water

Review
Heat Recovery from Wastewater—A Review of
Available Resource
Himanshu Nagpal , Jan Spriet , Madhu Krishna Murali and Aonghus McNabola *

Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland;
nagpalh@tcd.ie (H.N.); sprietj@tcd.ie (J.S.); MURALIM@tcd.ie (M.K.M.)
* Correspondence: amcnabol@tcd.ie

Abstract: The EU Directive 2018/2001 recognized wastewater as a renewable heat source. Wastewater
from domestic, industrial and commercial developments maintains considerable amounts of thermal
energy after discharging into the sewer system. It is possible to recover this heat by using technologies
like heat exchangers and heat pumps; and to reuse it to satisfy heating demands. This paper presents
a review of the literature on wastewater heat recovery (WWHR) and its potential at different scales
within the sewer system, including the component level, building level, sewer pipe network level,
and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) level. A systematic review is provided of the benefits and
challenges of WWHR across each of these levels taking into consideration technical, economic and
environmental aspects. This study analyzes important attributes of WWHR such as temperature and
flow dynamics of the sewer system, impacts of WWHR on the environment, and legal regulations
involved. Existing gaps in the WWHR field are also identified. It is concluded that WWHR has a
significant potential to supply clean energy at a scale ranging from buildings to large communities



and districts. Further attention to WWHR is needed from the research community, policymakers and

 other stakeholders to realize the full potential of this valuable renewable heat source.
Citation: Nagpal, H.; Spriet, J.;
Krishna Murali, M.; McNabola, A. Keywords: wastewater heat recovery; shower water heat recovery; wastewater heat exchanger; heat
Heat Recovery from Wastewater—A pump low-grade heat
Review of Available Resource. Water
2021, 13, 1274. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w13091274
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: José Alberto
The European Union (EU) has established a target to achieve a 40% reduction in
Herrera-Melián
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (from 1990 levels), and the renewable energy share of the
union should be increased to 32% of total energy generation [1]. Under the regulation on
Received: 7 April 2021
Accepted: 27 April 2021
the governance of the energy union and climate action (EU/2018/1999), EU member states
Published: 30 April 2021
have established a 10-year integrated national energy and climate plan (NECP) [2]. Under
these circumstances, renewable sources of energy have been of great interest in recent
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
years. The EU Directive 2018/2001 [3] specified wastewater as a renewable heat source
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
in compliance with the European environmental goals. Moreover, under the European
published maps and institutional affil- Green Deal Investment Plan, member states will be provided supportive aid to implement
iations. measures like the re-use of waste heat [4].
The wastewater in domestic, industrial, or commercial buildings maintains consider-
able thermal energy quantities, which is discharged to the sewer system with temperature
ranging from 10 to 25 ◦ C. It is estimated that 6000 GWh per year of thermal energy is
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
lost in sewers in Switzerland [5], equivalent to 7% of country’s total heating demand.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Wastewater in sewer pipes in Germany is estimated to contain enough energy to heat
This article is an open access article
2 million homes [6]. This resource can be exploited through heat exchangers and heat
distributed under the terms and pump technologies, applied at different points in the sewer system, from end-user to
conditions of the Creative Commons water treatment, that is, at the component level, in buildings, in public sewers, and at
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// WWTPs. These locations have their respective advantages and disadvantages concerning
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ their energy, economic and environmental prospects. For example, low heat loss is present
4.0/). at component level WWHR, while greater heat density is available at WWTPs.

Water 2021, 13, 1274. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091274 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2021, 13, 1274 2 of 26

Existing papers in the literature have studied different elements of WWHR in different
settings, such as heat recovery at different locations within the sewer system, with heat
exchangers, with a combination of heat exchangers and heat pumps, examining the cost-
effectiveness, and environmental impacts, and so forth. However, a synthesis of the
potential of heat recovery across the sewer system’s entire water cycle, from leaving the
drain of a building to discharge into water bodies after treatment, is missing. Such a
synthesis would be essential to present the complete picture of energy availability in
wastewater in the sewer system and the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of its
exploitation in different locations, given its recent recognition as an essential renewable
heat source.
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature on WWHR at different
points along the sewer system, from user discharge to water treatment. The review outlines
state-of-the-art in sewer water temperature dynamics, the environmental impact of WWHR
and the legal regulations involved. Heat exchanger design, type, configuration, perfor-
mance and fouling in WWHR settings are not considered in this paper, as other review
papers have addressed these [7–9].
The review paper is systematically divided into WWHR at different levels along the
water cycle addressing the benefit and challenges of each. The interested stakeholder can
gain important insights into the level of heat recovery they are interested in. Furthermore,
the work also highlights other important aspects of WWHR, such as economic analysis and
environmental impact, which can assist the policymakers in making relevant decisions. For
the research community, the work emphasizes the research gaps in the field and suggests
possible avenues for future research.

2. Methodology
In identifying the sources for the literature review, an initial search with Google Scholar
search system was performed to understand the available literature with the following
keywords—wastewater heat recovery, drain water heat recovery, and wastewater source
heat pump. The majority of the articles from Google Scholar search were found to be
published by Elsevier. Therefore, the ScienceDirect database that contains full-text articles
from journals and books published by Elsevier, and the Scopus database were used to
narrow down the literature search. Furthermore, the artificial-intelligence-based search
system Semantic Scholar was also used with the same keyword search. The search resulted
in similar research data with some additional articles and dissertations. In addition to
the databases and search systems, some literature was identified using the well-known
snowball method, that is, to look for research data in the bibliography and citations of the
primary literature.
The entire database of 154 research items was prepared, which included research
articles, dissertations and technical reports. The abstract and summary of each research
item were carefully analyzed to narrow down the results that fit the purpose of this
literature review. The research data were further divided into categories based upon the
structure of the present work, such as research items belonging to different levels of WWHR,
investigating wastewater temperature and flow modelling, addressing environmental
impacts and so forth.

3. Wastewater Heat Recovery

Wastewater is “used water from any combination of domestic, industrial, commercial or
agricultural activities, surface runoff/stormwater, and any sewer inflow/infiltration” [10].
Almost 20% of energy use in the domestic sector is associated with water heating for
various purposes (e.g., shower, bath, dishwasher, washing machine, cooking, etc.) [11].
Wastewater, therefore, contains a significant amount of heat energy that can be recovered
and used for preheating the cold-water supply in a building or space-heating, depending
upon the magnitude of heat available. The heat embedded in wastewater depends upon
Water 2021, 13, 1274 3 of 26

its temperature and flow rate. The content of available heat for recovery from wastewater
can be calculated using the heat transfer equation:

Q̇ = ṁc p ∆T (1)

where, Q̇ is the recovered heat content per unit time, ṁ is the mass flow rate of wastewater,
c p is its specific heat capacity, ρ is the density of wastewater, and ∆T is the temperature
change of wastewater due to heat recovery. As per Equation (1), a higher flow rate and
temperature of wastewater results in a higher potential for heat recovery.
Independent from the heat recovery system type, two main components may be
involved in WWHR: a heat exchanger and heat pump. Although in some situations, heat
may be recovered only using a heat exchanger, typically when the average temperature
of the wastewater is higher than 30 ◦ C (domestic shower settings). A heat exchanger is
a device that facilitates the transfer of internal thermal energy between two fluids while
avoiding the mixing of the two. It is a passive technology that does not require any external
energy source. Some commonly used heat exchanger types in WWHR applications include
double-pipe parallel flow, double-pipe counterflow, shell-and-tube, and plate-and-frame
heat exchanger. Heat exchanger types and their performance in WWHR applications are
discussed in detail by Culha et al. [9].
A heat pump is a technology that uses electricity and the reverse refrigeration cycle to
transfer heat from one place to another [12]. Heat pumps require a low-temperature energy
source and convert this low-grade heat to usable heating energy by mechanical work. In
the context of WWHR, wastewater serves as the low-grade heat source for the heat pump.
A heat pump can work in both heating and cooling modes. In cooling mode, the ambient
air of the space which needs cooling acts as a source, and heat is extracted from it, leading
to space-cooling. Heat pump types and their performance in WWHR applications are
discussed in detail by Hepbasli et al. [7].

4. Energy Recovery Options

There are four main possible locations within the sewer system for energy recovery
from wastewater: (i) at the component level; (ii) at building level; (iii) in the sewer pipe
network, and (iv) from WWTPs. Figure 1 shows these possible options of WWHR.

Figure 1. Possible options of heat recovery from wastewater [5].

4.1. Heat Recovery at Component Level

At this level of WWHR, heat is recovered from wastewater directly after it is pro-
duced in specific activities relating to a single component (e.g., showering, cooking, food
Water 2021, 13, 1274 4 of 26

processing, etc.). Heat is extracted using a heat exchanger directly after the component
used in the activity. The recovered heat may be used to preheat incoming cold-water, as
in domestic or commercial shower facilities, or be used in conjunction with a heat pump
for other purposes. Figure 2 shows the basic working principle of a vertical counter-flow
heat exchanger.

Figure 2. Basic working principle diagram of a vertical WWHR unit [13].

Shower water heat recovery is the most common application seen in practice at this
level. This application has the advantage of a continuous simultaneous counter flow
of wastewater and incoming cold-water supply for use in the shower. Therefore, heat
recovered here can be achieved with high effectiveness, and there is no time lag present
between waste heat availability and heat demand for showering, eliminating the need for
heat storage and resulting losses [14]. A general schematic of shower water heat recovery
is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. General schematic of shower water heat recovery [15].

In real applications, heat exchangers are placed under the shower tray in either hori-
zontal or vertical orientations. Both have their respective advantages and disadvantages.
In the vertical configuration, the wastewater is discharged as a falling film flow, whereas in
the horizontal orientation, water flows at the bottom of the pipe. Therefore, the effective
surface area over which heat is exchanged is larger in the vertical orientation, which leads
Water 2021, 13, 1274 5 of 26

to higher efficiency [16]. Wong et al. [17] analyzed shower water heat recovery in high-rise
residential buildings in Hong Kong. The study investigated the installation of a single-pass
counter-flow heat exchanger installed beneath shower drains in the horizontal configu-
ration. The result showed an annual energy saving of 4–15% from shower water heat
recovery. The savings were dependent upon drainage pipe diameter and length, which
governs the effective area of heat exchange surface.
An experimental study conducted at the Canadian Center of Housing Technology
analyzed the performance of five vertical heat exchangers for WWHR at component
level [13]. The results showed a 9% to 27% reduced natural gas usage for hot water
preparation in domestic shower applications. The energy savings increased with the
number of showers and lower temperature of the incoming cold-water supply. Another
critical factor is the configuration of the WWHR system. The energy savings are higher
when recovered energy is used to heat the water flowing into the hot water tank and
shower valve, compared to heating only the water entering the hot water tank. Similar
results for such configurations have been observed by Tomlinson [18]. Tomlinson [18]
argued that the overall water flow is balanced in the first configuration, that is, flow on
both sides of the heat exchanger are equal, resulting in higher heat recovery.
On the other hand, a major disadvantage of vertical heat exchangers is the large
space requirements for their installation, requiring around 1–2 m of vertical space below
the shower tray. In many existing buildings, such facilities are not possible due to space
limitations. Besides, longer heat recovery units are preferred for better efficiency, which is
more expensive and space-consuming. Consequently, researchers have also investigated
improving the horizontal heat exchanger’s design to achieve higher effectiveness [19,20].
McNabola and Shields [20] proposed a new horizontal WWHR heat exchanger design to
maximize the heat exchange between wastewater and cold-water supply. The design was
based upon placing the cold-water supply pipe into the wastewater pipe, thus increasing
the contact surface area. The results showed that the effectiveness of over 50% could be
achieved for the proposed design, which is comparable to some existing vertical WWHR
units. Currently, several proprietary horizontal WWHR heat exchanger also exists in the
market with similar effectiveness to vertical WWHR heat exchangers [21].
Another study investigated the possibility of using a storage-type WWHR unit [22].
In this case, wastewater is stored in an insulated steel tank and cold-water pass through
a copper coil immersed into wastewater. The proposed system is smaller in height than
a vertical WWHR unit and can recover 34% to 60% of available energy in wastewater.
However, such an implementation would not be economically viable due to the additional
tank and insulation cost. Such a design could be successful combined with a heat pump
system [23–25].
For overall viability of a WWHR component level application, it is vital to consider
the financial analysis of the system [26]. The economic viability of the WWHR unit not only
depends upon heat exchanger characteristics but also can depend upon user behaviour
like shower length, shower head flow rate, desired water temperature, number of showers
and so forth [27]. Słyś and Kordana [28] analyzed the effect of shower length and shower
head flow rate upon the payback period and net present value (NPV) of a vertical WWHR
heat exchanger. The study observed that with increases in shower length and shower head
flow rate, that is, higher water consumption, NPV of the WWHR system increases. The
considered WWHR unit’s payback period, under the same flow rate conditions, decreased
by 66% with an increase in shower length from 5 to 12 min. The study concluded that
WWHR units could have significant financial savings in dwellings with large amounts of
water usage.
Apart from additional space requirements for WWHR, another challenge is that
such installations can be cost-effective only when fitting a new bathroom or renovating
an existing one. The additional cost of retrofitting the WWHR system in the existing
bathrooms and changing the water pipe infrastructure for the sole purpose of heat recovery
can increase the device’s overall payback period.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 6 of 26

Another major issue of the WWHR system is the fouling of the heat exchanger. Fouling
is the accumulation of unwanted deposits on the surface of heat exchanger [29]. It increases
the heat exchanger’s thermal resistance, generally referred to as fouling resistance. Due to
fouling resistance, the heat exchanger’s heat capability decreases, leading to fewer energy
savings. Fouling also adds additional maintenance cost to the device. Evidently, the
horizontal heat exchangers are more prone to fouling than vertical heat exchangers due
to the continuous build-up of unwanted deposits on the horizontal plate. There is a lack
of information on fouling and maintenance of horizontal WWHR units for showers. One
study performed by a horizontal WWHR unit manufacturer observed that after applying a
large amount of shampoo, soap and hair-conditioner on the heat exchanger surface and
keeping it overnight, there was a performance drop of 5.5% for only first 10 min for the
device [30]. The study also reported the same performance for the device over a two years
interval. Future work is required to examine the fouling performance of a range of heat
exchanger types for shower applications.
Apart from the shower systems, wastewater heat can be recovered from other compo-
nents, such as dishwashers and washing machines. These components discharge wastewa-
ter at fairly high temperatures; for example, exit water temperature for a typical household
dishwasher ranges from 19 ◦ C to 61 ◦ C depending upon the washing stage [31]. The water
consumption during the whole washing cycle is around 33 l. Paepe et al. [31] proposed a
storage-based heat recovery system for domestic dishwashers and analyzed its technical
and economic performance. The study showed a 25% reduction in total heating demand
from the dishwasher with a payback period of 6 years.
Large scale components such as dishwashers in industrial kitchens and washing
machines in launderettes use a large amount of hot water thus can have significant potential
for WWHR. Wemhoff et al. [32] analyzed the viability of WWHR for dishwashers in a
university’s dining facility in Philadelphia. The study calculated a payback period of
2 years for the proposed installation of a 146 kW shell-and-tube heat exchanger. The annual
source pollution reduction of 13 kg SO2 , 6.5 kg NOx and 6.5 metric tons CO2 was shown.
Adhikari [33] performed a feasibility study to examine WWHR in a public laundry
facility with two washing machines with average wastewater temperature and flow of
60 ◦ C and 0.11 kg/s. The study reported 103 MWh/year of heat recovery from laundry
facility’s wastewater leading to almost e6371 of economic savings.
A myriad of other hot wastewater generating components exist in domestic, com-
mercial and industrial settings, aside from showers, dishwashers or washing machine, for
example, sinks in hair salons, swimming pools/spa applications, food processing, and so
forth. These have received scant attention in the literature to date.

4.2. Heat Recovery at Building Level

At this level, heat is recovered from the collective wastewater discharge from a single
whole building is considered. The wastewater flow and temperature characteristics of
this discharge depend upon building type. Wastewater in domestic building can maintain
a temperature of 10–25 ◦ C over the year [23]. The energy savings from WWHR at the
building level can be higher when compared to the individual component level due to
the higher volume of wastewater and accumulation of multiple hot water activities [28].
However, discharge at the building level also includes cold wastewater in the mix, which
reduces energy potential. At this level, to perform heat recovery, wastewater is commonly
collected in a holding tank, and heat is recovered using a heat exchanger [33,34] or water
source heat pump [23–25]. For fouling prevention, usually a grease trap system is used
to intercept debris in wastewater. If the recovered heat is not immediately used, it can be
stored in a hot water tank (HWT) for later use. A general schematic diagram of WWHR
with a heat pump is shown in Figure 4. Researchers have investigated the potential of
WWHR at the building scale with numerical feasibility studies, and experimental lab-
scale approaches [24,25,35–39].
Water 2021, 13, 1274 7 of 26

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of WWHR with heat pump.

4.2.1. Residential Dwellings

In residential houses, complexes and apartments, wastewater amounts depend upon
the number of residents in a dwelling and their water-usage activities. Due to the mixing of
wastewater from different water sources in the building, including cold-water equipment,
wastewater temperature is often lower than it can be at the individual hot water component
level [40]. Ni et al. [24] presented a feasibility study for WWHR in residential developments
with a heat pump and evaluated the total source energy consumption of the building for
space heating and hot water heating with and without WWHR. The results demonstrated a
17–58% reduction in total energy usage depending upon the building’s location. However,
the study lacked any economic analysis of system installation, which is important for
assessing financial viability and its likely penetration in practice.
Heat pump technology can be quite expensive and may not be financially suitable for
single-family residences. Furthermore, wastewater flow has been found to be insufficient
and containing too much variation in single residences to make such system economically
efficient [41]. Spriet and McNabola [23] presented a numerical feasibility study for WWHR
with heat pump in a typical residential house (Ireland). The study observed energy savings
of up to 42%, similar magnitude to the findings of Ni et al. [24]. However, despite these
impressive savings potential, due to the high capital cost of the technology, the Levelized
Cost of energy increased by 120–130% compared to traditional heating systems, thus
making the system not economically viable.
A reference guideline for economical use of WWHR with a heat pump at the building
level is to have wastewater flow of at least 8000 to 10,000 L/day (equivalent to 60 people
or 30 residential units) to be economically feasible [41]. Therefore, WWHR can have
significant potential in residential buildings with a large number of residents, such as
apartment buildings, multifamily complexes, hotels or student accommodation, and so
forth. Alnahhal and Spremberg [40] presented a WWHR feasibility study for a 330 room
student hostel in Berlin. Based on the wastewater flow, wastewater temperature and
supply temperature measurements, the study showed a 30% reduction in hot water heating
demand for the considered heat exchanger and heat pump specifications.

4.2.2. Non-Residential Facilities

Non-residential buildings like sports complexes [34], public showers [42] and commer-
cial washing facilities [33] also produce large amounts of wastewater. Such facilities have
stable heating demand throughout the year and have specific operation time; therefore,
heat use and elimination are concentrated during those times. Ip and She [34] conducted
an experimental study at a two-storey sports pavilion in the University of Brighton, UK.
In this study, each shower was equipped with a single heat recovery pipe—vertical con-
figuration for the first floor and horizontal configuration for the ground floor. The study
demonstrated that the incoming cold-water supply could be preheated up to 10 ◦ C with
WWHR, and a potential weekly saving of 40–119 £ was shown.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 8 of 26

Liu et al. [42] presented a numerical study for WWHR system with a heat pump in
a public shower facility. The analysis was applied to a real building case with 50 shower
nozzles. The study concluded that the total cost (initial and operating) of the WWHR
system was 12% and 39% of the cost if the oil boiler and coal boilers were used, respectively.
The economic saving shown in this study were significantly higher than those found
in a single residential building. The possible explanations could be the facility’s high
wastewater volume, the assumption of an unrealistic shower time of 35 min per person,
and disregarding the maintenance cost in calculations.
Other types of non-residential buildings such as offices, hotels [43], hospitals [44] and
commercial kitchens/restaurants [45] also maintain good potential for WWHR. Again, the
amount of energy recovery depends upon the wastewater characteristics in the building.
Baek et al. [36] performed a feasibility study to analyze the possibility of using wastewater
as a heat source for a heat pump at a hotel sauna service in South Korea. The study results
predicted a yearly mean operating COP of the heat pump at 4.5–5.0 and reported that the
heat pump could meet 90% of hot water demand. Spriet and McNabola [45] considered the
installation of heat exchangers for WWHR in commercial kitchens in different hospitality
sectors in the UK. This analysis reported a total financially feasible potential of approxi-
mately 1.24 TWh/yr from WWHR in the hospitality and foodservice sector in the UK, with
the largest potential in health care outlets due to their large water consumption.

4.2.3. Remarks
There are several important issues which require more attention from the research
community at the building level. These issues are crucial for the practical implementation
of WWHR systems in actual buildings. They fall into the categories of: (i) resource potential,
(ii) practical implementation, and (iii) WWHR operation. Considering the potential size of
the waste heat resource available at building level, there is a significant body of evidence
for domestic buildings and a limited amount for certain commercial activities such as
restaurants/cooking, launderettes, and so forth. However, there is limited evidence on
the waste heat potential at buildings containing industrial activities (e.g., brewing, food
processing, power production, cooling, etc.). More information is needed on heat avail-
ability at commercial buildings (hairdressers, hotels, restaurants, leisure centres, spas, etc.).
Information on the amount of wastewater heat and the variation in this across seasons,
climates, and building/business size and type is a crucial gap in identifying the heat inputs
in the sewer system as a whole.
Practical implementation issues are often neglected in WWHR investigations of this
nature. For example, the issue of the distance between the waste heat source and the
existing heating facility or incoming cold water in a building, which often do not coincide,
can be barriers to implementation. Retrofitting existing buildings with WWHR systems, in
general, is a challenging issue that may often prevent the resource from practical exploita-
tion. In some cases, the required space may not be available for such installations; in others,
the water piping infrastructure has to be considerably altered, leading to additional costs.
Studies also often neglect the issue of the maintenance of WWHR systems which is
evidently prone to fouling due to wastewater characteristics. Maintenance incurs a cost
and also implies the reduced performance of heat exchangers and heat pumps with lower
effectiveness and COP over time. Another issue mentioned by Spriet and McNabola [23] is
that studies often present only high-level analyses of the potential of WWHR with inherent
assumptions on the spatial and temporal variability of heat availability and demand and
system performance. Assuming instantaneous consumption of waste heat and not consid-
ering the temporal mismatch between heat recovery and heat consumption overestimates
the impact of WWHR. Assuming constant system performances regardless of waste heat
temperature and flow, and neglecting the impact of fouling, similarly overestimates the
impact of WWHR. Finally, there is also a lack of real-world or experimental demonstrations
of WWHR in the literature at the building level. Most studies are theoretical in nature, and
more research is required to investigate real-world applications.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 9 of 26

4.3. Heat Recovery at Sewer Pipe Network Level

WWHR from raw wastewater in public sewer pipe systems is a promising source of
energy. Wastewater flow in sewer pipe systems is abundant and continuous throughout
the year with yearly temperature of 10–20 ◦ C, making sewer pipe wastewater an ideal
source of heating/cooling for heat pumps throughout the year.

4.3.1. Sewer Pipe Heat Recovery

There are two possible ways of WWHR from the sewer pipe system; the first is to
install a heat exchanger in the pipe bed as seen in Figure 5a and using heat pump for
pumping this energy into a centralized heating system. The second option is to install an
external heat exchanger above ground level. for this, a portion of sewer water flows into a
screen to retain coarse solids, and the pre-screened wastewater is then pumped to the heat
exchanger above the ground (Figure 5b). The heat exchanger is further connected to a heat
pump evaporator. Both types of installations have been in operation in various European
countries like Switzerland and Norway for many years [5] with thermal power ratings of
installations ranging from 10 kW to 20 MW.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) WWHR with a heat exchanger in sewer bed; (b) External heat exchanger with upstream filtration [5].

In first option, the heat exchanger can either be separately placed into the sewer pipes
bed, or a sewer pipe can be manufactured explicitly with an integrated heat exchanger in the
sewer pipe wall. The advantage of this option is that no additional space is required for the
installation. Also, wastewater does not have to be pumped out from the sewer. However,
the system’s maintenance is also not straight-forward, which may require permits since the
temporary operation of the sewer line is suspended during maintenance. Further, some
design preconditions need to be met; for example, minimum sewer diameter of 800 mm,
minimum wastewater flow of 30 L/s and minimum wetted surface 0.8 m2 per meter length
of sewer line [5]. Another major issue with such heat exchangers is fouling due to biofilm
formulation and sediments in wastewater leading to fouling resistance, which can reduce
the heat transfer efficiency of the heat exchanger by up to 50% [46]. Therefore, frequent
maintenance and cleaning are required to remove any biofilm build-up.
For second option, the main advantage is independence of the system from the main
sewer line; therefore, minimal interference with sewer operation. The installation and
maintenance of the heat exchanger are easier. The cross-section and slope of the sewer
system are irrelevant to the design specification of the system. However, the system
requires pumping power to transport pre-screened wastewater to the heat exchanger,
which increases overall energy demand. Also, additional space is required for such an
installation. The heat exchanger is less prone to fouling because of the pre-screening of
Water 2021, 13, 1274 10 of 26

wastewater. In some cases, separate devices are installed to avoid and remove suspended
solids, and feculences [47,48].

4.3.2. Energy Savings and Economical Potentials

Preliminary feasibility studies have shown the significant energy saving potential
of WWHR in sewer pipe networks. For example, Cipolla et al. [49] took flow and tem-
perature measurements in sewer system of Bologna, Italy and demonstrated a thermal
power potential of 74 kW with 3 L/s of wastewater flow and a 5.9 ◦ C temperature drop.
Sievers et al. [50] showed WWHR could provide 554 MWh/year with wastewater temper-
ature drop to 10 ◦ C in Hamburg, Germany.
Studies based upon existing WWHR systems in different parts of the world also
present strong evidence of significant energy saving potential with up to 50% reduction in
primary energy consumption [47,48]. Guo and Hendel [51] presented a field performance
study of a WWHR system for a low carbon district in a suburb of Paris. The study results
observed that the heat pump system supplied around 75% of heating energy throughout
the year. The share of recovered energy represented 30–40% of monthly primary energy
consumption. The installed system had four times less CO2 emissions than gas-only
heating supply.
Apart from energy savings, the economic benefits of a WWHR system are an important
factor in realizing the technology’s overall viability. WWHR technology for sewer systems
has not only high investment costs but operating, and maintenance costs are also significant.
The economic success of such systems is dependent upon energy savings brought by the
installation, which depends upon the following key points [5,52]:
• The payback period of WWHR will be higher when replacing a expensive fuel source
compared to an inexpensive one.
• WWHR systems are more financially successful when heat demand is available
throughout the year. The use of WWHR for longer periods results in more energy
savings and decrease the payback period.
• Electricity is used in WWHR systems for heat pump compressor operation and other
auxiliary components like pumps and accounts for the heat pump’s operational cost.
Low electricity prices will improve the economic feasibility of the system.
• WWHR systems are more financially successful at sites where a new heating/cooling
system is being constructed or an existing installation is due to be replaced, decreasing
overall investment capital and avoiding retrofitting costs.
• The distance between consumer and heat recovery location also influences the eco-
nomical use of the WWHR system. The higher the distance between the two results in
higher heat losses during transport, leading to greater operational costs.
Some research studies from literature are discussed in the context of the above points.
Hrabová et al. [53] performed an economic assessment of a WWHR system comparing the
overall cost of the system with a gas and electric boiler. WWHR achieved higher economic
savings when replaced the electric boiler due to its high operational cost.
Pamminger et al. [54] performed a desk study to analyze sewer heat recovery potential
in Melbourne, Australia. The study observed that current natural prices were too low and
would have to increase by around 162% for commercial feasibility of the system.
The feasibility study presented in [55] highlighted the economic viability of WWHR
for small scale neighbourhoods. Preliminary cost analysis in the study showed that the
total cost of the WWHR system was 60% higher in comparison to a conventional gas boiler
system at considered natural gas and electricity prices (The Netherlands).
While WWHR in sewer pipe systems is beneficial in terms of reducing the energy
consumption and GHG emissions, on the other hand, it could negatively influence the
treatment operation of wastewater in WWTP. This is because the wastewater temperature
drops when wastewater heat is utilized; consequently, the temperature of influent wastew-
ater in a WWTP may also reduce. This could lead to a reduction in the nitrification capacity
of WWTP, which is a temperature-dependent process. Different countries have defined
Water 2021, 13, 1274 11 of 26

guidelines to ensure the efficient operation of WWTPs. For example, in Switzerland, the
minimum temperature of influent wastewater needs to be 10 ◦ C [56].

4.4. Heat Recovery at WWTP Level

Another critical location for energy recovery from wastewater is at WWTPs. There are
three possible heat recovery points at a WWTP—from raw wastewater before treatment,
from partially treated water within the WWTP, and from effluent discharge after treatment.
Heat recovery from raw wastewater is similar to recovering heat from within the sewer
pipe system. At the WWTP, the influent’s temperature and the available energy are
highest, offering the greatest potential for WWHR. However, the water quality is the
lowest, offering significant technical challenges in exploiting it. As we move through the
WWTP, the temperature reduces and the water quality increases, whereby at the effluent
discharge, the technical difficulty of recovering heat from raw wastewater is removed at
the cost of a lower temperature fluid.
WWTPs process and treat large amounts of wastewater from sewers and then dis-
charge into near water bodies on a daily basis. This cleansed water temperature is stable
and has low daily and weekly variations compared to the influent temperature [5,57]. Even
in wet weather, the effluent temperature does not have erratic variations like the influent
temperature [5].
The potential of WWHR in treated wastewater is higher than sewer pipe wastewater
since the downstream water from WWTP can be cooled down to much lower values [5] and
effluent water flow is higher. Relatively low variation in water temperature improves the
performance of heat pump systems. Since the water is already treated, another advantage
is lower bio-fouling and solid matter interference with the heat exchanger, thus improving
heat transfer efficiency. However, since the heat consumers are usually not located near
WWTP, a major disadvantage of this energy recovery option is that the heat supply must
be transported over long distances, thus leading to high heat losses.
Energy consumption in WWTPs is large, for example WWTPs contribution to primary
energy consumption in the US is 0.8% of national energy consumption [58]. Most of
the energy consumption is in the form of electricity. On the other hand, WWTPs have
a significant amount of energy at their disposal, coming from raw and effluent water
and other processes like electricity generation from the incineration of biogas produced
from anaerobic digestion and bio-solids [59]. Therefore, WWTPs can be considered as
regional energy cells which can deliver energy into local energy supply networks (heat and
electricity) [60]. However, with heat supply, the feasibility of such energy cells depends on
consumer distance and the treatment capacity of the WWTP. Also, a major constraint for
recovered heat usage is that a local district heating network should be present to which
recovered heat can be injected. Therefore, on-site consumption can be preferred in such
cases to heat buildings in the WWTP precinct.
Regarding the energy potential, heat available in effluent at WWTP is substantial due
to high water volumes. Other than water amount, energy potential depends upon the
temperature drop of effluent after energy recovery. Based upon different studies in the
literature, the temperature drop can be up to 8 ◦ C; however, it depends upon the lower
temperature limit allocated by relevant environment protection organizations to protect
the ecology of receiving waters. Ðurd̄ević et al. [61] presented a theoretical case study to
analyze the utilization of WWHR in the city of Rijeka, Croatia. The location considered for
the case study had a WWTP in operation with a capacity of 540,000 PE and 3000 L/s of
effluent water at maximum load. Based upon considered water flow and a temperature
drop of 6.5 ◦ C, 75 MW of heat recovery potential was shown, which was 72% of the existing
natural gas power heat plant capacity. The study also analyzed the COP of the proposed
heat pump, which decreased from 4.7 to 2.87 with an increase in condensation temperature
from 60 ◦ C to 90 ◦ C.
As previously mentioned, the delivery of recovered heat from a WWTP to consumers
could be impractical because of the high heat losses; or in some situations, a district heat
Water 2021, 13, 1274 12 of 26

distribution network may not be present. Therefore, in such cases, on-site usage of recov-
ered heat can be more sensible. However, in these cases, only a fraction of available heat
in wastewater is used. For example—Chae and Kang [62] performed a study to estimate
the energy independence of WWTPs with three different energy resources—photovoltaic
panels, small-hydropower and WWHR. Under the considered design conditions for photo-
voltaic panels, hydropower turbine, and heat pump, 6.5% of total energy consumption was
estimated to be covered by the proposed energy resources. Heat recovery from wastew-
ater had the highest potential among them, at around 3.65%. The payback period of
the heat recovery system considered in the study was estimated to be 6.8 years. Even
though the recovered heat supplied all of the heating demand required by the build-
ings in the WWTP precinct, the heating demand was only limited to 2.2% of available
heat (temperature drop = 3 ◦ C) in effluent water. Therefore, much of the available heat in
effluent water remained unexploited.
Apart from supplying the space-heating and hot water demand of WWTPs, recovered
heat can also be used for low-temperature treatment processes. Pochwala and Kotas [63]
presented such a case study. The heat was recovered from raw wastewater and used to
heat an on-site building to raise the temperature of a sequential biological reactor (SBR) to
the optimum value for the treatment process. The recovered heat supplied 98% of the heat
demand of WWTP.
It is evident that heat recovery from effluent water at WWTPs is an abundant source
of energy supply. However, to realize the full potential of this form of energy recovery, a
local district heating/cooling network is necessary. Most existing heat recovery practices
from WWTP effluent around the world are large scale capacity heat pumps and supply
heating/cooling to district heating, and cooling networks [5].

4.5. Summary of Analyzed Studies

The studies analyzed in the present paper focusing upon WWHR at different levels
are summarized in Table 1. The table categorizes the analyzed studies based upon energy
recovery level, technologies used, approach of the study and analyzed aspects of WWHR.

Table 1. Summary of studies analyzed in the present research.

Energy Economic Emission

Studies Scale Technology Numerical Experimental Analysis Analysis Analysis
[23,42,45,64] Building level HP 1 , HE 2 , GWS 3     
[28,65,66] Component level HE     
[13] Component level HE     
[66] Component level HE     
[17,67] Component level HE     
[68,69] Building level HE     
[24,25,36,40,70] Building level HP,HE, GWS     
[35,38,71] Building level HP, HE, GWS     
[44,72] Building level HE, HP     
[37,73] Building level HE, HP, GWS     
[74] Building level HE     
[75] Building level HE     
Building level,
[50] HE, HP     
Sewer level
[52–54] Sewer level HW, HP     
[49] Sewer level HE, HP     
[47] Sewer level HE, GWS, HP     
[48] Sewer level HE, GWS, HP     
[61,76] WWTP level HE, HP     
[77] WWTP level HE, HP     
[62] WWTP level HP     
WWTP level HE, HP     
[78] (raw water)
[62] WWTP level HP     
WWTP level
[63] (raw, cleansed HP, HE     
water)
1 Heat pump, 2 Heat exchanger, 3 Grey water storage.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 13 of 26

It can be seen in Table 1 that only a few studies have considered the environmental
impacts (emission analysis) of WWHR. Many studies do not account for the economic
cost analysis of proposed WWHR systems. The majority of the studies are numerical
based studies analyzing the potential of energy savings based on wastewater flow and
temperature measurements. Evidently, at the component level, only heat exchangers are
used as the heat recovery technology due to the economic in-feasibility of heat pumps in
this case. Further, Table 2 summarizes different WWHR technologies at various level of
heat recovery and present their main characteristics.

Table 2. Summary for wastewater heat recovery technologies.

Technology Scale Characteristics

• Can be used for preheating shower water

Vertical wastewater Component
heat exchanger • Higher space requirements
• Higher efficiency due to the higher contact surface area

Horizontal wastewater • Suitable for preheating shower water

Component • Low space requirements
heat exchanger
• Less efficient due to the lower contact surface area

Heat exchanger with • Hot water is stored in the storage tank

Building • Higher cost of the device due to the additional storage tank
wastewater storage tank
• More feasible with a heat pump

Heat pump with heat exchanger Building • Higher energy recovery

• Less economic feasibility for individual dwellings
• Heat exchanger in the sewer pipe bed
Integrated heat exchanger in • Need to meet technical specifications based upon sewer
Sewer pipe parameters
sewer pipes with heat pumps
• No additional space requirements
• More prone to fouling and demand regular maintenance
• Sewage is pumped out of the sewer pipe
External heat exchanger with • Less prone to fouling due to pre-screening of wastwater
Sewer
heat pumps • Independent of the sewer pipe and easy maintenance
• Additional space requirements

5. Wastewater Temperature and Flow Characteristics

Wastewater flow and temperature characteristics are crucial for determining WWHR
potential. Higher values of flow and temperature lead to higher heat recovery. The temper-
ature of wastewater is highest at the component level since heat loss to the environment is
low. As wastewater streams from component to building drain and sewer, heat is lost to the
environment, and temperature decreases. For wastewater flow, the amount of wastewater
produced is also relatively low and highly fluctuating at the component level and building
level. At the sewer pipe level and WWTP level, wastewater flow rates are higher and more
stable throughout the year.

5.1. Building Level

Wastewater flow and temperature characteristics differ for different types of buildings,
such as buildings containing public showers (e.g., leisure centres), residential buildings,
restaurants/kitchens and so forth. For residential settings, measurements and estima-
tions from different studies are available for wastewater flow and temperature values.
Meinzinger and Oldenburg [79] reviewed more than 130 studies spanning over 20 coun-
tries and reported that wastewater volume in a household can range from 69–150 L per day
(d) per capita (c) with a median value of 110 L/c.d. Regarding the domestic wastewater
temperature, it can vary from 16–38 ◦ C as reported by Heinz et al. [80]. Alnahal and
Spremberg [72] conducted a study in which they measured the wastewater temperature for
a student hostel in Berlin for one month period. The daily average wastewater temperature
varied from 11 ◦ C to 20 ◦ C with an average of 15 ◦ C.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 14 of 26

Wastewater temperature and flow rate are closely related to end-use water temperature
and flow rate. If information about end-use is available, wastewater flow and temperature
can be estimated based upon that. Stochastic models, such as SIMDEUM® [81], and the
WaterHub framework [82], have been successfully applied to predict wastewater flow
and temperature from households and buildings [82,83]. The Building America Research
Benchmark Definition [84] provides a general model for end-use hot water consumption,
described in Table 3. Nbr represents the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. Figure 6
depicts the hourly hot water use for each end-use as a fraction of total end-use [24].

Table 3. Domestic hot water consumption by end-use.

End-Use End-Use Water Temperature (◦ C) Water Usage (L/d)

Clothes washer 49.0 28.4 + 9.46 Nbr
Dishwasher 49.0 9.46 + 3.15 Nbr
Shower 40.6 53 + 17.67 Nbr
Bath 40.6 13.25 + 4.43 Nbr
Sinks 40.6 47.32 + 15.75 Nbr

0.12
Showers
Sinks
Fraction of total daily en-use consumption

Bath
0.1 Clothes washer
Dishwasher

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [hr]
Figure 6. Typical hot water usage profile [24].

Based upon Table 3 and Figure 6, the hourly hot water flow rate ( Lhot ) for a residential
dwelling can be calculated as [24]

Tend−use,i − Tmains
Lhot = ∑ Lend−use,i × Pend−use,i × Thot − Tmains
, (2)

where Lend−use,i and Tend−use are water consumption and temperature for ith end-use. Thot
is the hot water supply temperature and Tmains is the cold water supply temperature which
depends upon ambient temperature Tamb .
The temperature of the drain water Tgrey (◦ C) can be estimated as [24]

(1 − 0.01ηV ) Lhot,grey
Tgrey = Tmains + [(1 − 0.01ηT ) Thot − Tmains ], (3)
Lgrey
Water 2021, 13, 1274 15 of 26

where ηT and ηV are the loss coefficient of hot water flow rate (%) and (%) temperature
respectively. Lgrey and Lhot,grey are the flow rate of grey water and hot water which turns
into grey water respectively.
Another way to model wastewater temperature is based upon measurements and
correlation analysis. For example, Wong et al. [17] in their experimental study measured
the incoming cold water supply (T0 ), shower head temperature (T2 ), shower drain water
(T3 ) and ambient temperature (Ta ) for different months of the year; and established a
numerical model using correlation analysis to represent cold water supply temperature
and a temperature drop of shower water from head to the drain in terms of outdoor
air temperature.

T0 = 10.4Ta0.29 ; 13 ◦ C ≤ Ta ≤ 28 ◦ C
(4)
T2 − T3 = 3.6 × 10−10 T26.673 Ta−0.530 .

5.2. Sewer Pipe Scale

In sewer pipe systems, wastewater flow and temperature depend upon upstream
wastewater discharge into sewers from different buildings. It also depends on ambient
air and ground temperatures and the water volume already flowing in the sewer, sewer
size, among other factors. Cipolla and Maglionico [49] measured wastewater flow in
a sewer system in Bologna, Italy, at five different locations (conduits). The wastewater
flow varied from 10 L/s to 1700 L/s depending upon the measurement location with a
differing number of inhabitants in the catchment. Kretschmer et al. [85] analyzed spatial
and temporal variation in the wastewater flow in a sewer system in a valley in Austria with
flow variation of around 5–60 L/s depending upon the month and measurement location.
In the case of wastewater temperature, Table 4 shows the sewer pipe wastewater
temperature range for various locations measured in different studies. These studies help
to provide the range of wastewater temperature in sewer systems.

Table 4. Wastewater temperature measurement found in literature.

Study Location Period Temperature Range (◦ C)

Cipolla and Maglionico [49] Bologna, Italy Oct 2005–Mar 2006 10–22
Schmid [5] Zurich, Switzerland Jan 2005– Dec 2006 10–25
Schilperoort and Clemens [86] Ede, Netherlands, 15–23 Dec 2008 12–14
Pramminger et al. [54] Melbourne, Australia Jan 2012–Jun 2012 13.1–21.1
Wu et al. [87] Harbin, China - 12–20
Abdel-Aal et al. [88] Antwerp, Belgium Feb 2012–Jan 2013 7–22
Pramminger et al. [54] Melbourne, Australia Jan 2012–Jun 2012 13.1–21.1

In sewer pipes, spatio-temporal analysis and modelling of thermal dynamics of

wastewater are essential. This modelling can be applied to assess different potential
sites for WWHR installation. Another application of such a model can be to understand
the effect of heat extraction from wastewater on the downstream wastewater tempera-
ture. For example, it is sometimes required for wastewater to have a specific minimum
temperature before it enters the WWTP, 10 ◦ C for Switzerland. A lower temperature of
wastewater than the minimum requirement can influence the process of nitrification in
WWTPs. Countermeasures need to be implemented to handle this effect at the planning
stage. Lower temperatures in sewer pipes may also influence the formation of fatbergs,
and thus modelling the impact of heat extract on this aspect of sewer operation is crucial.
The following models exist in literature that model thermal dynamics of wastewater
in sewer systems.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 16 of 26

5.2.1. Alligation Alternate

Alligation alternate is a relatively simple method for modelling wastewater tempera-
ture dynamics [89,90]. In this method, the temperature of two mixing wastewater fluids
(Figure 7) with flow rate and temperature of Q A , TA and Q B , TB is estimated as follows:

QC × TC = Q A × TA + Q B × TB
(5)
QC = Q A + Q B .

Figure 7. Schematic of alligation alternate method.

In the context of modelling the wastewater thermal dynamics, the two flows may not
be separate flows mixing at one point, rather two points within the sewer pipe system;
for example—one point is the point of heat extraction, and the other point is the inlet of a
WWTP. The method does not require measurements of many parameters, only wastewater
temperature and discharge. However, this method does not consider the heat exchange
processes with in-sewer air, surrounding soil and sewer pipe walls, which is the main
reason for the model’s low accuracy. Kretschmer et al. [85] used this approach to analyze
wastewater temperature evolution and WWHR potential in a sewer system (Austria)
considering the impact on inflow temperature WWTPs.

5.2.2. TEMPEST
TEMPEST is a model developed by Dürrenmatt and Wanner [91], which estimates
the dynamics and longitudinal spatial profiles of wastewater in sewer systems. It is based
upon heat and mass balance in sewer systems [92]. TEMPEST models a sewer system as
two basic elements conduits and nodes. Conduits are modelled by 1-D balance equations.
Nodes are introduced to represent discontinuities in the sewer line due to lateral inflows,
changes in pipe geometry, material properties or surrounding soil properties; and are
modelled using continuity equations.
The case study by Dürrenmatt and Wanner [93] demonstrated using TEMPEST that
the heat transfer between wastewater and the surrounding soil was the most significant
heat transfer process.
The study by Ali and Gillich [94] used TEMPEST to estimate heat recovery potential
at a sewer site in London with lateral inflow mixing. Elías-Maxil et al. [95] presented a
simplified parsimonious model based upon TEMPEST, considering only the heat trans-
fer from water to the surroundings. A case study based upon the previous model was
presented by Hoffman et al. in [96]. The study concluded that in un-steady conditions,
the model was more than twice as accurate as TEMPEST, which was due to consideration
Water 2021, 13, 1274 17 of 26

of the hydraulic influence of maintenance holes, other empty space and pump regime in
modelling of wastewater flow.
Sitzenfrei et al. [97] used TEMPEST to analyze the interaction of decentralized (build-
ing level) and centralized (sewer pipe) WWHR systems. The study concluded that the per-
formance of centralized heat recovery systems decrease up to 40% when all the dwellings
are equipped with decentralized WWHR systems.

5.2.3. Abdel Aal et al. Model

Abdel Aal et al. [98] proposed a simplified model for wastewater temperature dy-
namics realizing that many input parameters in TEMPEST have insignificant effects on
wastewater temperature evolution. The model included an energy balance along the pipe
and estimation of heat transfer coefficients and assumed that the temperature variation
of wastewater is caused by heat losses to in-sewer air and the surrounding soil. Using
this model, Abdel Aal et al. showed that [98], the in-sewer air temperature has the most
influence on wastewater temperature dynamics followed by the surrounding soil tem-
perature, contrary to the TEMPEST model [98]. The sewer pipe was modeled as discrete
cross-sections of length ∇ L.
The temperature evolution along the sewer pipe is given in Equation (6), where the
parameters involved in the model are described in Table 5
1 1

Rwa × ( Tw − Ta ) + Rws × ( Tw − Ts ) 
Tj+1 = Tj − , (6)
Ṁ × c p

where
1
Rwa =
hwa × b × n × ∇ L
(7)
wt ds
Rws = + .
k p × wet.p × n × ∇ L k s × wet.p × n × ∇ L

Table 5. Parameters description of Abdel aal et al. model.

Parameter Description Unit

wt Pipe wall thickness m
ds Soil-depth to which heat is transferred m
Overall thermal resistivity between
Rwa
wastewater and in-sewer air m2 .K/W
Overall thermal resistivity between
Rws
wastewater and surrounding soil m2 .K/W
Tw Wastewater temperature K
Ta In-sewer air temperature K
Ts Soil temperature K
Tj Wastewater Temperature at node j K
Ṁ Mass flow rate of the wastewater g/s
cp Specific heat capacity of wastewater J/(g.K)
wet.p Wetted perimeter m
b Wastewater free surface width m
kp Thermal conductivity of sewer pipe W/(m.K)
ks Thermal conductivity of surrounding soil W/(m.K)
Heat transfer coefficient between wastewater
hwa and in-sewer air W/(m2 .K)
n Increment number
∇L Increment length or mesh size m

Equation (6) is used sequentially to find the wastewater temperature at nodes

( Tj+1 , Tj+2 ...Tj+n ) along the sewer line starting from the upstream temperature Tj .
Saagi et al. [99] used this model for analyzing the sewer system in two Swedish cities
(Linköping, Malmö) with maximum prediction error ranging from 0.7–0.9 ◦ C.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 18 of 26

Extending on the previous model, Abdel aal et al. [100] published a recent study to
analyze the impact of the in-sewer air velocity profile, close to the wastewater surface,
on the heat transfer processes and proposed an improved method to estimate a new heat
transfer coefficient by employing a dimensionless calibrating factor.

5.2.4. Other Measurements Based Approaches

In contrast to intricate heat transfer models, measurement based approach relies upon
historical measurements and mathematical models to capture the relationship between
relevant input and output parameters. Various measurements such as wastewater tem-
perature, soil temperature, ambient air temperature, wastewater discharge and so forth,
have been taken over a certain period of time; and relationship were established between
these variables through mathematical tools like correlation analysis. An example of such
an approach can be seen in the study by Escalas-Cañellas et al. [101]. The authors used a
time series modelling method, where future wastewater temperature is predicted based
upon historical temperature, mean daily ambient temperature and rainfall. A modelling
error of 0.5 ◦ C (RMSE) between predicted and the measured temperature was observed.
Abdel Aal et al. [102] used another approach, where sewer wastewater temperature
was modelled using an Abductory Inductive Mechanism (AIM), a supervised learning
technique. Two parameters, upstream wastewater temperature and downstream in-sewer
air temperature, were used as inputs. The study carried out a comparison with the model
developed by Abdel et al. [98] and showed that the proposed AIM estimates the wastewater
temperature with higher accuracy.
In a recent study, Golzar et al. [103] used an artificial neural network to forecast the
influent wastewater temperature of a WWTP. The model considered ambient temperature,
building effluent temperature and flowrate, stormwater flowrate, infiltration flowrate, the
hour of the day, and the day of the year as the input parameters.
In conclusion, while TEMPEST uses a comprehensive modelling approach taking
various heat transfer processes, other more simplified models can capture the temperature
dynamics with acceptable accuracy. More experimental studies could help to further
validate these approaches.

6. Impacts of WWHR
6.1. Life Cycle Environmental Assessment
It is evident that WWHR leads to a reduction in GHG emissions by lowering primary
energy usage. However, to analyze the overall sustainability of WWHR, it is vital to
consider the full life-cycle environmental assessment (LCA) of the technology. Typically,
researchers emphasize upon energy savings of WWHR; some have examined the GHG
emission savings also. However, the LCA of the WWHR technologies has not gained
considerable attention from the research community so far, and the literature associated
is limited.
Ip et al. [104] presented a case study focusing upon LCA of shower water heat recovery
in a sports-facility. The study’s goal was to perform an LCA of wastewater heat exchangers
(WWHXs) installed in the facility compared against PVC-u pipe with no heat recovery. The
results showed that the lifetime GHG emission (kg CO2 -e) of WWHX was five times more
than the PVC-u pipe. However, the reduction in GHG emission during the operational
stage of WWHX indicated an emission payback period of 0.55–10.02 years, depending
upon the usage.
A study by Schestak et al. [105] analyzed the sustainability of WWHR in a commer-
cial kitchen in North Wales, UK. The study employed LCA to determine the impact of
heat recovery with a concentric double-walled pipe heat exchanger and associated pipes
and fittings. The study further explored the possibilities of using recycled copper and
polypropylene-graphite instead of copper. The results demonstrated that GHG emissions
of the heat exchanger ranged from 16 to 87 kgCO2 e. The heat exchanger with the com-
Water 2021, 13, 1274 19 of 26

bination of recycled copper (35%) and polymer material was concluded to be the most
environmentally friendly option that is currently available in the market.

6.2. Impact on Water Treatment Process

In wastewater treatment processes, temperature plays an important role. The rate of
biological and chemical reactions in some elements of wastewater treatment strongly de-
pend upon temperature [106]. Many existing studies in literature solely focus on modelling
temperature in activated sludge basins [107–109] reflecting its importance. Recovering
heat from wastewater in sewer systems may lead to a reduction in influent temperature at
WWTPs. This is particularly important if heat recovery upstream is near the WWTP since,
for heat recovery at a long-distance upstream, the sewage temperature may regain heat
again from the surrounding air and soil. The decrement ∆T in wastewater temperature can
be calculated as follows
Q
∆T = , (8)
ρc p V̇
where Q is the amount recovered heat per unit time, V̇, ρ and c p are the volumetric flow
rate, density and the specific heat capacity of wastewater. The reduction in the temperature
of influent wastewater can negatively impact the nitrification/denitrification capacity
of WWTP.
Wanner et al. [110] specifically investigated the effect of heat recovery on nitrification
and nitrogen removal for a WWTP in Zurich, Switzerland. The influent and effluent tem-
peratures were measured during both dry and wet conditions. Wanner et al. [110] argued
that a temporary reduction (over a couple of hours) in the temperature of wastewater did
not affect the nitrification capacity due to long hydraulic retention time in activated sludge
tanks and the secondary clarifiers. The authors also concluded that a long-lasting reduction
of 1 ◦ C in wastewater temperature causes a 10% reduction in nitrifying bacteria. To deal
with this change, 10% of aerobic sludge retention would have to be increased.
Lotti et al. [111] reported the effects of temperature on growth of anaerobic-ammonium-
oxidation (Anammox) bacteria activity. The study concluded that the anammox activity
could not be effectively described with the Arrhenius equation when exploring the low-
temperature range (<15 ◦ C).
Brehar et al. [112] presented a case study of a municipal WWTP in Romania to
investigate the effect of influent temperature on the wastewater treatment process. The
study observed increased microbial activity, escalated nitrification and denitrification, and
decreased nitrate, nitrite and ammonia concentrations at higher influent temperatures.
Overall, the study concluded that in terms of nitrogen removal from wastewater, a decrease
in influent temperature could negatively impact the performance of WWTP.
Abdel et al. [113] presented a laboratory-scale study to investigate the impact of sewer
heat recovery on in-sewer processes such as deposition of Fats, Oils and Greases (FOGs)
and hydrogen-sulphide(H2 S) emissions. The study concluded no unique temperature
dependency on the rate of FOG deposition in the laboratory set-up used. Regarding the H2 S,
a 40% reduction in H2 S concentration was observed for wastewater at 5 ◦ C compared to
20 ◦ C. In conclusion, the reduced wastewater temperatures due to WWHR can significantly
reduce H2 S formation. The effect on FOG deposition demands further research.
In general, it is clear from the literature that temperature change can result in impacts
on the wastewater treatment process. However, it is unclear whether WWHR at the
component or building levels would significantly impact influent temperatures. Further
research is required in this regard.

6.3. Impact on the Receiving Water Ecology

The variation in the wastewater discharge temperature from WWTPs can have consid-
erable consequences on receiving water bodies’ ecology. The reduction in treated wastewa-
ter temperature is positive for the biological community of the receiving water [114]. In
the case of cooling, the heat input to the wastewater or increase in water body temperature
Water 2021, 13, 1274 20 of 26

can intensify biological processes leading to an accelerated oxygen depletion, which can
negatively impact the water ecology [114].

7. Legal Frameworks
Some governments have begun to develop legal guidelines to regulate thermal energy
recovery from wastewater. Notable examples include guidelines from the Canton of Zurich,
Switzerland, and the German Association of Water, Wastewater and Waste [41,90]. The
Swiss guidelines clarify that the ownership of the thermal resource lies with sewer and
WWTP operators. Hence, any exploitation of the resource must be approved by these
infrastructure operators. Further, if heat recovery occurs at the outlet of a WWTP, additional
approval is required from appropriate regulatory authorities. This ensures that the size
of any water bodies receiving wastewater discharge is reasonable and have no excessive
thermal loading due to any heat recovery. For in-sewer heat recovery, both guidelines stress
the importance of maintaining a minimum wastewater temperature to ensure nitrogen
removal at WWTPs. The German guidelines also require that the hydraulic function of
sewers is sustained to ensure no excess solids accumulation occurs when heat exchangers
are installed. On the other hand, many guidelines set a criteria for maximum temperature
for wastewater disposal also [115]. If the wastewater is released at a high temperature,
which is the case for many utility operations and industries, WWHR can bring potential
benefit by recovering energy as well as maintaining the receiving water conditions.
In terms of the ownership of larger heat recovery schemes, the development of an
energy utility by the City of Vancouver to distribute heat recovered from wastewater
provides a model on how this can be achieved [116]. Thus far, the work undertaken in
regulating the recovery and distribution of heat recovered from wastewater provides a
solid foundation for its broader implementation.

8. Concluding Remarks and Future Directions

Wastewater contains a considerable amount of thermal energy, which can be recovered
at different points in the water cycle and utilized to reduce heating demand. Thermal
energy is extracted using either heat exchangers or a combination of heat exchangers and
heat pumps. Some key points that can be concluded are
• Heat recovery from shower water using a heat exchanger can be an efficient and
economically viable option. Vertical heat exchangers have large space requirements,
and retrofitting of WWHR system can increase the investment costs.
• At the domestic building level, due to low quantities of wastewater flow and high
economic costs, heat pumps are not a viable option for heat recovery at the current
prices of alternative heating sources. It is feasible to use a wastewater source heat
pump at properties with higher volumes of wastewater discharge, such as public
showers, gymnasium, sports centre, commercial kitchen, apartment complexes, and
so forth.
• Further research should be carried out with a focus on policy and decision mak-
ing to improve the economic competitiveness of WWHR systems at the domestic
building level.
• At the sewer pipe level, wastewater flow is in abundant quantity. The temperature
varies from 10 to 25 ◦ C throughout the year with low daily variation, which makes
sewer water an ideal low-grade heat source for heat pumps. The main disadvantage,
in this case, is the fouling of heat exchangers, which can reduce the efficiency of the
heat recovery system, thus requiring regular maintenance.
• Economic savings and payback period for WWHR at sewer pipe level can depend
upon many factors, including current electricity prices, more prolonged period usage
of WWHR system and the cost of traditional fuel sources.
• Research studies considering the energy, economic and environmental aspects of
WWHR collectively are still limited in the literature.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 21 of 26

• The surrounding soil of a sewer pipe and in-sewer air are the two major sources of
heat loss for sewer wastewater.
• Downstream of WWTPs, the wastewater temperature is relatively stable and can be
cooled down to much lower levels. However, there can be higher heat transmission
losses in this case due to the often distant location of WWTPs from the consumers.
• Along with the positive impacts such as reduction of primary energy usage and GHG
emissions, WWHR from sewer wastewater could negatively impact the nitrification
capacity of WWTP, leading to higher ammonium concentration in the effluent water
of WWTP. However, the upstream impact of WWHR on the downstream treatment
require further investigation to fully quantify what this potential effect might be.
In addition to the above key findings of the present work, some future suggestions
and recommendations can be summarized as follows:
• In order to encourage heat recovery at the component and the building level, various
countries can introduce WWHR in their respective building codes and guidelines
aimed at improving the energy efficiency of existing and new buildings.
• At present, the conventional technologies are prevalent over such sustainable alterna-
tives due to the low prices of fuel sources. More studies with direct attention to the
economic analysis of small and large scale WWHR should be performed to clearly
highlight the advantage of WWHR over conventional technologies in the future with
the rising cost of traditional fuel sources.
• The non-residential buildings that generate a large amount of wastewater, such as
launderette, hotels, and restaurants, food processing industry hold significant poten-
tial for WWHR. More research should be dedicated in this direction.
• The impacts of separating wastewater at the source in residential buildings on WWHR
can be considered in a future study expanding on previous work from Ni et al. [24].
As discussed in Section 5.1, heat in residential wastewater is predominantly embed-
ded in the greywater component from bathrooms, washing machines, and kitchens.
Separating this wastewater at the source in a building could impact the feasibility of
WWHR by concentrating the heat available alongside the benefits of simpler treatment
of the relatively clean greywater for potential reuse.
• The decentralization of wastewater treatment can be a method to enhance local water
recycling, reduce reliance on extensive sewer networks, and reduce the intensity of
environmental impacts from large, centralized WWTPs. The interactions of wastewa-
ter decentralization and WWHR could be an interesting concept to explore with lower
wastewater flows available in small decentralized WWTPs but at potentially higher
temperatures due to reduced distances in sewers.
• Another interesting idea would be to explore the integration of WWHR into district
heating as a decentralized heating source.
Overall, wastewater is an important source of clean thermal energy with significant
potential to improve the energy infrastructure’s efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. It
should be given more attention from the research community, policymakers and other
stakeholder committed to achieving climate neutrality.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.N. and A.M.; methodology, H.N. and A.M.; writing—
original draft preparation, H.N.; writing—review and editing, H.N., J.S., M.K.M. and A.M.; supervi-
sion, A.M.; funding acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The present research has been supported by the ERDF Interreg Ireland-Wales Programme
2014–2020, through the Dŵr Uisce project.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Water 2021, 13, 1274 22 of 26

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the funding support from the European Regional
Development Fund under Ireland-Wales Co-operation Programme 2014–2020.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. European Comission. Statistical Pocketbook 2019; Technical Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019.
Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e0544b72-db53-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1/lang
uage-en (accessed on 20 September 2020).
2. Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy
Union and Climate Action. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 61, 1–77.
3. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 5, 82–209.
4. Sustainable Europe Investment Plan European Green Deal Investment Plan; Technical Report; European Commision: Brussels, Belgium,
2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0021 (accessed on 20
September 2020).
5. Schmid, F. Sewage water: Interesting heat source for heat pumps and chillers. In Proceedings of the 9th International IEA Heat
Pump Conference, Zürich, Switzerland, 20–22 May 2008; pp. 1–12.
6. Mueller, E. Heizen und Kühlen mit Abwasser; Institut Energie in Infrastrukturanlagen: Winterthur, Switzerland, 2009. Available
online: https://um.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-um/intern/Dateien/Dokumente/5_Energie/Energieef
fizienz/Abwasserwaermenutzung/Leitfaden_Ratgeber/Ratgeber_Heizen_und_Kuehlen.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2020).
7. Hepbasli, A.; Biyik, E.; Ekren, O.; Gunerhan, H.; Araz, M. A key review of wastewater source heat pump (WWSHP) systems.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 88, 700–722. [CrossRef]
8. Shen, C.; Lei, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Yao, Y. A review on the current research and application of wastewater source heat pumps
in China. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2018, 6, 140–156. [CrossRef]
9. Culha, O.; Gunerhan, H.; Biyik, E.; Ekren, O.; Hepbasli, A. Heat exchanger applications in wastewater source heat pumps for
buildings: A key review. Energy Build. 2015, 104, 215–232. [CrossRef]
10. Tilley, E. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies; Eawag: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2014.
11. Yao, R.; Steemers, K. A method of formulating energy load profile for domestic buildings in the UK. Energy Build. 2005,
37, 663–671. [CrossRef]
12. Grassi, W. Heat Pumps: Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [CrossRef]
13. Zaloum, C.; Gusdorf, J.; Parekh, A. Performance Evaluation of Drain Water Heat Recovery Technology at the Canadian Centre for Housing
Technology; Sustainable Buildings and Communities, National Resources Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2007.
14. Zaloum, C.; Gusdorf, J.; Parekh, A. Drainwater Heat Recovery Performance Testing at Canadian Centre for Housing Technology;
Technical Series, CCHT, 07-116; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2007.
15. Frankowski, C. Drain Water Heat Recovery: A Review of Performance, Economics, Practical Issues and Applications. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013. [CrossRef]
16. Shields, K. Drain Water Heat Recovery. Master’s Thesis, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, 2011.
17. Wong, L.; Mui, K.; Guan, Y. Shower water heat recovery in high-rise residential buildings of Hong Kong. Appl. Energy 2010,
87, 703–709. [CrossRef]
18. Tomislon, J. Heat Recovery from Wastewater Using a Gravity-Film Heat Exchanger. In Federal Energy Management Program;
Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. Available online: https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/informationalkits/i
nfokit_0003_DrainwaterFact%20Sheet.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2020)
19. Pochwat, K.; Kordana, S.; Starzec, M.; Słyś, D. Comparison of two-prototype near-horizontal Drain Water Heat Recovery units on
the basis of effectiveness. Energy 2019, 173, 1196–1207. [CrossRef]
20. McNabola, A.; Shields, K. Efficient drain water heat recovery in horizontal domestic shower drains. Energy Build. 2013, 59, 44–49.
[CrossRef]
21. Kimmels, A. Shower Heat Recovery: Overview of Commercially Available DWHR Systems; Meander Heat Recovery: Selpenden,
Norway, 2011. Available online: http://www.meanderhr.com/report/meanderhr_com_shower_dwhr_overview.pdf (accessed
on 24 September 2020).
22. Torras, S.; Oliet, C.; Rigola, J.; Oliva, A. Drain water heat recovery storage-type unit for residential housing. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2016, 103, 670–683. [CrossRef]
23. Spriet, J.; McNabola, A. Decentralized drain water heat recovery: A probabilistic method for prediction of wastewater and
heating system interaction. Energy Build. 2019, 183, 684–696. [CrossRef]
24. Ni, L.; Lau, S.; Li, H.; Zhang, T.; Stansbury, J.S.; Shi, J.; Neal, J. Feasibility study of a localized residential grey water energy-recovery
system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2012, 39, 53–62. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, W.; Liang, S.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, K.; Gui, X.; Tang, D. Investigation on the thermal performance and optimization of a heat
pump water heater assisted by shower waste water. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 172–181. [CrossRef]
26. Pochwat, K.; Kordana-Obuch, S.; Starzec, M.; Piotrowska, B. Financial Analysis of the Use of Two Horizontal Drain Water Heat
Recovery Units. Energies 2020, 13, 4113. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1274 23 of 26

27. Zaloum, C.; Lafrance, M.; Gusdorf, J. Drain Water Heat Recovery Characterization and Modeling; Sustainable Buildings and
Communitiues: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2007.
28. Słyś, D.; Kordana, S. Financial analysis of the implementation of a Drain Water Heat Recovery unit in residential housing. Energy
Build. 2014, 71. [CrossRef]
29. Bott, T.R. Fouling of Heat Exchangers; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1995. [CrossRef]
30. Velan, D. Cost Competitive Horizontal Drain Water Heat Recovery—An opportunity to save energy in many homes and
commercial buildings. In Proceedings of the ACEEE Hot Water Forum, Portland, OR, USA, 26–28 February 2017. Available
online: https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/conferences/hwf/2017/Velan_Session4C_HWF17_2.28.17.pdf
31. De Paepe, M.; Theuns, E.; Lenaers, S.; Van Loon, J. Heat recovery system for dishwashers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2003, 23, 743–756.
[CrossRef]
32. Wemhoff, A.; Dai, T.; Fleischer, A. The Potential for Thermal Waste Energy Recovery in Industrial Kitchens. In Proceedings of the
ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 3–9 November 2017; Volume 58417,
p. V006T08A039. [CrossRef]
33. Adhikari, P. Feasibility Study of Waste Heat Recovery from Laundry Facility: Case Study-Mr Washing Man Oy. 2017. Available
online: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-201702092213 (accessed on 24 September 2020).
34. Ip, K.; She, K. Waste heat recovery from showers: Case study of a university sport facility in the UK. In Proceedings of the Water
Efficiency Conference 2016, Coventry, UK, 7–9 September 2016; Water Efficiency Network, University of Bath: Bath, UK, 2016;
pp. 114–121. Available online: http://www.watefnetwork.co.uk/files/default/resources/Conference2016/WatefCon2016_Proce
edings.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2020).
35. Dong, J.; Zhang, Z.; Yao, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Lei, B. Experimental performance evaluation of a novel heat pump water heater assisted
with shower drain water. Appl. Energy 2015, 154, 842–850. [CrossRef]
36. Baek, N.; Shin, U.; Yoon, J. A study on the design and analysis of a heat pump heating system using wastewater as a heat source.
Sol. Energy 2005, 78, 427–440. [CrossRef]
37. Wallin, J.; Claesson, J. Analyzing the efficiency of a heat pump assisted drain water heat recovery system that uses a vertical
inline heat exchanger. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessm. 2014, 8, 109–119. [CrossRef]
38. Postrioti, L.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F.; Buitoni, G.; Di Maria, F.; Asdrubali, F. An experimental setup for the analysis of an energy
recovery system from wastewater for heat pumps in civil buildings. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 102, 961–971. [CrossRef]
39. Wallin, J.; Claesson, J. Investigating the efficiency of a vertical inline drain water heat recovery heat exchanger in a system boosted
with a heat pump. Energy Build. 2014, 80, 7–16. [CrossRef]
40. Seybold, C.; Brunk, M. In-house waste water heat recovery. Rehva J. 2013, 6, 18–21.
41. Müller, E.; Schmid, F.; Kobel, B.; Stadtmeister, W. Heizen und Kühlen Mit Abwasser-Ratgeber für Bauträger und Kommunen-
Energierückgewinnung aus Häuslichem und Kommunalem Abwasser; Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt: Osnabrück, Germany, 2009.
42. Liu, L.; Fu, L.; Jiang, Y. Application of an exhaust heat recovery system for domestic hot water. Energy 2010, 35, 1476–1481.
[CrossRef]
43. Todorović, D.; Tomić, M.; Bojanić, R.; Bajatović, D.; And̄elković, A.S. A comparative analysis of a heat pump application with
grey wastewater source for domestic hot water preparation in hotels. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2020, 1–14. [CrossRef]
44. Sohail, U.; Kwiatek, C.; Fung, A.S.; Joksimovic, D. Techno-Economic Feasibility of Wastewater Heat Recovery for A Large
Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Proceedings 2019, 23, 1. [CrossRef]
45. Spriet, J.; McNabola, A. Decentralized drain water heat recovery from commercial kitchens in the hospitality sector. Energy Build.
2019, 194, 247–259. [CrossRef]
46. Wanner, O. Biofilms Hamper Heat Recovery. Eawag News 2006, 7, 31–32.
47. Liu, Z.; Ma, L.; Zhang, J. Application of a heat pump system using untreated urban sewage as a heat source. Appl. Therm. Eng.
2014, 62, 747–757. [CrossRef]
48. Zhao, X.; Fu, L.; Zhang, S.; Jiang, Y.; Lai, Z. Study of the performance of an urban original source heat pump system. Energy
Convers. Manag. 2010, 51, 765–770. [CrossRef]
49. Cipolla, S.S.; Maglionico, M. Heat recovery from urban wastewater: Analysis of the variability of flow rate and temperature in
the sewer of Bologna, Italy. Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 288–297. [CrossRef]
50. Sievers, J.; Londong, J.; Stübler, A.; Bestenlehner, D.; Drück, H.; Schönfelder, W. Heat recovery potential of domestic grey water in
the pilot project Jenfelder Au in Hamburg. In Proceedings of the 17th International EWA Symposium “WatEnergyResources–
Water, Energy and Resources: Innovative Options and Sustainable Solutions”, Munich, Germany, 5–9 May 2014
51. Guo, X.; Hendel, M. Urban water networks as an alternative source for district heating and emergency heat-wave cooling. Energy
2018, 145, 79–87. [CrossRef]
52. Parker, E.; Germain, A.S.; Laurent, E.S. A Study of Waste Water Energy Recovery and Its Implementation in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. Sponsor: Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Green Communities Division & Renewable and
Alternative Energy Development. 2013. Available online: https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-101713-17
4945/unrestricted/WWER_IQP_Final_Report_Parker_St__Germain_St__Laurent.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2020).
53. Hrabová, K.; Hrdlička, T.; Tlašek, M. Use of Heat from Wastewater. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, Malang City, Indonesia, 12–13 March 2019; Volume 290, p. 012095. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1274 24 of 26

54. Pamminger, F.; Scott, D.; Aye, L.; Jelbert, R. Heat energy recovery potential from sewers in Melbourne. Water J. Aust. Water Assoc.
2013, 40, 68. [CrossRef]
55. Oesterholt, F.; Jan, H. Feasibility of Small Scale Heat Rrecovery from Sewers, BTO 2015.208(s) 2014. Available online:
http://www.denewa.eu/websites/implementatie/mediadepot/29128bc9e1a2.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2020).
56. The Swiss Federal Council. Water Protection Ordinance of 28 October 1998 (As of 1 April 2020). 2014. Available online:
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2863_2863_2863/en (accessed on 1 October 2020).
57. Tuncay, E. The Effect of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent on Water Temperature, Macroinvertebrate Community, and
Functional Feeding Groups Structure in the Lower Rouge River, Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michgan-Dearbon,
Dearborn, MI, USA, 2016.
58. Pabi, S.; Amarnath, A.; Goldstein, R.; Reekie, L. Electricity use and management in the municipal water supply and wastewater
industries. Electr. Power Res. Institute Palo Alto 2013, 194. Available online: https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/electricit
y-use-and-management-municipal-water-supply-and-wastewater-industries (accessed on 26 September 2020).
59. Stillwell, A.S.; Hoppock, D.C.; Webber, M.E. Energy recovery from wastewater treatment plants in the United States: A case
study of the energy-water nexus. Sustainability 2010, 2, 945–962. [CrossRef]
60. Kollmann, R.; Maier, S.; Shahzad, K.; Kretschmer, F.; Neugebauer, G.; Stoeglehner, G.; Ertl, T.; Narodoslawsky, M. Waste water
treatment plants as regional energy cells-evaluation of economic and ecologic potentials in Austria. Chem. Eng. 2014, 39.
[CrossRef]
61. Ðurd̄ević, D.; Balić, D.; Franković, B. Wastewater heat utilization through heat pumps: The case study of City of Rijeka. J. Clean.
Prod. 2019, 231, 207–213. [CrossRef]
62. Chae, K.J.; Kang, J. Estimating the energy independence of a municipal wastewater treatment plant incorporating green energy
resources. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 75, 664–672. [CrossRef]
63. Pochwała, S.; Kotas, P. Possibility of obtaining wastewater heat from a sewage treatment plant by the means of a heat pump-A
case study. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 44, 00144. [CrossRef]
64. Spriet, J.; Hendrick, P. Wastewater as a heat source for individual residence heating: A techno-economic feasibility study in the
brussels capital region. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2017, 5, 289–308. [CrossRef]
65. Stec, A.; Kordana, S. Analysis of profitability of rainwater harvesting, gray water recycling and drain water heat recovery systems.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 84–94. [CrossRef]
66. Eslami-nejad, P.; Bernier, M. Impact of grey water heat recovery on the electrical demand of domestic hot water heaters. In
Proceedings of the 11th IBPSA Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 27–30 July 2009. Available online: http://ibpsa.org/proceedings/
BS2009/BS09_0681_687.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2020).
67. Tanha, K.; Fung, A.S.; Kumar, R. Performance of two domestic solar water heaters with drain water heat recovery units:
Simulation and experimental investigation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 90, 444–459. [CrossRef]
68. Gavilán del Amo, A.; López Alonso, A. Drain water heat recovery in a residential building. Master’s Thesis, University of Gävle,
Gävle, Sweden, 2015. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:825938/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on
24 September 2020).
69. Juhošová, D.; Peráčková, J.; Krafčik, M. Recovery of waste heat from the sewer system in the sanitary equipment of a sport
complex. In Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Youth Conference on Energy (IYCE), Bled, Slovenia, 3–6 July 2019; pp. 1–7.
[CrossRef]
70. Meggers, F.; Leibundgut, H. The potential of wastewater heat and exergy: Decentralized high-temperature recovery with a heat
pump. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 879–886. [CrossRef]
71. Chao, S.; Yiqiang, J.; Yang, Y.; Shiming, D.; Xinlei, W. A field study of a wastewater source heat pump for domestic hot water
heating. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2013, 34, 433–448. [CrossRef]
72. Alnahhal, S.; Spremberg, E. Contribution to exemplary in-house wastewater heat recovery in Berlin, Germany. Procedia Cirp
2016, 40, 35–40. [CrossRef]
73. Kayo, G.; Martinac, I.; Shukuya, M.; Rahimibaroughi, H. Heat Recovery from Waste-Water in Buildings-A System-Oriented
Longitudinal Study. 2018. Available online: https://www.e2b2.se/library/4982/vaermeaatervinning-ur-byggnaders-spillvatten-
slutrapport.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2020).
74. Cautley, D. Drain Water Heat Recovery- A Field Study of Commercial Applications; Technical Report; Energy Center of Wisconsin. 2013.
Available online: https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/app/uploads/2018/11/Dan-C_DWHR-COM_272-1.pdf (accessed
on 24 September 2020).
75. Salih, T.W.M. Sewage water heat recovery: A study as an application of energy saving in IRAQ. J. Eng. Sustain. Dev. 2017,
21, 114–123.
76. Yaxiu, G.; Huqiu, D.; Yu, G.; Huanjuan, Z. The potential of urban wastewater heat: The feasibility analysis of using wastewater
source heat pump. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Symposium on Water Resource and Environmental Protection, Xi’an,
China, 20–22 May 2011; Volume 2, pp. 1481–1484. [CrossRef]
77. Chae, K.J.; Ren, X. Flexible and stable heat energy recovery from municipal wastewater treatment plants using a fixed-inverter
hybrid heat pump system. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 565–574. [CrossRef]
78. Cho, Y.; Yun, R. A raw water source heat pump air-conditioning system. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 3068–3073. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1274 25 of 26

79. Meinzinger, F.; Oldenburg, M. Characteristics of source-separated household wastewater flows: A statistical assessment. Water
Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 1785–1791. [CrossRef]
80. Lerch, W.; Heinz, A. Heat recovery from waste water in Low-Energy and Passive Houses: Potentials and concepts in combination
with solar thermal energy and heat pumps. In Proceedings of the Task 44 Meeting 3, Barcelona, Spain, 7–8 April 2011.
81. Blokker, E.; Vreeburg, J.; Van Dijk, J. Simulating residential water demand with a stochastic end-use model. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2010, 136, 19–26. [CrossRef]
82. Hadengue, B.; Scheidegger, A.; Morgenroth, E.; Larsen, T.A. Modeling the water-energy nexus in households. Energy Build. 2020,
225, 110262. [CrossRef]
83. Bailey, O.; Zlatanovic, L.; van der Hoek, J.P.; Kapelan, Z.; Blokker, M.; Arnot, T.; Hofman, J. A Stochastic Model to Predict Flow,
Nutrient and Temperature Changes in a Sewer under Water Conservation Scenarios. Water 2020, 12, 1187. [CrossRef]
84. Hendron, R.; Engebrecht, C. Building America Research Benchmark Definition: Updated December 2009. 2010. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47246.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2020).
85. Kretschmer, F.; Simperler, L.; Ertl, T. Analysing wastewater temperature development in a sewer system as a basis for the
evaluation of wastewater heat recovery potentials. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 639–648. [CrossRef]
86. Schilperoort, R.; Clemens, F. Fibre-optic distributed temperature sensing in combined sewer systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2009,
60, 1127–1134. [CrossRef]
87. Wu, R.; Sun, D.; Ma, G. The parameters characteristics on the urban sewage as a cold and heat source and the evaluation on
application methods. Renew. Energy 2005, 5, 39–43.
88. Abdel-Aal, M. Modelling the Viability of Heat Recovery from Underground Pipes. Deterministic Modelling of Wastewater
Temperatures in a 3000 Sewer Pipe Network. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, 2015. Available online:
https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/14467 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
89. Koch, M.; Nietlisbach, A.; Känel, B.; Calderoni, M.; Wille, B.; Müller, R.; Bretscher, P.; Wanner, O.; Siegrist, H.; Peter, A.; et al.
Heizen und Kühlen mit Abwasser—Leitfaden für die Planung, Bewilligung und Realisierung von Anlagen zur Abwasserenergienutzung;
Amt für Abfall, Wasser, Energie und Luft des Kantons Zürich: Zürich, Switzerland, 2010.
90. Merkblatt, D. Energie aus Abwasser–Wärme-und Lageenergie. 2009. Available online: https://de.dwa.de/de/regelwerksankue
ndigungen-volltext/abwasserw%C3%A4rmenutzung-1990.html (accessed on 26 September 2020).
91. Dürrenmatt, D.J.; Wanner, O. TEMPEST: Computer Program for the Simulation of the Wastewater Temperature in Sewers.
Available online: https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilungen/eng/software/tempest/tempest_manual_V1_02
.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2020).
92. Dürrenmatt, D.J. Berechnung des Verlaufs der Abwassertemperatur im Kanalisationsrohr. Master’s Thesis, Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 2006. [CrossRef]
93. Dürrenmatt, D.J.; Wanner, O. A mathematical model to predict the effect of heat recovery on the wastewater temperature in
sewers. Water Res. 2014, 48, 548–558. [CrossRef]
94. Ali, S.; Gillich, A. Determining the UK’s potential for heat recovery from wastewater using steady state and dynamic modelling-
preliminary results. In Proceedings of the 2nd Global Conference on Energy and Sustainable Development, GCESD2018,
Edinburgh, UK, 18–20 December 2018. [CrossRef]
95. Elías-Maxil, J.A.; Hofman, J.; Wols, B.; Clemens, F.; van der Hoek, J.P.; Rietveld, L. Development and performance of a
parsimonious model to estimate temperature in sewer networks. Urban Water J. 2017, 14, 829–838. [CrossRef]
96. Hofman, J.; Bloemendal, M.; Wols, B.; Agudelo-Vera, C.; Elias Maxil, J.; Boderie, P.; Nijman, M.; Van Der Hoek, J.P. Modelling of
Thermal Energy Balance in Sewer Systems. 2014. Available online: http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:e31f2cc8-a39b-49a2-bd41-c0
685bea369d (accessed on 28 September 2020).
97. Sitzenfrei, R.; Hillebrand, S.; Rauch, W. Investigating the interactions of decentralized and centralized wastewater heat recovery
systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 1243–1250. [CrossRef]
98. Abdel-Aal, M.; Smits, R.; Mohamed, M.; De Gussem, K.; Schellart, A.; Tait, S. Modelling the viability of heat recovery from
combined sewers. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70, 297–306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Saagi, R.; Arnell, M.; Reyes, D.; Sehlén, R.; Jeppsson, U. Modelling heat transfer in sewer systems-Towards a city-wide model
for heat recovery from wastewater. In Proceedings of the 10th IWA Symposium on Modelling and Integrated Assessment
(Watermatex 2019), Copenha-gen, Denmark, 1–4 September 2019. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ri:
diva-42436 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
100. Abdel-Aal, M.; Tait, S.; Mohamed, M.; Schellart, A. Using Long Term Simulations to Understand Heat Transfer Processes during
Steady Flow Conditions in Combined Sewers. Water 2021, 13, 570. [CrossRef]
101. Escalas-Cañellas, A.; Ábrego-Góngora, C.J.; Barajas-López, M.G.; Houweling, D.; Comeau, Y. A time series model for influent
temperature estimation: Application to dynamic temperature modelling of an aerated lagoon. Water Res. 2008, 42, 2551–2562.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Abdel-Aal, M.; Mohamed, M.; Smits, R.; Abdel-Aal, R.; De Gussem, K.; Schellart, A.; Tait, S. Predicting wastewater temperatures
in sewer pipes using abductive network models. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 89–96. [CrossRef]
103. Golzar, F.; Nilsson, D.; Martin, V. Forecasting wastewater temperature based on artificial neural network (ANN) technique and
monte carlo sensitivity analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6386. [CrossRef]
Water 2021, 13, 1274 26 of 26

104. Ip, K.; She, K.; Adeyeye, K. Life-cycle impacts of shower water waste heat recovery: Case study of an installation at a university
sport facility in the UK. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 19247–19258. [CrossRef]
105. Schestak, I.; Spriet, J.; Styles, D.; Williams, A.P. Emissions down the drain: Balancing life cycle energy and greenhouse gas savings
with resource use for heat recovery from kitchen drains. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 271, 110988. [CrossRef]
106. Head, M.; Oleszkiewicz, J. Bioaugmentation for nitrification at cold temperatures. Water Res. 2004, 38, 523–530. [CrossRef]
107. Sedory, P.; Stenstrom, M. Dynamic prediction of wastewater aeration basin temperature. J. Environ. Eng. 1995, 121, 609–618.
[CrossRef]
108. Ford, D.; Chih, S.; Sobosta, E. Temperature prediction in activated sludge basins using mechanical screens. In Proceedings of the
27th Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, 2–4 May 1972; Volume 27, p. 587.
109. Lippi, S.; Rosso, D.; Lubello, C.; Canziani, R.; Stenstrom, M. Temperature modelling and prediction for activated sludge systems.
Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 125–131. [CrossRef]
110. Wanner, O.; Panagiotidis, V.; Clavadetscher, P.; Siegrist, H. Effect of heat recovery from raw wastewater on nitrification and
nitrogen removal in activated sludge plants. Water Res. 2005, 39, 4725–4734. [CrossRef]
111. Lotti, T.; Kleerebezem, R.; Van Loosdrecht, M. Effect of temperature change on anammox activity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015,
112, 98–103. [CrossRef]
112. Brehar, M.A.; Varhelyi, M.; Cristea, V.M.; Cristiu, D.; AGACHI, Ş.P. Influent temperature effects on the activated sludge process at
a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Stud. Univ. Babes Bolyai Chem. 2019, 64. [CrossRef]
113. Abdel-Aal, M.; Villa, R.; Jawiarczyk, N.; Alibardi, L.; Jensen, H.; Schellart, A.; Jefferson, B.; Shepley, P.; Tait, S. Potential influence
of sewer heat recovery on in-sewer processes. Water Sci. Technol. 2019, 80, 2344–2351. [CrossRef]
114. Simperler, L. Impact of Thermal Use of Wastewater in a Sewer on the Inlet Temperature of a Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Master’s Thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria, 2015. Available online: https://abstracts.bo
ku.ac.at/download.php?dataset_id=12640&property_id=107 (accessed on 28 September 2020).
115. Bundesrat, S. Gewässerschutzverordnung (GSchV). [Swiss Water Protection Act]. 1998. Available online: https://www.admin.ch
/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-3074.html (accessed on 1 October 2020).
116. Council of the City of Vancouver Canada. Energy Utility System By-Law No. 9552. 2020. Available online: https://bylaws.vanco
uver.ca/9552c.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2020).