Aerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacteria (AerAOB) and anoxic ammonium-oxidizing bacteria (AnAOB) cooperate in partial nitritation/anammox systems to remove ammonium from wastewater. In this process, large granular microbial aggregates enhance the performance, but little is known about granulation so far. In this study, three suspended-growth oxygen-limited autotrophic nitrification-denitrification (OLAND) reactors with different inoculation and operation (mixing and aeration) conditions, designated reactors A, B, and C, were used. The test objectives were (i) to quantify the AerAOB and AnAOB abundance and the activity balance for the different aggregate sizes and (ii) to relate aggregate morphology, size distribution, and architecture putatively to the inoculation and operation of the three reactors. A nitrite accumulation rate ratio (NARR) was defined as the net aerobic nitrite production rate divided by the anoxic nitrite consumption rate. The smallest reactor A, B, and C aggregates were nitrite sources (NARR, >1.7). Large reactor A and C aggregates were granules capable of autonomous nitrogen removal (NARR, 0.6 to 1.1) with internal AnAOB zones surrounded by an AerAOB rim. Around 50% of the autotrophic space in these granules consisted of AerAOB- and AnAOB-specific extracellular polymeric substances. Large reactor B aggregates were thin film-like nitrite sinks (NARR, <0.5) in which AnAOB were not shielded by an AerAOB layer. Voids and channels occupied 13 to 17% of the anoxic zone of AnAOB-rich aggregates (reactors B and C). The hypothesized granulation pathways include granule replication by division and budding and are driven by growth and/or decay based on species-specific physiology and by hydrodynamic shear and mixing.

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.

Over the last few years, waste management strategies are shifting from waste disposal to recycling andrecovery and are considering waste as a potential new resource. To monitor the progress in these waste management strategies, governmental policies have developed a wide range of indicators. In this study, we analyzed the concept of the recyclability benefit rate indicator, which expresses the potential environmental savings that can be achieved from recycling the product over the environmental burdens of virgin production followed by disposal. This indicator is therefore, based on estimated environmental impact values obtained through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practices. We quantify the environmental impact in terms of resource consumption using the Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment method. This research applied this indicator to two cases of plastic waste recycling in Flanders: closed-loop recycling (case A) and open-loop recycling (case B). Each case is compared to an inciner-ation scenario and a landfilling scenario. The considered plastic waste originates from small domestic appliances and household waste other than plastic bottles. However, the existing recyclability benefit rate indicator does not consider the potential substitution of different materials occurring in open-loop recycling. To address this issue, we further developed the indicator for open-loop recycling and cascaded use. Overall, the results show that both closed-loop and open-loop recycling are more resource efficient than landfilling and incineration with energy recovery.JRC.H.8-Sustainability Assessmen