# Modelling the benefits of urine source separation scenarios on wastewater treatment plants within an urban water basin

Gerald Matar, Mathilde Besson, Jennifer Mas, Sam Azimi, Vincent Rocher, M. Sperandio

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Gerald Matar, Mathilde Besson, Jennifer Mas, Sam Azimi, Vincent Rocher, et al.. Modelling the benefits of urine source separation scenarios on wastewater treatment plants within an urban water basin. Water Science and Technology, 2022, 86 (3), pp.482-495. 10.2166/wst.2022.208. hal-03839842

HAL Id: hal-03839842

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03839842

Submitted on 4 Nov 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Water Science & Technology

© 2022 The Authors

Water Science & Technology Vol 86 No 3, 482 doi: 10.2166/wst.2022.208

# Modelling the benefits of urine source separation scenarios on wastewater treatment plants within an urban water basin

Gerald Matarª, Mathilde Besson IDa,*, Jennifer Masb, Sam Azimib, Vincent Rocherb and Mathieu Sperandio IWAa

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

ID MB, 0000-0002-8916-1876

## ABSTRACT

Stringent discharge regulations are encouraging researchers to create innovative and sustainable wastewater treatment solutions. Urine source separation (USS) is among the potent approaches that may reduce nutrient peak loads in the influent wastewater and improve nutrient recovery. A phenomenological model was used to simulate dynamic influent properties and predict the advantages gained from implementing USS in an urban water basin. Several scenarios were investigated assuming different levels of deployment: at the entire city, or specifically in office buildings for men's urine only, or for both men and women employees. The results confirmed that all scenarios of urine source separation offered benefits at the treatment plant in terms of reducing nitrogen influent load. The economic benefits in terms of reducing energy consumption for nitrification and decreasing methanol addition for denitrification were quantified, and results confirmed environmental advantages gained from different USS scenarios. Despite larger advantages gained from a global USS rate in an entire city, implementation of a specific USS in office buildings would remain more feasible from a logistical perspective. A significant benefit in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is demonstrated and this was especially due to the high level of N₂O emissions avoided in nitrifying biological aerated filter.

**Key words:** influent generator, nitrogen removal, urine source separation, wastewater treatment

## HIGHLIGHTS

* A methodology for modelling different urine separation scenarios in an urban area is shown.

* An influent generator was calibrated and gives the variation of effluent quality.

* Savings in aeration and methanol are quantified at the treatment plant.

* Important reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is shown for different recovery techniques.

* The benefits are related to the reduction in N₂O emissions and N fertilizer substitution.

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, cities stakeholders and utilities have to face multiple challenges related to wastewater treatment. Limiting nutrients discharge is still a priority for protecting large river basins from eutrophication, while energy saving and nutrients recovery are increasingly needed. According to the Water Framework Directive of the European Union, Paris utilities invest tremendous effort to obtain low nitrogen concentrations in the effluents rejected from treated wastewater emerging from the city, to insure the good surface water status of the Seine River. Yet, optimization of nitrogen removal in intensive nitrifying and denitrifying biological active filters is still a complex challenge, while the high loading rate and variation of carbon source affect both nitrite accumulation (Rocher et al. 2015) and N₂O emissions (Bollon et al. 2016). A regular retrofitting of existing wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) could help tackle the problem, but alternative approaches such as urine source separation (USS) is also considered (Guest et al. 2009; Larsen et al. 2009). Despite the theoretical advantages of source separation, stakeholders and utilities need planning tools and scenarios assessment for successful implementation of USS technology, especially in a large city such as Paris with various urban typologies and densities.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote>ªTBI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INRA, INSA, Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote>ᵇSIAAP, Direction Innovation, 92700, Colombes, France</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author. E-mail: mathilde.besson@insa-toulouse.fr</footnote>
Urine separation gained wide merit as it could simultaneously reduce nutrient loads and help in recovering valuable nutri-
ents from the separated waste streams (Larsen et al. 2013; Jimenez et al. 2015; Flanagan & Randall 2018; Volpin et al. 2018;
Spuhler et al. 2020). In the last decade, innovative technologies for nutrients recovery from urine were investigated and are
still under development (Larsen et al. 2021). Nitrogen and phosphorus were recovered using electrodialysis (De Paepe et al.
2018; Volpin et al. 2020), forward osmosis (Volpin et al. 2019; Courtney & Randall 2022) or bio-electrochemical systems
(Zamora et al. 2017; De Paepe et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2022). Nitrification-denitrification was also studied (Udert & Wächter
2012), as well as magnesium dosage to achieve struvite precipitation from source separated urine (Hug & Udert 2013; Udert
et al. 2016). The most mature solution is based on combined partial nitrification and distillation which allows to convert urine
into a nutrient rich solution that can be used as a fertilizer (Fumasoli et al. 2016). Otherwise, solutions that are still under
development consist of two-step processes including struvite precipitation and ammonia recovery as ammonium sulfate
using microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) (Igos et al. 2017) or transmembrane chemisorption (TMCS) (Pradhan et al. 2019;
Gonzalez-Salgado et al. 2020; Besson et al. 2021). These technologies offered promising results, however their implemen-
tation was, in the majority, limited to lab-scale and pilot-scale.

Urine source separation should be further considered for its potential consequences at the wastewater treatment plant. Con-
sidering all the constraints and objectives to be considered for WWTP management, reducing overall operating costs
(chemicals and energy) is a complex challenge for operators (Azimi & Rocher 2017). The most advanced approaches focused
on multiple control strategies to reduce specifically the aeration costs (Varhelyi et al. 2018), the methanol addition as an exter-
nal carbon source for denitrification, or iron dosage (Kazadi Mbamba et al. 2019). Urine contributes almost 80% of the
nitrogen and 50% of the phosphorus to the total nutrients load in the influent wastewater (Larsen & Gujer 1996). Conse-
quently, adopting a USS based approach could diminish and modify the pattern of nutrients load that arrives at the
WWTP, helping operators to save energy for aeration and chemical consumption for nitrogen and phosphorus removal
(Ishii & Boyer 2015; Jimenez et al. 2015). The potential benefits of urine source separation (USS) was globally assessed
by life cycle analysis and costs analysis (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2015; Igos et al. 2017), using average data in the context
of European countries. However recent work has also demonstrated the importance of urbanism typology in the assessment
(Besson 2020; Besson et al. 2021), making it crucial to consider local information for each case-study.

For benchmarking source separation scenarios, a dynamic influent generator (Gernaey et al. 2011) was recently adapted for
modelling the modification of wastewater composition depending on urine separation strategies (Bisinella de Faria et al.
2020). Previously, simulation studies confirmed the importance of modelling tools to assess multilevel urine separation
(Rauch et al. 2003; Rossi et al. 2009). A stochastic model was used to predict urine production and to provide detailed infor-
mation about the dynamics at a local level while implementing a source separation scenario, and concluded an almost 30%
reduction in the ammonia peak loads during dry weather periods (Rauch et al. 2003). In addition, researchers performed the
life cycle assessment of urine source separation, and their findings helped in the design of future applications of urine source
separation through the extrapolation of their analysis to an entire watershed (Rossi et al. 2009; Ishii & Boyer 2015; Badeti
et al. 2021; Hilton et al. 2021). With the recent adaptation of the influent generator, researchers proposed a more determi-
nistic tool for investigating and implementing various source separation scenarios at the city scale (Bisinella de Faria et al.
2020; Besson et al. 2021). The implementation of urine source separation needs large case studies that could identify all
of the pros and cons that may emerge from urine source separation. If the advantages of such a strategy seem numerous,
they have to be compared to the constraints of collection, transport and treatment of the urine collected separately (Boyer
& Saetta 2019). Therefore, it is essential to use simulation approaches for assessing real case studies, which would help in
defining and building the appropriate scenarios for urine source separation.

Previous studies in the literature focused on urine source separation at large scale without considering the location and the potential use of buildings, despite the fact that it is less costly to implement urine separation in offices using a reduced number of toilets for a large volume of urine collected. Moreover, no study has focused on the effect of area of collection and the length of the sewer on the influent pattern at the wastewater treatment plant.

The aim of this study was to assess the urine source separation scenario in a large urban watershed (Marne Aval, MAV,
eastern Paris) considering different implementation strategies. A modelling tool was calibrated considering sewer character-
istics, number of inhabitants and typology. Different implementations are compared either in households or in working
buildings. Modification of dynamic wastewater patterns are calculated and benefits are concluded in terms of aeration
costs and chemical consumption at the wastewater treatment plant. Finally, global estimations of greenhouse gas emissions
and energy consumption are determined and discussed.
## 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

### 2.1. Scenarios for urine source separation

The Marne Aval (MAV) urban catchment, situated in the eastern part of Paris, generates the wastewater of 210,123 population equivalents (PE). This area is divided into 16 subareas and 62% of them have a separate rainwater collection. The working population corresponds to around a quarter of the PE (offices, working buildings) whereas three-quarters of the total PE are assumed to be households (house and residential buildings). The wastewater is transported and treated by the SIAAP (Greater Paris Sanitation Authority) at the Marne Aval Wastewater Treatment plant (MAV Plant). In the current study, the active working population was assumed to be equally divided between men and women. For simulating urine source separation, two typologies of implementation were compared: a homogeneous urine separation deployed in the entire city at various levels (both households and office buildings), and a more selective option with urine separation installed in working areas and office buildings (Table 1). For the first option, different levels of deployment were calculated (20, 40, 60%) for estimating the proportionality of the benefits. The intermediate level (40%) was used in this paper and named 'scenario 1' for comparison with source separation at the work place.

Two specific scenarios (named scenario 2 and 3) were considered for urine separation at work places and during work hours only (between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). Scenario 2 simulated the collection of 90% of men urine at work places using urinals (men workers estimated at 26,265 PE), assuming that during work hours toilets are mainly used for urination. This scenario focuses on male urine because of the greater availability of dry male urinals on the market, although female urinals also exist. The scenario is still valid for a mix of male and female urinals. Finally, scenario 3 corresponds to 90% urine source separation of all employees (men and women estimated at 52,530 PE), using diverting toilets, which are assumed to be very efficient in source separation (Table 1). Dry urinals were considered without any flush volume, whereas reduced volumes of water were considered for diverting toilets (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020).

### 2.2. Parameterization of the influent generator for urine separation

This study was conducted using the phenomenological influent generator (Gernaey et al. 2011) that was specifically modified to include urine source separation (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020), and modified to consider the production from the work place. The tool is programmed on Matlab and is a flexible simulation tool that can be easily modified. The code is available on request from the author. In this study, the results were selected to represent typical weeks during dry weather periods.

Four main streams were defined in the influent generator (different blocks): 1) the Total Wastewater stream (TWW) that includes wastewater from households, industries and other contributors without any urine separation; 2) the Total Urine stream (TU) that simulates profiles of all produced urine; 3) the Urine Stored and Collected stream (USC) that corresponds to the user-specific urine source separation and collection; and 4) the Wastewater stream (WW) that represents the influent entering the treatment plant and represents the combined contribution from households, industries, rainfall, and infiltration (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020). In addition, the influent generator was modified to create the composition of urine that would be collected in different buildings, such as residential buildings, houses or even office buildings. Regarding the simulations of different scenarios of USS, the user can define the general parameters according to the supposed scenario and accordingly defines the percentage of urine retention and the size of the catchment area. Also, it is possible to modify the flush water volumes for urine source-separated toilet (New flush water), to simulate USS using men urinals or low flush toilets (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020).

Dynamic flow patterns were generated for daily profiles, weekly profiles and yearly profiles. For the influent wastewater entering the treatment plant, two major peaks were distinguished, around 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (Langergraber et al.

<table><caption>**Table 1** | Detailed description of the three simulated scenarios for urine source separation</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Scenario 1</th><th>Scenario 2</th><th>Scenario 3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Urine retention level</td><td>40%</td><td>90%</td><td>90%</td></tr><tr><td>Type of separation</td><td>Global: entire population</td><td>Specific: men employees</td><td>Specific: all employees</td></tr><tr><td>Corresponding population</td><td>210,123 PE</td><td>26,265 PE</td><td>52,530 PE</td></tr><tr><td>Suggested separation toilets</td><td>Diverting toilets</td><td>Men urinals</td><td>Men urinals, Diverting and vacuum toilets</td></tr></tbody></table>
2008). In the current study and during several set of simulations, the average total wastewater flowrate (TWW) from households was considered to be 209 L.PE⁻¹.d⁻¹, while the average urine flowrate was equal to 1.36 L.PE⁻¹.d⁻¹ (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020).

For scenarios 2 and 3, the coefficients of wastewater (WW) and urine (USC) profiles were modified to simulate the collection of urine at work places, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (from Monday to Friday). For both of the standard (normal production) and modified profile generation (during work hours), user defined profiles were scaled to 1, to avoid major differences in the influent load and to create reproducible profile generation as for normal wastewater and urine production (Figure 1). The profile of urine generation at work places has been assumed to be constant during working hours, due to lack of relevant data on urination pattern during the day. On average, the total volume of urine produced daily was equal to 1.36 liters (Rauch et al. 2003; Rossi et al. 2009), of which one-third was integrated in the calculation for profile production at work (Jönsson et al. 2005). The resulting wastewater influent profile was obtained by subtracting the separated urine at work from the regular profile produced on a daily basis before the modelling of the sewer, for scenarios 2 and 3.

## 2.3. Calibration of the influent generator to sewer characteristics

For the set-up of the influent generator, several hydraulic parameters needed to be calibrated specifically regarding the size and characteristics of the catchment area. Indeed, the wastewater residence time in the sewer increases with the surface of the catchment area, and leads to delaying and buffering of the diurnal peaks. In this work, the hydraulic parameters were adapted in order to obtain a sufficiently good prediction of influent flowrates profile measured at the MAV Plant. The influent generator describes the sewer network by a number of interconnected pipes and reservoir tanks that correspond to a number of ‘subareas’. A subarea is defined by a surface A (m²) corresponding to the surface of each aforementioned collection tank (Gernaey et al. 2011). Consequently, the number of subareas and their surface are two specific parameters that needed to be identified for each catchment area depending on its size and properties. A series of simulations were conducted successively, to identify the appropriate number of subarea and the tank surfaces A (m²) that best fit the measured wastewater profile entering to the treatment plant. Statistical analysis based on the normalized root-mean-square deviation (NRMDS) and R² methods were used to compare the simulated profiles and the experimental one (Fig S2). A number of subareas of (seven) and a tank surface of 2000 m² corresponded to the optimal set of parameters (Tables S1 and Table S2).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** | Standard and modified coefficients for wastewater profile generation (a) and for nitrogen production (b), which simulates urine generating profiles. Normal profile production are typically characterized by a morning peak production around 8:00 a.m. and another peak production in the afternoon, around 6:00 p.m. The modified profile generation target production during working hours only, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.</figcaption></figure>
## 2.4. Calculation of aeration needs and methanol addition

The modification of nitrogen and COD influent loads were used to estimate the reduction in aeration needs (nitrification) and methanol consumption (denitrification). Reference data were obtained from the plant operators of MAV: extensive measurements of influent ammonium, wastewater flow rates, methanol dosing and aeration flow rate were recorded with high frequency. The wastewater treatment plant is equipped with two stages of biofilters to achieve nitrification and denitrification of the influent wastewater. The first stage of biofilters (DN/N with internal recirculation of 100% of the influent flowrate) achieves 90% nitrification. The second stage of biofilters (DN with external carbon source) achieves the post-denitrification to reach 4.5 mgNO₃-N/L (effluent setpoint) with an average methanol dosage of 3.43 kg MeOH/kg N-NO₃ removed. These ratios were used to calculate the potential savings at the treatment plant for each scenario of urine separation. The oxygen demand for nitrification and COD removal were calculated based on the concentration in the rejected effluent at 45 mg COD/L, 3.5 mg NH₄-N/L and 4.5 mg NO₃-N/L. The details of calculations are available in section 3 of the Supplementary Information.

## 2.5. Sensitivity of influence of catchment size

In order to investigate the sensitivity to the size of the watershed, a different watershed simulation was performed using three subareas and a tank surface of 2000 m². The number of PE treated was reduced by a factor 3/7. This factor is equal to the reduction ratio between the new number of subareas (three) compared to the default one (seven). The scenario without source separation and scenario 1 and 3 were simulated. The results in terms of ammonium mass flow entering the WWTP, the aeration need and the methanol use are discussed hereafter. It should be noted that the variation of subareas etc. only influences the peaks and not the averages.

## 2.6. Calculation of greenhouses gases emissions

The overall impact of each urine diversion scenario on global warming potential was calculated. For this purpose, the effects on the treatment plant operation (reduction of energy consumption, chemicals consumption, direct emission of greenhouse gases) was translated into global warming potential thanks to the Ecoinvent database (Wernet et al. 2016) (see Table S4 in the Supplementary Information for detailed emissions factors). The following aspects were considered:

- **The avoided energy consumption for aeration of nitrifying biofilters** was calculated with reference to the current air consumption in the plant (333 Nm³/kg NH₄-N removed) and the oxygen demand calculated for the reference. French electricity mix was used (0.109 kgCO₂-eq/kWh) from Ecoinvent database (see Supplementary Information section 3 for detail of the calculation).

- **The avoided emission of nitrous oxide from nitrifying biofilter into air** equivalent to 0.0245 kgN-N₂O/kgN*nitrified* (Bollon et al. 2016) (in average for winter and summer campaign in another Parisian WWTP). The emissions of nitrous oxide dissolved in the effluent are not considered in this study.

- **Urine transport** with weekly truck collection and 10 km of distance (round trip).

- **The direct and indirect GHG emissions for three alternative technologies for urine treatment:** (1) the VUNA process which consists of a nitrification of urine followed by distillation (Fumasoli et al. 2016), (2) the ValuefromUrine technology with struvite precipitation and ammonia recovery by microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) (Igos et al. 2017), and (3) the struvite precipitation followed by the nitrogen recovery by transmembrane chemisorption (Besson et al. 2021). Nitrous oxide emissions from partial nitrification in the VUNA process were also considered with the preliminary result of 0.007 kgN₂O/kg-Nurine (Faust et al. 2021), and were integrated in the urine treatment impact. The emissions during storage (estimated at around 0.008 kgN₂O/kg-Nurine) was assumed to be prevented by the storage strategy proposed by (Faust et al. subm.). In this strategy, nitrified urine is fed directly on the granular activated carbon filter and not stored beforehand. For the three processes, only the GHG emissions for the treatment are considered (energy consumption, chemicals...) and not the use of the products.

- **The avoided fertilizers production** replaced by the use of products from urine was also considered with ammonium nitrate and triple superphosphate substitution.

Several other aspects were not considered: the transport of products before fields application, the emissions into air of urine-based fertilizers and conventional fertilizer; the change of pumping energy consumption in the WWTP. Finally, as
the AluFer (aluminium and ferric chloride) addition is performed for removal of the suspended solid in the preliminary clari-
fier and not for phosphorus removal, no reduction of its consumption were considered.

In order to generalize the results to other case studies, a sensitivity analysis was performed on two parameters: (1) the N₂O emissions factors in the WWTP were modified for the one measured in activated sludge (0.0058 kgN₂O-N/kgNᵢn (Bollon et al. 2013)), and (2) the European electricity mix (0.38659 kgCO₂-eq/kWh) where less nuclear energy is used and the production of electricity generates more GHG emissions.

**3. RESULTS**

**3.1. Scenario 1: Global urine separation in Marne-Aval area**

The first scenario was the homogeneous implementation of a urine source separation (USS) in the catchment area of MAV containing 210,123 PE (households, residential buildings and office buildings). Figure 2 shows the comparison of simulated influent ammonium load at the treatment plant for reference situation without urine retention, and with urine separation for 40% of the population. Table 2 summarizes the average influent wastewater and nitrogen flows for the different scenarios. Days were randomly selected during dry weather periods, to represent the evolution of nitrogen influent flows over 10 days. The average ammonium load is 2.65±0.86 10³ kg/d without urine retention and was reduced to 1.85±0.59 10³ kgN/d with urine separation as per scenario 1 (S1) (Figure 2 and Table 2). During the day the reduction percentage in ammonium loads varied between 28.9 and 31.0% (Figure 2). These reductions were more pronounced during weekdays compared to weekends. The highest reduction rate was synchronized with the highest nitrogen peak load (Figure 2). However, for homogeneous implementation (this scenario 1), the fluctuations in percentage of reduction with time are not that significant. As expected, results show that the global deployment of USS for 40% population logically leads to an important and proportional reduction in nitrogen load at the inlet of the WWTP.

Moreover, urine separation has a significant effect on the influent COD:N ratio. As shown (Figure 2(b) and Table 2), this ratio changed dynamically and on average increased from 8.1 (without USS) to 10.3 (with 40% USS). This change in the COD:N ratio was considered in the calculation of denitrification and nitrification demands at the treatment plant (recirculation, air consumption, methanol) in the estimations of benefits gained from implementing a USS scenario.

**3.2. Sensitivity to level of deployment and urban surface area**

The sensitivity of the results to the level of urine separation was also assessed using the same hypothesis as the one in
scenario 1. Figure 3 presents the simulation results from the comparison of three different global urine retention rates,
20% USS, 40% USS and 60% USS in the Marne-Aval watershed, with the reduced ammonium influent load and the percent
reduction in aeration and methanol. These results show that important reductions of nitrogen influent loads were obtained,

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2** | (a) Flows of ammonium influent loads (10³ kgN/d) and the percentage of reduction in ammonium influent at the WWTP; (b) Wastewater influent flowrates (m³/d) along with the COD:N ratios, without urine source separation (USS) and with 40% USS rate, for the MAV plant and for scenario 1 (S1).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** | Summary of simulated scenarios, average daily influent flow and nitrogen flows, with and without urine source separation</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Reference<br>MAV Plant characteristics<br>Without USS</th><th>Scenario 1 (S1)<br>Global implementation</th><th>Scenario 2 (S2)<br>Work area men urine</th><th>Scenario 3 (S3)<br>Work area men and women</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Urine source separation (USS) rate</td><td>0</td><td>40%</td><td>90% of 26 265PE</td><td>90% of 52 530 PE</td></tr><tr><td>Mean influent flow rate (m³/d)</td><td>43±11</td><td>41±10</td><td>43±11</td><td>42±11</td></tr><tr><td>Mean ammonium load (10³ kgN /d)</td><td>2.7±0.9</td><td>1.9±0.6</td><td>2.6±0.8</td><td>2.5±0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Average COD:N ratios</td><td>8.1</td><td>10.3</td><td>8.2</td><td>8.34</td></tr><tr><td>Urine volume to collect (m³/d)</td><td>0</td><td>171</td><td>8</td><td>24</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** | Comparison of reduction need of methanol, aeration and ammonium load entering the wastewater treatment plant, for scenarios with 20, 40 and 60% urine separation rate.</figcaption></figure>

which increased progressively and proportionally with the increase of the selected USS rate from 20% USS to 60% USS (see also Fig S3). Moreover, at 60% USS rate, the average reduction in the ammonium influent load could reach 1.45 10³ kgN /d. The reductions in aeration demand and methanol addition were also proportional to the increased level of urine source separation implementation (Figure 3). Yet, the implementation of 60% urine retention rate in the entire city remains challenging from a logistical and infrastructure aspect.

Another question is the sensitivity to the size of the watershed and the level of centralization of the treatment plant. To evaluate this sensitivity, a simulation was performed in a smaller watershed. Simulations (Fig S4) showed the MAV watershed presented two ammonium load peaks that had approximately the same intensity, however the smallest watershed had a more intense morning peak and a smaller evening peak. With Scenario 1, the urine source separation allowed reducing the first peak to the same level as the second peak from the reference scenario for the small watershed (Figure S4), hence the treatment plant can be designed with a treatment capacity for the second peak and not the morning one. For instance, the air supply in the small watershed without USS should be designed for the peak demand of 34,000 Nm³/h, whereas the average demand is 15,000 Nm³/h. With urine source separation implemented, the air compressors would need to produce 27,500 Nm³/h to ensure appropriate treatment.

### 3.3. Scenario 2 and 3: Urine separation at work

Figure 4 presents the nitrogen influent loads for scenarios 2 and 3 in comparison with the reference situation. Regarding these scenarios, the urine diversion is assumed only during work hours and on work places. Logically, the effect on nitrogen load is
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** | Nitrogen influent load for MAV Plant for reference scenario (without USS) and for urine source separation scenarios 2 (men urinals) and 3 (all toilets) at work and their corresponding percentage reduction in nitrogen influent load.</figcaption></figure>

much more dynamic compared to an homogeneous deployment (scenario 1), and the nitrogen load reduction would be naturally more pronounced during work hours. For instance, the selective retention of men urine at work (Scenario 2) showed that the nitrogen reduction factor varied between 0% (night) and 4.5% (around 4 p.m.) during a typical week day. When urine separation was considered for all working people (scenario 3, men and women), the amplitude was more pronounced and the maximal nitrogen load reduction reached 9.1% in the afternoon (Figure 4). Finally, the average influent nitrogen load reached respectively $2.58 \pm 0.83 \times 10^3$ kgN/d for scenario 2 and $2.52 \pm 0.80 \times 10^3$ kgN/d for scenario 3 (Table 2), which corresponds to 2.4 and 4.8% reduction of the influent nitrogen load compared to the reference scenario (current situation without any USS).

### 3.4. Reduction in aeration and chemical consumption

Figure 5 presents the daily variation of air flow required to achieve nitrification in the nitrifying biofilter, and the methanol dosing needed to ensure denitrification in the post-DN biofilter in the wastewater treatment plant of Marne Aval (MAV).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** | Daily aeration flow needed at the biofilters to achieve nitrification, (a) and daily methanol dosing required to achieve post denitrification (b) for the reference and the three urine retention scenarios.</figcaption></figure>
These dynamics were calculated for each scenario (1, 2 and 3) using the simulated influent and the operational data collected from MAV plant operators. For scenario 1, the reduction in air flow rate for nitrification was 31.5% and peaked at 32.3%. The reduction rate was less important for scenario 2, which reached 2.5% and peaked at 4.5%, but it was more pronounced for scenario 3, with a maximal reduction in aeration reaching 89.0% (Table 3). The average reduction in methanol consumption at the post-denitrification obtained from scenario 1 reached on average 36.6%, and peaked at 38.2%. Scenario 2 led to 2.3% reduction on average and peaked at 5.1%, whereas for scenario 3 the mean reduction was 4.6% and peaked at 10.2% (Table 3). These results confirm that reduction in aeration and methanol dosing can be achieved proportionally to the level of deployment of USS in relation to the implementation scenario, however, urine source separation at work presents lower reduction rates. Regarding scenarios 2 and 3, the reduction in aeration and methanol were logically observed during work hours, i.e. during the diurnal peak load.

For this calculation, it was assumed that the internal recirculation rate was not modified between aerobic and anoxic bio-filters, leading to the same proportion of nitrate that was recirculated to the pre-DN. Due to higher COD:N ratio, more residual COD was degraded aerobically in the biofilter, but this was not detrimental for the overall balance. However, another option would be to increase the internal recirculation to consume more nitrate and COD in pre-DN. The methanol saving would be even more important in that case, but the energy demand for recirculation would increase and should be considered for global evaluation.

### 3.5. Greenhouse gases balance for the urine collection and treatment

Figure 6 shows the additional GHG emissions linked to the collection and treatment of urine (in positive value), and the benefits (in negative value) of source separation for different urine treatment options. The results are presented for scenario

<table><caption>**Table 3** | Simulated overall reduction in aeration flow and methanol consumption in biofilters for nitrification and denitrification, for the three different scenarios for urine source separation compared to reference scenario (without USS)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Reduction in the aeration flow injected to achieve nitrification</th><th colspan="3">Reduction in methanol addition at the post-Denitrification step</th></tr><tr><th>Scenario 1(%)</th><th>Scenario 2(%)</th><th>Scenario 3(%)</th><th>Scenario 1(%)</th><th>Scenario 2(%)</th><th>Scenario 3(%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Maximum</th><td>32.3</td><td>4.5</td><td>9.0</td><td>38.2</td><td>5.1</td><td>10.2</td></tr><tr><th>Average</th><td>31.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>36.6</td><td>2.3</td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><th>Minimum</th><td>30.8</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.6</td><td>35.1</td><td>-0.3</td><td>-0.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** | Comparison of greenhouse gases emissions for the three different treatment technologies (VUNA process, microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), and transmembrane chemisorption (TMCS), for the Scenario 3. Comparison for the two other scenarios is given in supplementary information (Table S4).</figcaption></figure>
3, and similar trends were obtained for scenarios 1 and 2 (presented in Table S4). The main gain relative to global warming potential of the urine source separation scenario is the avoided emissions of nitrous oxide in the WWTP. The estimated avoided N₂O emissions were indeed 1.7 to 6.6 times higher than the additional emissions for urine management in CO₂ equivalent, including energy and chemicals consumption, and nitrous oxide emissions. However, even without the benefits gained from avoided N₂O emissions, urine source separation scenarios were beneficial in terms of global warming potential, since between 250 and 821 kgCO₂-Eq would be avoided per day, due to the avoided fertiliser production and the gains obtained at the station (methanol and electricity). This calculation indicates the high benefits of urine source separation on global warming potential, which is especially reinforced in the case of biofilters from which N₂O emissions are relatively high.

It has to be noted that, even with a European electricity mix (0.38659 kgCO₂-eq/kWh) and lower emissions of N₂O measured in activated sludge (0.0058 kgN₂O-N/kgNᵢₙ) (Bollon et al. 2013), the urine separation scenarios still presented a beneficial balance for the MEC and TMCS treatment technologies (see Table S5). The avoided production of nitrogen fertiliser is in this case the main contributor to this improvement. In the case of the VUNA process, the avoided emissions do not compensate the emissions from the treatment. The emissions of nitrous oxide in the partial nitrification of VUNA process is slightly larger than the one in the activated sludge process, and the emissions from the avoided fertiliser production is not sufficient to compensate the treatment. Thus, this scenario is more relevant for intensive treatment plant where high nitrous oxide emissions occur.

# 4. DISCUSSION

## 4.1. Implementation strategies and influent modifications

Reduction in nitrogen loads is by default proportional to the level of implementation of urine source separation. Homogeneous implementation in the large urban area of MAV leads to a stable and significant reduction of nitrogen load during the day (from 29 to 31% for 40% urine source separation). In contrast, the specific deployment of USS in office buildings and work areas lead to selective reductions of daily nitrogen peaks. This strategy could potentially help manage the nitrogen peak load at wastewater treatment plants, which is a common problem that most plant operators encounter (Rauch et al. 2003; Rossi et al. 2009). However, considering the contribution of working area in MAV, the effect remained relatively limited, as only a maximum of 9% reduction was achieved (scenario 3).

Finally, the dynamics of nitrogen loads depend on the catchment size with different intensity of the morning and evening peaks. In small catchment areas, the level of nitrogen load reduction due to USS is slightly more variable than for a larger watershed. For scenario 3, in MAV watershed the reduction load had a standard deviation of 2.3% against 4.3% in the smaller watershed. Finally, even if the benefits of USS implementation in work areas (scenario 2 and 3) would be more interesting in a small watershed, this scenario had a relatively low impact on the shaving morning peak loads.

## 4.2. Calculated operational benefits for wastewater treatment

Aeration and methanol requirement both decrease in proportion with nitrogen load reduction, i.e. with the increased level of USS implementation. In addition, for the MAV plant, reduction of methanol dosage was more prominent compared to reduction in aeration, firstly because part of the denitrification is performed in the pre-DN biofilter with the influent COD, and secondly because COD:N ratio increased with USS implementation. As a result, to reach the same effluent ammonium concentration, a lower proportion of denitrification would be performed in post-DN with methanol. This phenomenon would be accentuated if the internal recirculation was increased (not considered here), but this would also require more energy to operate the recirculation pumps.

In the case of pre-denitrification, the decrease of nitrate removal leads to a reduction of COD consumption, which would then need to be oxidized in the aerated biofilter. However, COD is also present in urine, thus source separation of urine allows a reduction of COD mass flow and more specifically soluble readily biodegradable COD. Consequently the increase of COD:N is also accompanied by an increase of particulate COD fraction. Such particulate COD is efficiently captured by primary sedimentation and does not reach the biofilters in the MAV plant, and finally less soluble COD would feed the biofilters. Thus, the aeration consumption for COD removal increased slightly with source separation (by 9, 1 and 2% respectively for scenarios 1, 2 and 3), but the calculation of the total aeration demand still showed a decrease by 17% for scenario 1, and by 2 and 4% respectively for scenario 2 and 3.
Despite important reductions that could be accomplished in energy and methanol in wastewater treatment, these savings should be compared to additional requirements for urine management, such as treatment and disposal.

In this study, it was assumed that the separated urine was stored at the building level, collected by trucks and treated at a centralized place (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2015, 2020) with three different technologies. Previous researchers used a stochastic model for urine production to investigate the feasibility of combining urine separation with waste sewer design (Rauch et al. 2003). In a parallel study, we also evaluated the synergies, which can be found by a combined treatment of urine with rejected liquor from sludge treatment (Besson et al. 2021). Another approach focused on collecting the urine in separate tanks, which were equipped with valves that could be controlled remotely. This approach allowed a specific urine release in the sewer network at night to compensate for nitrogen peak loads in the influent wastewater during the morning peak (Rossi et al. 2009).

By comparing three different treatment technologies, struvite and TMCS technology presented the lowest greenhouse gas emissions but the use of heat recovered from sludge incineration is beneficial to the technology.

Finally, the carbon footprint balance can be highly positive when all the management chain was considered (Figure 6 and Table S4). It should be noted that only the operational impacts are considered in this case. For considering infrastructure, both the possibilities of limiting the extension of existing plant (benefit) and the construction of new technologies (impacts) could be considered in future work, but this is still highly delicate as no full scale feed-back is available for such realization (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2015; Igos et al. 2017).

Our previous work showed that 50% urine retention also reduced total phosphorus by 19% (Bisinella de Faria et al. 2020). Considering such a reduction, it could also be possible to determine other benefits, like for instance reduction of the coagulant demand. However, this was not considered in this case-study for MAV because mineral coagulant dosage is mainly controlled by physical-chemical capture of suspended solids in primary treatment in the MAV plant.

## 4.3. Feasibility and future strategies

Implementation of urine source separation at a significant level in a watershed needs to be conducted with an extensive planning for such alternative wastewater management. This is essential for anticipating and financing urine storage, collection and disposal, such as installing toilets and tanks in households, residential buildings or public places. Despite important reductions in energy, chemicals, and carbon footprint that were calculated for global implementation of USS in the entire catchment of MAV (scenario 1), the feasibility of this approach remains challenging.

First from a technical aspect, installing diverting toilets and dry urinals in existing buildings is more difficult than installing these techniques in new buildings under construction (Larsen & Gujer 1996; Larsen et al. 2001). The option of installing urine separation preferentially in new buildings should be considered. A driver for urine source separation would be the possibility to avoid a potential expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, thus retrofitting it into a water resource recovery facility (WRRF). Urine source separation could achieve shavings of peak loads without impacting significantly the wastewater flowrate that reaches the WWTP.

From a logistical perspective, it may be more feasible to implement urine separation in office buildings compared to separated residential houses. On average, one toilet is installed in a single house in which 2.2 people live (INSEE et al. 2019) whereas the minimal number of toilets in offices is only one toilet for 10 people (Article R4228-10 n.d.). The option of modifying the toilets in offices and public service buildings seems more realistic, but as demonstrated in this study the effect would be less significant and principally positive for shaving the nitrogen peaks in a small watershed.

Finally, from an economical point of view, the cost of toilet modifications, storage systems, urine transport and treatment installation should also be considered to give a complete vision of the scenarios. Here, it was assumed that treatment of separated urine was realized at a centralized level, which could limit the cost of infrastructures compared to small decentralized installations. Finally, the present work allowed quantifying for a real case-study the environmental outcomes of urine separation scenarios. These results could be possibly translated into cost reductions and money saving in future studies.

## 5. CONCLUSIONS

Different scenarios of urine source separation (USS) in a specific urban area (Paris catchment of Marne-Aval treatment plant) were simulated. The results of the study are highlighted as follows:
(1) Urine separation reduces nitrogen peak loads on average, and the level of reduction was proportional to the level of deployment in each scenario (household or workplace). Besides nitrogen load, the COD:N ratio changed dynamically which need to be considered for calculating the modification of aeration and methanol dosage.

(2) The dynamic influent generator can be adapted according to the size of the city, and can predict dynamic changes while confirming substantial benefits from specific urine separation during work hours.

(3) The simulated influent profiles allowed quantifying the reduction in energy demand at the biofilters for nitrification and methanol savings at the post denitrification.

(4) A significant benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is demonstrated with the urine diversion strategies, for different recovery technologies, and this was especially due to the high level of N₂O emissions avoided in nitrifying biofilters and nitrogen fertilizer substitution.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was part of the MOCOPEE research program (MOdeling, Control and Optimization of wastewater treatment ProcEssEs, www.mocopee.com) and was supported by the SIAAP (Greater Paris Sanitation Authority). The authors are very grateful to Dr Kai M. Udert from Eawag and ETH for his careful review and guidance during this project.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare there is no conflict.

## REFERENCES

Article R4228-10. n.d. *Droit du Travail Français (French Labor Code)*.

Azimi, S. & Rocher, V. 2017 *Energy consumption reduction in a waste water treatment plant*. *Water Pract. Technol.* **12**, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2017.006.

Badeti, U., Pathak, N. K., Volpin, F., Dorji, U., Freguia, S., Shon, H. K. & Phuntsho, S. 2021 *Impact of source-separation of urine on effluent quality, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of a decentralized wastewater treatment plant*. *Process Saf. Environ. Prot.* **150**, 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.04.022.

Besson, M. 2020 *Modelling and Environmental Assessment of Source Separation Scenarios for Wastewater at District Scale*. Université de Toulouse, France.

Besson, M., Berger, S., Tiruta-barna, L., Paul, E. & Spérandio, M. 2021 *Environmental assessment of urine, black and grey water separation for resource recovery in a new district compared to centralized wastewater resources recovery plant*. *J. Clean. Prod.* **301**, 126868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126868.

Bisinella de Faria, A. B., Spérandio, M., Ahmadi, A. & Tiruta-Barna, L. 2015 *Evaluation of new alternatives in wastewater treatment plants based on dynamic modelling and life cycle assessment (DM-LCA)*. *Water Res.* **84**, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.048.

Bisinella de Faria, A. B., Besson, M., Ahmadi, A., Udert, K. M. & Spérandio, M. 2020 *Dynamic influent generator for alternative wastewater management with urine source separation*. *J. Sustain. Water Built Environ.* **6**, 04020001. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000904.

Bollon, J., Filali, A., Fayolle, Y. & Gillot, S. 2013 *Emissions de N₂O Dans les Procédés de Traitement des ERUs*. (Research Report). irstea. Etat des connaissances.

Bollon, J., Filali, A., Fayolle, Y., Guerin, S., Rocher, V. & Gillot, S. 2016 *N₂O emissions from full-scale nitrifying biofilters*. *Water Res.* **102**, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.091.

Boyer, T. H. & Saetta, D. 2019 *Opportunities for building-scale urine diversion and challenges for implementation*. *Acc. Chem. Res.* **52**, 886–895. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00614.

Courtney, C. & Randall, D. G. 2022 *Concentrating stabilized urine with reverse osmosis: how does stabilization method and pre-treatment affect nutrient recovery, flux, and scaling?*. *Water Res.* **209**, 117970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117970.

De Paepe, J., Lindeboom, R. E. F., Vanoppen, M., De Paepe, K., Demey, D., Coessens, W., Lamaze, B., Verliefde, A. R. D., Clauwaert, P. & Vlaeminck, S. E. 2018 *Refinery and concentration of nutrients from urine with electrodialysis enabled by upstream precipitation and nitrification*. *Water Res.* **144**, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.016.

De Paepe, J., De Paepe, K., Gòdia, F., Rabaey, K., Vlaeminck, S. E. & Clauwaert, P. 2020 *Bio-electrochemical COD removal for energy-efficient, maximum and robust nitrogen recovery from urine through membrane aerated nitrification*. *Water Res.* **185**, 116223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116223.
Faust, V., Gruber, W., Ganigué, R., Vlaeminck, S. E. & Udert, K. M. 2021 N₂O emissions during urine nitrification, in: Session 9: Urine Valorization. In: *Presented at the 4th IWA Resource Recovery*. IWA, Turkey.

Faust, V., Gruber, W., Ganigué, R., Vlaeminck, S. E. & Udert, K. M. subm Nitrous oxide emissions and carbon footprint of urine fertilizer production by nitrification and distillation. *Submitt. ACS EST Eng.*

Flanagan, C. P. & Randall, D. G. 2018 Development of a novel nutrient recovery urinal for on-site fertilizer production. *J. Environ. Chem. Eng.* **6**, 6344–6350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.09.060.

Fumasoli, A., Etter, B., Sterkele, B., Morgenroth, E. & Udert, K. M. 2016 Operating a pilot-scale nitrification/distillation plant for complete nutrient recovery from urine. *Water Sci. Technol.* **73**, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.485.

Gernaey, K. V., Flores-Alsina, X., Rosen, C., Benedetti, L. & Jeppsson, U. 2011 *Dynamic influent pollutant disturbance scenario generation using a phenomenological modelling approach*. *Environ. Model. Softw.* **26**, 1255–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.06.001.

Gonzalez-Salgado, I., Lefebvre, X., Bounouba, M., Mengelle, E., Dubos, S., Lorain, O., Trouvé, E., Guigui, C. & Spérandio, M. 2020 N and P Recovery from Urine and Digestate by Struvite Formation and Transmembrane Chemisorption. In *Presented at the IWA Nutrient Removal and Recovery Conference*, Helsinki, Finland.

Guest, J. S., Skerlos, S. J., Barnard, J. L., Beck, M. B., Daigger, G. T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S. J., Karvazy, K., Kelly, L., Macpherson, L., Mihelcic, J. R., Pramanik, A., Raskin, L., Van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Yeh, D. & Love, N. G. 2009 *A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater*. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **43**, 6126–6130. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9010515.

Hilton, S. P., Keoleian, G. A., Daigger, G. T., Zhou, B. & Love, N. G. 2021 Life cycle assessment of urine diversion and conversion to fertilizer products at the city scale. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **55**, 593–603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04195.

Hug, A. & Udert, K. M. 2013 Struvite precipitation from urine with electrochemical magnesium dosage. *Water Res.* **47**, 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.09.036.

Igos, E., Besson, M., Navarrete Gutiérrez, T., Bisinella de Faria, A. B., Benetto, E., Barna, L., Ahmadi, A. & Spérandio, M. 2017 Assessment of environmental impacts and operational costs of the implementation of an innovative source-separated urine treatment. *Water Res.* **126**, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.016.

INSEE, Plazaola, J. d. & Rignols, E. 2019 *Tableaux de L'économie Française*. Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, France.

Ishii, S. K. L. & Boyer, T. H. 2015 Life cycle comparison of centralized wastewater treatment and urine source separation with struvite precipitation: focus on urine nutrient management. *Water Res.* **79**, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.04.010.

Jimenez, J., Bott, C., Love, N. & Bratby, J. 2015 Source separation of urine as an alternative solution to nutrient management in biological nutrient removal treatment plants. *Water Environ. Res.* **87**, 2120–2129. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143015X14212658613884.

Jönsson, H., Baky, A., Jeppsson, U., Hellström, D. & Kärrman, E. 2005 *Composition of Urine, Faeces, Greywater and Biowaste for Utilisation in the URWARE Model*.

Kazadi Mbamba, C., Lindblom, E., Flores-Alsina, X., Tait, S., Anderson, S., Saagi, R., Batstone, D. J., Gernaey, K. V. & Jeppsson, U. 2019 Plant-wide model-based analysis of iron dosage strategies for chemical phosphorus removal in wastewater treatment systems. *Water Res.* **155**, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.01.048.

Langergraber, G., Alex, J., Weissenbacher, N., Woerner, D., Ahnert, M., Frehmann, T., Halft, N., Hobus, I., Plattes, M., Spering, V. & Winkler, S. 2008 Generation of diurnal variation for influent data for dynamic simulation. *Water Sci. Technol.* **57**, 1483–1486. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.228.

Larsen, T. A. & Gujer, W. 1996 Separate management of anthropogenic nutrient solutions (human urine). *Water Sci. Technol.* **34**, 87–94.

Larsen, T. A., Peters, I., Alder, A., Eggen, R., Maurer, M. & Muncke, J. 2001 Re-engineering the toilet for sustainable waste water management. *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **35**, 192A–197A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es012328d.

Larsen, T. A., Alder, A. C., Eggen, R. I. L., Maurer, M. & Lienert, J. 2009 Source separation: will we see a paradigm shift in wastewater handling? *Environ. Sci. Technol.* **43**, 6121–6125. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803001r.

Larsen, T. A., Udert, K. M. & Lienert, J. 2013 *Source Separation and Decentralization for Wastewater Management*. IWA Publ, London.

Larsen, T. A., Riechmann, M. E. & Udert, K. M. 2021 State of the art of urine treatment technologies: a critical review. *Water Res.* **X 13**, 100114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wroa.2021.100114.

Liu, Y., He, L.-F., Deng, Y.-Y., Zhang, Q., Jiang, G.-M. & Liu, H. 2022 Recent progress on the recovery of valuable resources from source-separated urine on-site using electrochemical technologies: a review. *Chem. Eng. J.* **442**, 136200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2022.136200.

Pradhan, S., Al-Ghamdi, S. G. & Mackey, H. R. 2019 Greywater recycling in buildings using living walls and green roofs: a review of the applicability and challenges. *Sci. Total Environ.* **652**, 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.226.

Rauch, W., Brockmann, D., Peters, I., Larsen, T. A. & Gujer, W. 2003 Combining urine separation with waste design: an analysis using a stochastic model for urine production. *Water Res.* **37**, 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00364-0.

Rocher, V., Laverman, A. M., Gasperi, J., Azimi, S., Guérin, S., Mottelet, S., Villières, T. & Pauss, A. 2015 Nitrite accumulation during denitrification depends on the carbon quality and quantity in wastewater treatment with biofilters. *Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.* **22**, 10179–10188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4196-1.

Rossi, L., Lienert, J. & Larsen, T. A. 2009 *Real-life efficiency of urine source separation*. *J. Environ. Manage.* **90**, 1909–1917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.006.
Spuhler, D., Scheidegger, A. & Maurer, M. 2020 Comparative analysis of sanitation systems for resource recovery: influence of configurations and single technology components. *Water Res.* **186**, 116281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116281.

Udert, K. M. & Wächter, M. 2012 Complete nutrient recovery from source-separated urine by nitrification and distillation. *Water Res.* **46**, 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.020.

Udert, K. M., Buckley, C. A., Wächter, M., McArdell, C. S., Kohn, T., Strande, L., Zöllig, H., Fumasoli, A., Oberson, A. & Etter, B. 2016 Technologies for the treatment of source-separated urine in the eThekwini municipality. *Water SA* **41**, 212. https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v41i2.06.

Varhelyi, M., Brehar, M. & Cristea, V.-M. 2018 Control strategies for wastewater treatment plants aimed to improve nutrient removal and to reduce aeration costs. In: *2018 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR)*. IEEE, Cluj-Napoca, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/AQTR.2018.8402750.

Volpin, F., Chekli, L., Phuntsho, S., Cho, J., Ghaffour, N., Vrouwenvelder, J. S. & Kyong Shon, H. 2018 Simultaneous phosphorous and nitrogen recovery from source-separated urine: a novel application for fertiliser drawn forward osmosis. *Chemosphere* **203**, 482–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.193.

Volpin, F., Heo, H., Hasan Johir, M. A., Cho, J., Phuntsho, S. & Shon, H. K. 2019 Techno-economic feasibility of recovering phosphorus, nitrogen and water from dilute human urine via forward osmosis. *Water Res.* **150**, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.11.056.

Volpin, F., Woo, Y. C., Kim, H., Freguia, S., Jeong, N., Choi, J.-S., Cho, J., Phuntsho, S. & Shon, H. K. 2020 Energy recovery through reverse electrodialysis: harnessing the salinity gradient from the flushing of human urine. *Water Res.* **186**, 116320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116320.

Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E. & Weidema, B. 2016 The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. *Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.* **21**, 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.

Zamora, P., Georgieva, T., Ter Heijne, A., Sleutels, T. H. J. A., Jeremiasse, A. W., Saakes, M., Buisman, C. J. N. & Kuntke, P. 2017 Ammonia recovery from urine in a scaled-up microbial electrolysis cell. *J. Power Sources* **356**, 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.02.089.

First received 21 April 2022; accepted in revised form 4 July 2022. Available online 11 July 2022