Authors : Danaé Bataillard & Romain Bosson
We often assume that better environmental performance inevitably leads to higher costs. The work carried out with Membratec tells a different story.
Through a comparative life cycle assessment, we not only confirmed the environmental advantage of the SCAP-UF water treatment process compared with other alternatives (CAP-UF and GAC) but also identified the key contributors to both the environmental footprint and operational expenses.
As a result, the levers that reduce environmental impact are also the levers that drive economic efficiency. An approach that challenges common assumptions and demonstrates how to align environmental performance, cost control and treatment quality.
Understanding where environmental footprint—and costs—are generated
Nearly all environmental impacts occur during the use phase, with two predominant contributors:
- the amount of activated carbon required to achieve the desired treatment performance
- the electricity consumption of the process.
These two factors are also among the most influential in variable operational costs.
Acting on these levers therefore reduces both the impact per cubic metre of treated water and a significant share of operating expenses—without compromising treatment quality.
What the comparison reveals: SCAP-UF vs. conventional solutions
The SCAP-UF process (Adsorption on ultrafine powdered activated carbon and ultrafiltration) relies on ultrafine powdered activated carbon. This very small particle size increases the available surface area for adsorption, improving treatment efficiency for a given amount of material. Combined with continuous and homogeneous contact in the reactor, this technological choice enables a fuller use of the carbon’s adsorption capacity.
The comparative assessment of SCAP-UF against two reference technologies—granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption and conventional CAP-UF, highlights significant differences in resource consumption, particularly activated carbon.
Thanks to the enhanced efficiency of the super-fine activated carbon, the SCAP-UF process achieves the desired water quality with significantly lower doses than conventional configurations. This material efficiency directly translates into reduced environmental impacts (notably greenhouse gas emissions).
Why carbon choice matters: a decisive lever for impact and cost
The first optimisation lever for water treatment systems lies in the technology itself. SCAP-UF makes it possible to fully exploit the adsorption capacity of activated carbon. The result: significantly lower doses for the same level of performance—mechanically reducing emissions and operating costs associated with purchasing, transporting and handling activated carbon.
The second lever concerns the choice of activated carbon. Not all products are created equal. Depending on the feedstock (biomass, coal, agricultural co-products) and activation processes, both carbon footprint and adsorption efficiency can vary widely. The relevant parameter is not the price per kilogram, but the total cost and environmental footprint per cubic metre of treated water.
This logic guided the development of the activated carbon purchasing guide—a structured approach designed to help buyers:
- define real needs based on treatment objectives,
- test carbon performance on water,
- request comparable criteria from suppliers,
- and evaluate each option based on combined environmental and economic performance.
This approach moves beyond a purely price-driven logic, fostering supplier relationships aligned with sustainability goals while strengthening cost control.
From analysis to action: an objective decision-support tool
To make this approach operational, a quantification tool was developed. Based on test data (carbon dose, carbon type, unit price, energy context), it calculates in parallel:
- the environmental footprint per m³ of treated water,
- and the total cost per m³.
This combined visualisation enables immediate comparison. It shows that in many cases, the most resource-efficient scenarios are also the most cost-competitive.
By bringing all parameters back to the relevant functional unit—the cubic metre of treated water—the tool objectifies trade-offs without separating technical, environmental and economic performance.
Energy: a lever with dual impact
Just after activated carbon, energy is the second-largest source of environmental impact in water treatment. In a context such as Switzerland, where electricity is largely low-carbon, its relative weight is moderate but still significant.
Membratec does not directly control this lever: energy consumption strongly depends on operating conditions—system settings, control strategies, water quality and the local electricity mix.
Nevertheless, every gain in energy efficiency—whether from initial design, automation, or operational follow-up—reduces emissions and operating costs simultaneously. Even when electricity has a low carbon footprint, energy that is not consumed represents immediate economic savings for both the operator and the end customer.
Beyond a single case: a method that can be replicated
Le cas Membratec illustre une démarche transposable à d’autres secteurs et technologies. Une approche qui repose sur quatre piliers :
- Cibler les postes à fort impact et à fort levier (ici : charbon actif et énergie).
- Structurer les critères d’achat autour de l’impact environnemental réel et de la performance attendue.
- Outiller la décision avec des outils qui permettent de comparer impact et coût sur une même base.
- Installer des boucles d’apprentissage via des tests sur site, un dialogue continu avec les fournisseurs et une capitalisation des retours d’expérience.
Cette méthode permet de sortir d’une opposition entre durabilité et performance économique, en montrant que les deux peuvent converger si l’analyse est menée avec rigueur, et si les décisions sont prises sur la base de données solides.
Conclusion
The life cycle assessment carried out with Membratec demonstrates how a structured environmental approach can become a true operational management tool. Far from being just a diagnostic, it identified concrete optimisation levers:
- a direct reduction in environmental impacts through a technology that uses less activated carbon,
- an improvement of overall treatment cost through a reasoned choice of products, supported by a purchasing guide and a quantification tool.
By combining environmental analysis, technical performance and cost control, this approach enables better-informed decisions—both more sustainable and more economically robust—for operators and decision-makers alike.
Want to understand the environmental impact of your products and turn ambition into tangible results?
Earth Action is here to guide you at every step of your sustainability journey—strategically, pragmatically and with maximum impact.
🔗 Visit our website to learn more about Earth Action, our mission and how we help organisations drive change: www.e-a.earth
📩 Contact us directly: contact@e-a.earth
📅 Book a free consultation to discover how we can support your project’s specific needs
