Skip to Content

Uncovering Hidden Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Wastewater Treatment with Drone-Based Monitoring

Executive Summary

This study presents the first multi-plant, full-scale assessment of methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from 13 Swedish wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) using advanced drone-mounted sensors. Traditional emission-factor (EF) inventories—built on limited observations and expert judgment—underestimate site-level emissions by 2.9–6.3× for CH₄ and 2.9–3.0× for N₂O. Sludge storage alone accounts for an average of 78% of CH₄ and 47% of N₂O emissions, challenging the IPCC assumption of zero N₂O release from anaerobic-digestion sludge piles. Emissions correlate strongly with sludge age, not ambient temperature above 5 °C. These findings underscore that current EF-based inventories miss over 90% of total fluxes, skew mitigation priorities, and call for widespread adoption of in situ, high-resolution monitoring to refine GHG inventories and guide effective abatement strategies.

Key Learnings

  • Methane and nitrous oxide emissions at 13 WWTPs exceed IPCC Tier 1 and Sweden’s Tier 2 estimates by up to 6.3× and 3.0×, respectively.
  • Sludge storage emerges as the dominant emission source for both CH₄ (78% of total) and N₂O (47% of total).
  • Drone-based “virtual wall” flux mapping captures diffuse emissions missed by point-source methods, uncovering over 90% of GHGs that standard measurements overlook.
  • CH₄ release scales with sludge pile age rather than air temperature above 5 °C, indicating longer high-emission periods in warming climates.
  • N₂O from dewatered sludge rivals CH₄ as a CO₂e forcer and fluctuates unpredictably with pile conditions (oxygen, pH, C∕N ratio).
  • Revising emission factors with real-world data is critical to drive targeted mitigation—such as thermophilic digestion, ammonia dosing, or biochar amendments.

Link to articleIn Situ Observations Reveal Underestimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment with Anaerobic Digestion – Sludge Was a Major Source for Both CH4 and N2O | Environmental Science & Technology

Gålfalk M & Bastviken D. 2025. Environmental Science & Technology 59: 18146-18155. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5c04780 

Understanding GHG Emissions in WWTPs

Worldwide, nearly half of organic waste from households and industries reaches WWTPs, creating nitrogen-rich streams prone to GHG release. Current inventories estimate 14–33 Tg CH₄ yr⁻¹ and 0.16 Tg N₂O yr⁻¹ from WWTPs, but rely on IPCC EFs built from sparse data and theory. In situ studies reveal much higher emissions, especially from anaerobically digested sludge storage—assumed zero for N₂O by IPCC yet shown to emit significantly under compost-like conditions.

Drone-Based Measurement Approach

Site Selection & Field Campaigns

Twelve full-scale Swedish WWTPs (42 600–1 000 000 pe) and one regional sludge yard were chosen for diverse influent profiles, nitrogen-removal methods, and storage practices. Two campaigns ran from March–July 2022 and June 2023–April 2024, focusing on high-flux steps and involving local operations managers committed to emission reduction.

Sensor Platforms & Flux Mapping

Two integrated unmanned aircraft systems (iUAS) deployed high-frequency gas sensors and meteorological probes:

  • iUAS-1 (DJI Matrice 300): Single-gas CH₄ or N₂O sensor, anemometer, T/RH/pressure probes; 30 min flights.
  • iUAS-2 (Airolit Explorian XLT): Dual-gas CH₄/C₂H₆ and N₂O/CO₂ sensors with identical ancillary instruments; extended flight time.

Operating at 1–3 m/s between 1–120 m altitude, gas and wind data were sampled at 1 Hz (5 Hz for wind). A mass-balance “virtual wall” compared upwind and downwind transport to compute net fluxes, with delays corrected via breath-test calibration.

Flux Calculations & Emission Factors

Flux Computation

Instantaneous flux densities (g m⁻² s⁻¹) combined gas concentration, perpendicular wind speed, air pressure, and temperature. Vertical “walls” of data were interpolated onto 1 × 1 m grids; net emissions equal downwind minus upwind transport. Monte Carlo perturbations quantified uncertainty as standard deviations.

Emission Factor Tiers

  • Tier 1 (IPCC): Based on influent-effluent N loads; assumes zero N₂O from sludge.
  • Tier 2 (Swedish EPA): Country-specific factors; likewise excludes sludge-pile N₂O.

Gålfalk M & Bastviken D. 2025. Environmental Science & Technology 59: 18146-18155. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5c04780 

Results: CH₄ & N₂O Emission Profiles

Plant-Level Emissions

  • CH₄: 3.7–471 t yr⁻¹ per plant; 78% emitted from sludge storage.
  • N₂O: 1.9–68.3 t yr⁻¹; 47% from sludge storage.
  • AD Sludge CO₂e: N₂O emissions equal 8.6 ± 2.5% of sludge CH₄ mass, contributing 46 ± 7% of 100-year CO₂e from piles.

Comparison to Inventories

  • Observation-based emissions vs. Tier 1 & 2:
    • CH₄: 4.4–6.3× higher
    • N₂O: 2.9–3.0× higher
    • CO₂e: 3.1–3.4× higher
  • Median N₂O/CH₄ mass ratio: 14%; N₂O accounts for 45–95% of total CO₂e (mean 65 ± 18%).

Influence of Temperature & Sludge Age

CH₄ emissions correlate strongly with sludge age rather than air temperatures above 5 °C. Excluding months below 5 °C still yields CH₄ and CO₂e fluxes exceeding Tier 2 factors by 3.3× and 2.4×. In warming climates, high-emission periods will extend, amplifying total GHG output.

Implications for Inventories & Mitigation

Revising Emission Factors

Field data reveal that ignoring sludge-pile N₂O severely underestimates WWTP GHGs. High temporal variability of N₂O—driven by oxygen intrusion, pH, ammonium, and C∕N ratio—mirrors compost dynamics, warranting updated EFs based on real measurements.

Driving Mitigation R&D

High-resolution tools enable hotspot mapping, cost-justified investments, and verification of reduction strategies such as:

  • Thermophilic vs. mesophilic digestion
  • Ammonia or urea dosing
  • Biochar and mineral amendments

Encouraging plant-level voluntary reduction programs and investment in tracer-gas techniques will accelerate progress.

Gålfalk M & Bastviken D. 2025. Environmental Science & Technology 59: 18146-18155. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5c04780 

Conclusions

Drone-based, full-scale monitoring uncovers that CH₄ and N₂O emissions from WWTPs are 2.9–6.3× higher than current EF predictions, with sludge storage rivaling nitrification/denitrification as a GHG source. Widespread adoption of in situ, high-resolution measurements is essential to refine inventories, drive targeted mitigation, and align climate models with real-world fluxes.

Sources:

  1. Linköping University. “Unexpected greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment.”  Unexpected greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment - Linköping University
  2. Airolit. “Airolit Drones Reveal Hidden Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Study.”  Airolit Drones Reveal Hidden Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Study | Airolit
  3. Gålfalk M. & Bastviken D., In Situ Observations Reveal Underestimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment with Anaerobic Digestion – Sludge Was a Major Source for Both CH4 and N2O | Environmental Science & Technology

Enhancing Lower-Atmosphere Sampling with Windsond S2
Written by Phillip Chilson