.D. (1983). Sanitation and Disease – Health Aspects of
Excreta and Wastewater Management, World Bank, John Wiley & Sons, USA.
Masotti, L. (1996). "Depurazione delle acque. Tecniche ed impianti per il tratatmento delle acque di rifiuto". Eds
Calderini. pp. 29-30
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Volume 5: Waste
United Nations (2002). World Urbanization Prospects, The 2001 Revision Data Tables and Highlights.
Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat.
ESA/P/WP.173. March 2002.

19R V5 6 Ch06 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

Uploaded by

19R V5 6 Ch06 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

Uploaded by

Chapter 6: Wastewater Treatment and Discharge

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND

6 Wastewater Treatment and Discharge .......................................................................................................6.7

6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND

Figure 6.1 (Updated) Wastewater treatment systems and discharge pathways

Freshwater, estuarine or marine environments

Onsite industrial treatment plant Sludge treatment offsite

Landfilling Land application

TABLE 6.1 (UPDATED)

Untreated or Treated Systems

Freshwater, estuarine, or marine in a range of freshwater and estuarine environments.

Emissions are considered in Volume 4 when applied

Likely source of CH4/N2O. However, insufficient data

variation in sewer type and operational conditions.

Stagnant, overloaded open collection sewers or

May produce limited CH4 from anaerobic pockets.

Unlikely source of CH4/N2O.

May be a significant source of CH4.

Facultative lagoons2 Source of CH4 from anaerobic layer.

May be source of CH4 and N2O. See 2013 Supplement

May be a significant source of CH4 if emitted CH4 is

Sludge may be a significant source of CH4 if emitted

in centralised aerobic digestion and handling may be a source of fugitive

Composting Emissions are considered in Volume 5, Chapter 4.

Incineration and open

TABLE 6.1 (UPDATED) (CONTINUED)

Frequent solids removal reduces CH4 production.

6.1.1 Centralised treatment systems

6.1.2 Decentralised treatment systems of domestic

6.1.3 Emissions from receiving waters

6.1.4 Changes compared to 1996 Guidelines and Good

6.1.5 Changes compared to 2006 IPCC Guidelines

6.2 METHANE EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER

6.2.1 Methodological issues

6.2.2 Domestic wastewater

Are wastewater Are activity data

Tier 3 for discharge:

Tier 3 for treatment:

Tier 2 for treatment:

Tier 1 for treatment:

EQUATION 6.1 (UPDATED)

EQUATION 6.1A (NEW)

6.2.2.2 C HOICE OF EMISSI ON FACTORS

0.6 kg CH4/kg BOD

TABLE 6.3 (UPDATED)

Type of treatment EF2 EF2

TABLE 6.3 (UPDATED) (CONTINUED)

Type of treatment EF2 EF2

6.2.2.3 C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA

EQUATION 6.3 (UPDATED)

EQUATION 6.3A (NEW)

TABLE 6.5 (CONTINUED)

Treatment or discharge system or pathway T (%) Notes

EQUATION 6.3B (NEW)

TABLE 6.6A (NEW)

EQUATION 6.3C (NEW)

EQUATION 6.3D (NEW)

j = each wastewater treatment type used in inventory year

TABLE 6.6B (NEW)

Treatment Type Default Range

TABLE 6.6B (NEW) (CONTINUED)

6.2.2.4 T IME SERI ES CONSISTENCY

TABLE 6.7 (UPDATED)

TABLE 6.7 (UPDATED) (CONTINUED)

6.2.2.6 QA/QC, C OMPLETENESS , R EPORTI NG AND

6.2.3 Industrial wastewater

6.2.3.1 C HOICE OF METH OD

Identify major industrial

For these Tier 3 for treatment and

For these Are Estimate emission factors

Tier 2 for treatment:

Tier 2 for discharge:

6.2.3.2 C HOICE OF EMISSI ON FACTORS

TABLE 6.8 (UPDATED)

TABLE 6.8 (UPDATED) (CONTINUED)

6.2.3.3 C HOICE OF ACTIVITY DATA