Environment, Development and Sustainability (2024) 26:19369–19396

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03540-2

REVIEW

Assessing wastewater management challenges

in developing countries: a case study of India, current status
and future scope

Rucha Vaidya1 · Kavita Verma1 · Mohan Kumar2,3 · Chanakya Hoysall1 ·

Lakshminarayana Rao1

Received: 23 January 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published online: 20 July 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract
In light of the immense pressure population increase and urbanization are putting on fresh-
water resources, wastewater recycling and reuse have received more attention in recent
years. However, in most developing countries, the available infrastructure is not adequate
for efficient wastewater recycling and reuse. In this study, the Indian wastewater scenario
was assessed in depth to elicit insights into managing wastewater challenges in developing
countries. Sewage generation increased proportionately with the increasing urban popula-
tion for the last 2 decades in India. The treatment capacity, however, could not keep pace
with sewage generation, and currently, only 50% of urban sewage is being treated through
centralized facilities. The same is the case with most prominent developing nations. Addi-
tionally, data show that the number of non-operational plants is increasing. The compliance
rate of existing treatment facilities is meager in most Indian states, making the reuse of
wastewater harder. Most other developing countries are likely to be operating under similar
conditions. Having identified challenges in wastewater management for developing coun-
tries, this study further discusses some data gaps that need attention and the importance of
closing these knowledge gaps in the context of decentralized treatment and reuse of waste-
water. Furthermore, it discusses interventions and recommendations that can help over-
come the identified challenges.

Keywords Challenges · Centralize and decentralization · Management · Treatment plants ·

Wastewater

1 Introduction

Increasing population and urbanization are putting immense pressure on the world’s
resources, water being the most important of them (Fig. 1) (Avagyan, 2010). In light
of freshwater, scarcity felt all across the globe, wastewater recycling and reuse have
been receiving more attention in recent years (Avagyan, 2010, 2017; England et al.,
2015; Tortajada, 2020; Kesari et al., 2021) However, in most developing countries, the
available infrastructure is inadequate to treat 100% of the generated sewage or provide

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
19370 R. Vaidya et al.

Fig. 1  World’s top water-stressed cities (Statista.com, 2018)

quality treated water for recycling and reuse. Insufficient funding, lack of policy direc-
tives, limited technical expertise, and non-compliance are some of the challenges faced
in managing vast quantities of wastewater. Addressing these challenges is crucial to pro-
tect public health, safeguarding the environment, and promote sustainable development
in developing countries (Abbasi et al., 2022).
While specific issues may be unique to each developing country, most of them face
similar economic, social, and political challenges that significantly impact their waste-
water management scenarios. Recognizing this shared predicament, there is a growing
demand for in-depth analysis and research which goes beyond the surface level. As per
authors observation there was a need for a comprehensive study that not only explores
the wastewater management scenario of a specific developing nation but also draws
comparisons with other developing countries. As such, this study is aimed at under-
standing the wastewater management scenario of a selected developing country and
understanding them in the context of wastewater management scenarios of other devel-
oping nations. The objectives of this study are:

1. Assessing the wastewater management scenario of a developing country in detail to

examine the developments and changes that have taken place over the years that help
reveal critical features and challenges in the current treatment scenario (Fig. 2). As the
world’s most populous and diverse developing nation, with the fastest growing economy
and significant advancement in social development, India is an excellent case study to
evaluate the wastewater management situation in developing countries and offer crucial
insights. Therefore, it was selected for a detailed assessment in this study.
2. Comparing the Indian wastewater scenario with other major developing countries to
assess shared challenges.
3. Suggesting recommendations to increase connectivity between different facets of waste-
water management scenario, methodologies for improving the functioning of the current
system and key concepts relevant to the future of the wastewater management scenario
in developing countries.

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19371

Fig. 2  Features of wastewater

management scenario

This study is divided into six sections. Section 1 is the introduction, Sect. 2 details
the data collection, analysis and simulation methods, Sect. 2.2 gives an overview of the
Indian wastewater management scenario, Sect. 3 gives a detailed assessment of the Indian
scenario and a comparative analysis with other developing countries. Section 7 discusses
observed data gaps, solutions for scenario improvement and key concepts relevant to policy
and regulatory frameworks and Sect. 5.3 concludes the findings and gives recommenda-
tions for future work. This study overall aims to facilitate the development of sustainable
and contextually appropriate solutions to address the shared challenges developing coun-
tries face in managing their wastewater effectively.

2 Methodology

2.1 Data collection and analysis

The data for the Indian scenario used in this study was sourced from grey literature pub-
lished by the CPCB, a national regulatory body for wastewater treatment. The reports pub-
lished by CPCB are the only comprehensive source of nationwide data on sewage treat-
ment plants in India. The individual STP data from the 2015 and 2021 CPCB () inventory
reports was used to create a database of the total number of STPs, current operational
capacities, future capacity building, technology distribution and compliance for different
states. Specifically, the necessary information was captured from Table no. 4 to 33 in the
2015 inventory report (CPCB, 2015) and Annexure III table in the 2021 inventory report
(CPCB, 2021b) containing data for individual STPs across the nation, collected using a
detailed questionnaire. This database was used for analyzing real current available capaci-
ties, future available capacity, current and future technology distribution and actual com-
pliance rates. The data for cost estimation for different technologies was sourced from a
CPCB report on performance evaluation of STPs published in 2013 (CPCB, 2013) and

13
19372 R. Vaidya et al.

augmented by a report from Royal Haskoning DHV submitted to Bengaluru Water Supply
and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) (Royal Haskoning DHV, 2020). The cost estimates were
used to calculate total construction, operation, and maintenance costs for different tech-
nologies based on land required, energy used, and workforce needed.
Additionally, data for other countries was sourced from papers published in journals,
grey literature published by governments and online databases maintained by national and
international organizations.

2.2 BioWin methodology for simulating as‑is and modified treatment plants

Various mathematical models have been developed to modify and optimize the wastewater
treatment process; among these Activated sludge models (ASM) are widely used (Henz
et al., 2000; Vitanza et al., 2016; Elawwad et al., 2019; Mohan et al., 2022). BioWin is
a wastewater treatment simulator software with built-in ASM, water chemistry, and gas
exchange models (Products—EnviroSim, 2020). Several studies in the literature have dem-
onstrated the use of BioWin Software for process optimization (Moussa et al., 2004; Elaw-
wad, 2018; Kim et al., 2019). The study by (Mohan et al., 2022) especially demonstrates
the potential of BioWin simulation in creating real-life low-cost interventions for improv-
ing and optimizing wastewater treatment plant operations. Therefore, the wastewater treat-
ment modelling suggested in the manuscript used BioWin software.
Treatment process simulation in Biowin was done considering the dimensions of treat-
ment units, underflow rates, design MLSS, cycle times, and hydraulic retention time. Fur-
ther raw sewage and effluent quality parameters were obtained from lab reports. In the case
of hypothetical simulations, unit dimensions were assumed based on the required hydrau-
lic retention time, and raw sewage quality parameters were assumed to be typical. After
collecting all the necessary data, the plant functioning was simulated by adding different
treatment units to the configuration. The units were connected according to the flow dia-
gram using pipe connectors. The splitter and mixer attachments were used where needed
to direct the flow. The dimensions and other unique settings were entered according to the
collected data for each treatment unit to finalize the configuration. To ensure that the simu-
lation represents the actual real-life system, some settings need to be readjusted to ensure
the influent and effluent water quality parameters match.

3 Overview of Indian wastewater management scenario

Though enormous attention has been given to increasing access to sanitation and reducing
open defecation in India, wastewater treatment has not garnered equal attention yet.
The urban population in India has been increasing steadily since the early 1900s. It has
seen an 11-fold increase since the last century, mainly due to the rapid growth observed
since 1950 (CPCB, 2000). The number of Class I (population greater than 100,000) and
Class II (population between 50,000 and 100,000) cities in 1970 were 142 and 190, respec-
tively. This number quadrupled in the next four decades (CPCB, 2000). It is expected that
by 2025 urban regions like Mumbai, Pune, Delhi, and Kolkata are likely to be the largest
urban agglomerations in the world (Padigala, 2015). Undoubtedly India has seen tremen-
dous growth in urban inhabitants; however, the supporting infrastructure catering to the
population is severely lacking (Padigala, 2015). Most urban cities and towns are located in

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19373

the catchment areas of major rivers from which they extract fresh water. The tremendous
increase in the urban population is most likely to exacerbate sewage generation (Goldar
et al., 2004; Padigala, 2015). Water demand in India is expected to reach 1447 billion cubic
meters (BCM) by 2050 (Gupta et al., 2004; Padigala, 2015). Sectors with leading estimated
water demand are irrigation (1072 BCM), energy (130 BCM) and drinking water (102
BCM) (CWC, 2021). In India, 80% of water supplied to the domestic sector is expelled as
wastewater (CPCB, 2015, 2021b; Padigala, 2015). Therefore, sewage generation is likely
to go up to 120,000 million litres per day (MLD) in urban areas and 50,000 MLD in rural
areas by 2050 (MPCB, 2014; Nathan et al., 2015; Padigala, 2015). Treated, partly treated
and untreated sewage from these urban areas is directly or indirectly let into natural water
bodies like rivers, lakes, ponds, creeks, etc. and agricultural land. The large volume of
sewage generated and insufficient infrastructure is contributing to the degradation of river
water quality leading to significant impacts on public health and the downstream ecosys-
tem (Padigala, 2015). Water quality deterioration in source natural water bodies observed
with changes in urban patterns in the last several decades demands better management
(CPCB, 2000).
To achieve proper disposal of generated sewage, the urban infrastructure and amenities
will have to grow by 400% in the next 30 years (Padigala, 2015). Peri-urban areas might be
in worse conditions since they do not come under the jurisdiction of municipalities but are
likely to generate a significant volume of wastewater (Mundoli et al., 2022). Given these
challenges, the centralized infrastructure with high conveyance costs and long construc-
tion times may prove insufficient and inefficient. Low-cost decentralized infrastructure has
emerged as an option to bridge the gap between generated sewage and required amenities.
Though the cost of transporting water has increased the interest in decentralized treatment
(Jamwal et al., 2014), it still has not garnered enough acceptance compared to the central-
ized infrastructure.
Over the last century, several technologies and processes have been developed to treat
generated sewage at centralized and decentralized facilities. Figure 3 describes the clas-
sification of wastewater treatment processes and technologies. Preliminary and primary
treatments include the physical removal of large and settleable solids from the sewage.
Secondary treatment usually includes biological treatment of dissolved and colloidal sol-
ids. Tertiary treatments are used to remove constituents (such as microbes) that cannot be
removed by secondary treatment (Kamyotra et al., 2011) and usually include conventional

Fig. 3  Classification of Wastewater Treatment Processes and Technologies (Kamyotra et al., 2011)

13
19374 R. Vaidya et al.

disinfection methods. Technologies used in the secondary (biological) treatment of waste-

water can be classified into natural, conventional, and advanced categories (CPCB, 2013).
Out of all the available technologies, eight are most commonly used in India (CPCB, 2013,
2015, 2021b), namely Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Extended Aeration (EA), Fluidized
Aerobic Bioreactor (FAB), Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR), Sequential Batch Reac-
tor (SBR), Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR), Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP), and Oxida-
tion Ponds (OP).
The national STP inventory reports (CPCB, 2015, 2021b) authored by the Central Pol-
lution Control Board highlight the fact that the available treatment capacity can treat only
between 30 and 40% of the total sewage generated in urban areas. Regulation and policies
have a prominent role to play in filling the gap between available and required treatment
capacity and minimizing the degradation of natural water resources (Kaur et al., 2012).
Existing water pollution regulations come from a combination of interconnected acts
(Padigala, 2015).
The water act 1974 (Prevention and Control of Pollution) give the fundamental regula-
tions for abating water pollution (Padigala, 2015). This act led to the establishment of pol-
lution control boards and empowered them to lay down and maintain water quality stand-
ards (Kamyotra et al., 2011; Padigala, 2015). The primary purpose of pollution control
boards is to avoid, manage and abate pollution and counsel policymakers and governments
on water pollution issues (Padigala, 2015). Central (CPCB), State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCB) and committees (PCC) manage water pollution at national and state levels (Padi-
gala, 2015). Together these have an established network of more than 4000 water quality
monitoring stations across 29 states and 6 union territories (annual report 2019–2020).
The Water Cess Act, which came after the Water Act, in 1977, focuses on regulating
industry water consumption and corresponding revenue generation (CPCB, 2019). The
Environmental Act 1986 was enacted to address issues not covered by the previous two
acts (Padigala, 2015). It is an umbrella act providing protection and improvement to the
environment (Kamyotra et al., 2011; CPCB, 2021a). Apart from the regulatory framework,
the implementation (construction and operation/maintenance) framework include state and
local urban bodies. The state and local governing bodies are responsible for the construc-
tion of conveyance and treatment infrastructure, with occasional support from the central
government through national schemes (Kaur et al., 2012). Some examples of the national
schemes include several initiatives under the National River Conservation Directorate,
launched through the Ministry of Environment and Forest to augment treatment capac-
ity building and the National Urban Sanitation Policy 2008 with the objective of 100%
wastewater collection and management to bridge the gap between generated, collected, and
treated sewage (Padigala, 2015). Though infrastructure construction efforts are driven and
supported by governments at all levels, the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure
is the sole responsibility of the state governments and local urban governing bodies (Kaur
et al., 2012).
The CPCB has been monitoring the advancement of sewage treatment infrastructure
and collecting data about the available infrastructure. The following section describes a
detailed assessment of the data acquired by regulatory bodies, highlighting the challenges
of wastewater management scenarios in India and other developing countries.

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19375

4 Assessment of the Indian wastewater management scenario

This section compares India and some of the other major developing countries in terms
of sewage generation, treatment capacity, technology utilization, and compliance. Addi-
tionally, it delves into a detailed analysis of India’s wastewater management scenario with
respect to these parameters to shed light on the distinctive features and obstacles encoun-
tered in managing wastewater.

4.1 Sewage generation and treatment capacity

4.1.1 Sewage generation and treatment capacity in developing countries

Table 1 details sewage generated and available centralized treatment capacity for seven devel-
oping countries comparable to India in terms of geographic location, socio-economic con-
dition and size. As per Table 1, Jordan is the only country with a significantly smaller gap
between generated sewage and available treatment capacity compared to India. Mexico, at a
48% gap, is doing slightly better than India, which, per 2021 data, has a 49% gap between gen-
erated sewage and available centralized capacity. As seen in the table, none of the developing
countries is currently able to treat 100% of generated sewage in centralized treatment plants.
The total number of installed STPs vary significantly across different developing coun-
tries, as seen in Table 2. This is expected as the size and population of the countries vary
drastically. Mexico and Brazil have a higher number of installed STPs than India, which
as per 2021 data, has 1195 installed STPs. However, despite fewer STPs, India still has a
higher available treatment capacity (13.4 BCM/year) than Mexico and Brazil. The history
and journey of sewage generation, capacity development and available treatment capacity
in India are discussed in the next section.

4.1.2 Sewage generation and treatment capacity in India: past and present

The urban population in India has tripled since 1970, which resulted in a rapid increase
in sewage generation throughout these four decades, especially for the decade 2000–2010
when the sewage generation almost doubled (Table 3) (CPCB, 2021b). On the other hand,

Table 1  Sewage generation and treatment capacity for some of the major developing countries
No Country Wastewater gener- Available treatment Gap (BCM/year) % Gap
ated (BCM/year) capacity (BCM/year)

1 Jordan* 0.2 0.12 0.08 40

2 Mexico** 8.82 4.56 4.26 48
3 South Africa* 3.67 1.55 2.12 58
4 Brazil* 18.5 7.5 11 59
5 Argentina** 2.46 0.29 2.17 88
6 Pakistan* 5.67 0.45 5.22 92
7 Bangladesh* 0.57 0.01 0.56 98
8 Sri Lanka* 0.16 0.002 0.158 99

Source **FAO (2020), *Jones et al., (2021)

13
19376 R. Vaidya et al.

Table 2  Number of installed sewage treatment plants in some of the major developing countries
No Country Number of STPs References

1 Sri Lanka 13 National Audit Office (2020)

2 Bangladesh 16 Macedo et al., (2021)
3 Pakistan 25 Macedo et al., (2021)
4 Jordan 33 Ministry of Water & Irrigation (2020)
5 Argentina 143 Macedo et al., (2021)
6 South Africa 850 Department of Water & Sanitation;
Republic of South Africa (2022)
7 Brazil 2785 Von Sperling (2016)
8 Mexico 2872 National Water Commission; Govern-
ment of Mexico (2021)

Table 3  A history of Sewage generation and treatment capacity details since 1970
Year Sewage Generated Treatment capacity Gap % Gap

1971 7067 MLD 2758 MLD 4309 MLD 61

1989 13,424 MLD 2654 MLD 10,770 MLD 80
2000 18,311 MLD 4098 MLD 14,213 MLD 78
2009 38,254 MLD 11,787 MLD 26,467 MLD 69
2015 62,000 MLD 23,277 MLD 38,723 MLD 62
2021 72,368 MLD 36,668 MLD 35,700 MLD 49

Source: (CPCB, 2021b)

the treatment capacity showed a slow increase in the initial two decades and a faster
increase in the last decade since the 2000s. However, the gap between sewage generated
and treatment capacity has increased consistently.
Table 4 summarizes the sewage treatment capacity for Class I cities for the year 2015.
The data shows that total inventoried capacity has almost doubled between 2010 and 2015.
Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu were the top 5 states with the
highest inventoried capacity, contributing to 66% of the total inventoried capacity. Statis-
tics show that including the top 5 states, 10 states account for more than 85% of the inven-
toried capacity.
The data for the inventory report was collected using physical information requisition
forms. The format was designed by CPCB and circulated to all the State Pollution Control

Table 4  Synopsis of Sewage Category 2015 2021

treatment plants in Class I cities
in India
Number of operational STPs 522 1093
Number of non-operational STPs 79 102
Number of STPs under construction 145 274
Number of proposed STPs 70 162
Total number of STPs 816 1632
Total treatment capacity 23,277 36,668

Source: (CPCB, 2015, 2021b)

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19377

Boards and Pollution Control Committees. The form included sections to add information
about location, date of commissioning, status (operation, non-operation, under construc-
tion, proposed), capacity, and technology. Some sections, such as ‘use of treated water and
compliance status’, were only included in the 2021 form.
Table 4 gives a brief overview of the sewage treatment capacity of Class I cities in India
for the year 2021. The total inventoried treatment capacity has been enhanced by nearly
60% since 2015. Out of the 1093 operational STPs, compliance status for 877 STPs was
available, and only 589 STPs were found to be compliant. Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar
Pradesh, Delhi, and Karnataka were the top 5 states with the highest inventoried capacity,
accounting for ~ 61% of the total inventoried capacity. Statistics show that, including the
above-mentioned states, a total of 10 states account for approximately 86% of the invento-
ried capacity.
Estimation of generated sewage in the inventory reports is done by using an indirect
method. The method involves estimating the current population of urban areas considering
the population growth rate from 2001 to 2011 and projecting it for the year of considera-
tion (CPCB, 2015, 2021b), followed by calculation of total water requirement by assuming
a water demand of 185 L per capita per day for urban areas. This average water demand
was considered based on CPCB report on Class I and Class II towns published in 2008
(CPCB, 2021b). Finally, the quantity of sewage generated is estimated by assuming that
80% of the total water demand is released as sewage (CPCB, 2021b).
The total sewage generated in 2015 was approximately 62,000 MLD (CPCB, 2015),
corresponding to a 40 crore urban population (CPCB, 2015), as compared to 38,253 MLD
generated in 2009 (CPCB, 2015, 2021b) by 34.4 crore urban population (CPCB, 2015).
The reported sewage generated in 2021 was 72,368 MLD (CPCB, 2021b), corresponding
to an urban population of 46.3 crores (CPCB, 2021b). This marks a 62% increase in sew-
age generation from 2009 to 2015 and a 17% increase from 2015 to 2021.
To manage the generated sewage, treatment capacity building has been going on since
the late 50 s (CPCB, 2015). In 2009 the total sewage treatment capacity was 12,000 MLD
(CPCB, 2015, 2021b), which was raised by ~ 70% in the next decade to create a total
installed capacity (operational + non-operational STPS) of 20,120 MLD in 2015 (CPCB,
2015). In the next 5 years, the capacity was further bolstered by 8155 MLD, making the
total installed capacity (operational and non-operational) in 2021 28,175 MLD (CPCB,
2021b). Though capacity building has been accelerating in recent years, it is still insuffi-
cient to meet the increasing demand.
Table 5 shows a detailed state-wise distribution of installed capacity in 2015 and 2021,
including the number of operational and non-operational STPs and corresponding treat-
ment capacity. As observed from Table 5, the states of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland,
as well as union territories (UTs) Andaman Nicobar and Lakshadweep, did not have any
built treatment capacity in 2015. The situation did not change in the next 5 years as well,
with the states/UTs recording no new STPs. Though the total sewage generated in these
states/UTs in 2021 was less than 1% of the total wastewater generated in the entire country,
the untreated sewage is a serious environmental issue at the local level. Therefore, it is
essential for these states to take action before conditions worsen further.
Chandigarh and Jammu Kashmir (now a UT) states reported an increase in the total
number of installed STPs. However, the total installed capacity decreased over the last 5
years despite increasing numbers.
Another critical parameter to consider is the presence of non-operational STPs. The
total number of non-operational STPs has increased by 29% from 2015 to 2021, whereas
the increase in non-operational capacity amounts to 14%. In 2015 the highest number of

13
19378 R. Vaidya et al.

Table 5  Distribution of Installed wastewater treatment capacity in Class-I cities in the country
State/UT Operational Non-opera- Operational Non-operational Actually
STPs tional STPs Capacity Capacity Utilized
capacity
Year 2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021 2021

Andhra Pradesh 9 37 0 5 156.27 443 0 13 309

Arunachal Pradesh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Andaman & Nicobar Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Assam 1 0 0 0 0.21 0 0 0 0
Bihar 5 0 1 0 99.55 0 25 0 0
Chandigarh 5 6 0 1 314.5 271 0 22 235
Chhattisgarh 0 3 0 0 0 73 0 0 6
Delhi 34 35 1 3 2671.2 2715 22.5 181 2412
Daman Diu & Dadra Nagar 0 3 0 0 0 24 0 0 7
Haveli
Goa 4 9 0 0 34.5 44 0 0 25
Gujarat 32 69 4 1 2111.6 3358 498 20 2687
Haryana 38 153 2 0 805 1880 2.7 0 1284
Himachal Pradesh 36 59 30 0 79.51 99 35.21 0 51
Jammu & Kashmir 15 12 1 6 145.74 93 2 24 49
Jharkhand 15 2 0 0 117.24 22 0 0 15
Karnataka 44 97 0 32 1112.1 1922 0 323 1786
Kerala 6 3 1 4 112.87 114 3 6 47
Lakshadweep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maharashtra 60 130 10 7 4683.9 6366 344.5 243 4242
Madhya Pradesh 14 45 3 3 475.48 684 6.75 22 536
Manipur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Meghalaya 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Mizoram 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0
Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Odisha 7 4 0 0 158.04 55 0 0 50
Puducherry 3 3 0 0 17.5 56 0 0 30
Punjab 38 95 4 1 921.45 1601 15.2 3 1360
Rajasthan 16 57 0 10 384.5 783 0 41 478
Sikkim 1 5 1 0 8 18 5 0 14
Tamil Nadu 33 63 1 0 1140.8 1492 5.17 0 995
Telangana 17 27 0 5 634.8 842 0 24 706
Tripura 1 1 0 0 0.045 8 0 0 1.5
Uttar Pradesh 62 99 7 8 2372.2 3224 89.59 150 2510
Uttarakhand 10 52 0 2 90.75 345 0 0.18 187
West Bengal 16 24 12 13 235.36 337 181.54 324 213
Total 522 1093 79 102 18,883 26,869 1237.2 1406.2 20235.5

Source (CPCB, 2015, 2021b)

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19379

non-operational STPs belonged to Himachal Pradesh, though it only amounted to a total

capacity of 35 MLD. The highest non-operational capacity was observed for the state of
Gujarat in 2015. In comparison, Karnataka surpassed Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat and
had the highest number of non-operational STPs and the highest non-operational capacity
in 2021. Furthermore, the available operational capacity is being underutilized. In 2021,
only 75% of the operational capacity was being utilized, and the reasons for this underutili-
zation are unknown.

4.2 Technology use

4.2.1 Wastewater technology use in developing countries

Figure 4 shows the technology use distribution for some of the major developing countries
in the world. Activated sludge treatment is used universally across developing countries
though its prevalence varies from country to country. It is the most used technology in
Jordan and Sri Lanka, whereas, in Mexico and South Africa, it is the second most used
technology behind Ponds and Lagoons. Ponds and Lagoons are the most used treatment
in Brazil as well, closely followed by UASB. The use of advanced technologies such as
MBR, MBBR and SBR is relatively low in these developing countries. Compared to these

Fig. 4  Technology use distribution for some of the major developing countries in the world. Technology
details: AS: activated sludge process, EA: extended aeration, MBBR: moving bed biofilm reactor, SBR:
sequential batch reactor, UASB: up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket, WSP: waste stabilization pond, TF:
trickling filter, FT: all filters combined, BFT: Bio-filter, P&L: ponds and lagoons, ST: Septic Tank, WT:
Wetland. (National Water Supply & Drainage Board, 2011; Chandana, 2013; Von Sperling, 2016; Mar-
tinex-Organiz et al., 2020; Ministry of Water & Irrigation, 2020; National Audit Office, 2020; National
Water Commission; Government of Mexico, 2021; Department of Water & Sanitation; Republic of South
Africa, 2022)

13
19380 R. Vaidya et al.

countries, the use of conventional and advanced technologies is higher in India; hence,
India’s history and technology journey discussed in the next section can provide good
insights.

4.2.2 Wastewater treatment technology use in India

Figure 5 compares technology distribution for the years 2015 and 2021. Till 2015 the most
widely used technology was the conventional Activated Sludge Process (ASP), account-
ing for nearly 30% of all STPs by number. ASP was followed by Sequential Batch Reactor
Technology (SBR) at 11% and Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB) and
Oxidation Pond (OP) technologies at 8%.
SBR (27%) surpassed ASP to become the most used technology in 2021. Nearly 45%
of the new plants built between 2015 and 2021 were designed using SBR technology. ASP
was still a popular choice accounting for 22% of the total number of STPs. ASP was fol-
lowed by MBBR technology accounting for 15% of the total number of STPs in 2021 and a
10% increase since 2015.
ASP, Extended Aeration (EA), Fluidized Aerobic Bioreactor (FAB), and UASB showed
a 7, 3, 3, and 2% reduction in their contribution, respectively. In contrast, technologies such
as SBR, MBBR, OP, and Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) showed an increase of 16, 10, 3,
and 1%, respectively.
The total number of STPs designed using EA and FAB technologies decreased in 2021
compared to 2015, as seen in Fig. 3. Though the total contribution of ASP technology
decreased in 2021, the number of plants designed using ASP technology has increased by
52% since 2015. The number of STPs designed using MBBR and SBR technologies has
increased significantly, accounting for their drastic percentage increase in the total. The use
of technologies other than select conventional technologies has also doubled since 2015.

4.2.3 Cost analysis of wastewater treatment technologies in India

Another important aspect of technology selection is capital as well as operation and main-
tenance costs associated with different technologies. Land, energy, chemical, and labour

Fig. 5  Comparison of the

number of STPs designed using
specific technology. Technology
details: ASP: activated sludge
process, EA: extended aeration,
FAB: fluidized aerobic bio-
reactor, MBBR: moving bed bio-
film reactor, OP: oxidation pond,
SBR: sequential batch reactor,
UASB: up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket, WSP: waste stabiliza-
tion pond

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19381

costs are all technology-dependent. Table 6 gives the cost distribution from land use to
labour cost for commonly used technologies.
MBR has the highest capital cost per MLD associated with it, whereas WSP requires
the lowest total capital cost per MLD investment. For WSP, most of the capital cost is
associated with construction, whereas for MBR, most of it is associated with electrical and
mechanical work. Regarding area requirements, SBR, MBR, and MBBR have the low-
est requirements, and the highest land requirement is for WSP. MBR consumes the high-
est electricity per MLD of wastewater treated, and WSP consumes the least for obvious
reasons. UASB requires the least amount of electricity and has the lowest associated cost
among other technologies. Moving on to operation and maintenance costs, the technology
that demands the highest repair and chemical cost per MLD is UASB. In contrast, WSP
and SBR demand the least repair and chemical cost per MLD, respectively. Lastly, SBR
and ASP demand the lowest and highest labour cost per MLD. With capital cost on the
lower side, low area requirement, electricity requirement on the lower side, lower repair
and chemical cost, and lowest labour cost, it is clear why SBR has become the most preva-
lent technology in recent years.

4.3 Compliance

4.3.1 Compliance standards for STP effluent in developing countries

Table 7 lists the effluent standards for treated effluent in some major developing countries.
Sri Lanka has more stringent standards for effluent BOD and COD as compared to India.
All other countries have much less stringent standards as compared to the effluent stand-
ards in India (National Green Tribunal, 2019). However, stringent standards do not trans-
late into effective results without proper compliance rates. The next section discusses the
status of compliance of STPs in India with respect to national standards.

4.3.2 Compliance of STPs with required National Standards in India

Table 8 gives details of the compliance rate for different states and Union Territories. The
compliance data was only available for the year 2021, and therefore a comparison between
2015 and 2021 was not possible. Furthermore, the compliance data was available for only
18 out of the 35 states and UTs (CPCB, 2021b).
As seen from Table 8, Uttarakhand (98%), Tripura (100%), Odisha (100%), Jharkhand
(100%), Haryana (100%), Goa (100%), and Diu Daman (100%) had very high compliance
(> 90%) rates. Out of these, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Goa are more relevant compared to
other states/UTs, which have less than 5 installed STPs. Following these high-performing
states/UTs; Tamil Nādu (81%), Maharashtra (77%), Telangana (72%), Chandigarh (71%),
and Uttar Pradesh (61%) had compliance rates between 50 and 90%. The compliance for
Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh is especially significant as these states have the highest and
third-highest number of installed STPs, respectively. In the last segment, Andhra Pradesh,
Jammu Kashmir, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan, and West Bengal had a compliance rate of
less than 50% ranging between 22 and 31%. Karnataka’s compliance rate of 25% is of par-
ticular significance as it is a state with the second-highest number of STPs in the country.
Apart from compliance statistics for individual states/UTs, another critical param-
eter is compliance with respect to the technology used. This metric provides important

13
 19382

13
Table 6  Cost distribution for different wastewater treatment technologies
Parameter/technology ASP MBBR SBR UASB + ASP MBR WSP

Capital cost requirement

Average Capital cost requirement for secondary treatment (million rupees/MLD) 6.8 6.8 7.5 6.8 30 2.3
Average Capital cost requirement for tertiary treatment (million rupees/MLD) 4 4 4 4 0 4
Total capital cost (USD/MLD) 132,000 132,000 140,553 132,000 366,660 77,000
Operation and Maintenance cost requirement
Annualized Total repair cost (million rupees/MLD) 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.25 2.58 0.18
Annualized total energy cost (million rupees/MLD) 0.41 0.49 0.34 0.27 0.66 0.01
Annualized total chemical cost (million rupees/MLD) 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.63 0.18 0.72
Annualized Total Manpower salary cost (million rupees/MLD, assuming a 50 MLD plant) 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04
Annualized Total operation and maintenance cost (USD/MLD) 15,033 15,033 10,804 15,033 42,313 11,623

Note: The average total land requirements ­(m2/MLD) for each technology is as follows ASP (1000); MBBR (550); SBR (550); UASB + ASP (1100); MBR (450); WSP (6100)
Source: (CPCB, 2013), *(Royal HaskoningDHV, 2020)
R. Vaidya et al.
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19383

Table 7  Compliance standards for different developing countries

No Parameters India Sri Lanka Brazil South Africa Mexico Jordan Argentina Bangladesh

1 pH 6.5–9.0 6.0–8.5 5–9 8.4–9.7 6–9 – 5–9 6.5–8.5

2 BOD (mg/L) 10 4 60 30 30 20 30 50
3 COD (mg/L) 50 15 – – 100 – – 200
4 TSS (mg/L) 10 40 60 30 30 30 35 200
5 TN (mg/L) 10 – – 14 – 10 15 100
6 NH4-N (mg/L) 5 – 20 1.9 – – – 5
7 Phosphate (mg/L) 1 0.4 2.5 2.2 – – – –
8 Faecal Coliform < 230 – 1000 1000 200 1000 1000 1000
(MPN/100 mL)

Source: India: (National Green Tribunal, 2019) Sri Lanka: (Central Environmental Authority Sri Lanka,
1978) Brazil: (Von Sperling, 2008) South Africa: (Water Research Commission South Africa, 2022) Mex-
ico: (Shuchismita et al., 2015) Jordan: (Nazzal et al., 2000) Argentina: (Shuchismita et al., 2015) Bangla-
desh: (Shuchismita et al., 2015; Sharmin, 2016)

information for technology selection for new treatment plants. Table 9 gives details of
the compliance rate with respect to technology. A compliance rate of > 50% was observed
for MBBR (69%), SBR (64%), and UASB (53%). Closely followed by ASP (41%) and
FAB (42%). The high compliance rates of MBBR, SBR, and ASP are significant because
together, they account for almost 2/3rds of the total number of STPs and is an important
criterion for technology selection.

4.4 Future scope of wastewater treatment

As per the CPCB inventory report, as of 2021, there were 274 STPs under construction,
aiming to increase the treatment capacity by 3566 MLD (CPCB, 2021b). Almost 60% of
the STPs under construction for which design technology is known are being built using
SBR technology, followed by ASP technology at 30%.
Further, the inventory reports that 162 STPs were proposed in 2021 to further increase
the treatment capacity by 4827 MLD (CPCB, 2021b). Though the design technology for
all of them is unknown, for those STPs for which the technology is known, 60% used SBR
technology. The second-highest technology in demand was ASP, with a recorded 15%
STPs being proposed with ASP as design technology.
In general, SBR is the most used technology for currently operational plants as well as
under-construction and proposed treatment plants. And the second most used technology
for existing and future plants is ASP.
The addition of under-construction and proposed capacity to the total installed capacity
(3566 + 4827 + 28,275 = 36,668 MLD) in 2021 will still be able to treat only 50% of the
sewage generated in 2021. Considering the increase in demand during the construction and
commissioning of under-construction and proposed plants, this gap is likely to widen.
The detailed assessment of the Indian wastewater management scenario with respect to
sewage generation, available treatment capacity, technology distribution and compliance
highlights several challenges for wastewater management in developing countries. Data
show that there is a huge gap between the sewage generated in urban areas and the avail-
able installed treatment capacity. It is clear from India’s journey that even with planned
future treatment capacity, centralized treatment plants cannot easily bridge the gap. There

13
 19384

13
Table 8  Compliance rate for different states
Compliance rate Number of states Names of states

> 90% 7 Uttarakhand, Tripura, Odisha, Jharkhand, Haryana, Goa, and Diu Daman
50–90% 5 Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Telangana, Chandigarh, and Uttar Pradesh
< 50% 6 Andhra Pradesh, Jammu Kashmir, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan, and West Bengal
Data not available 9 Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Puducherry, and
Sikkim
Not relevant due to absence of STPs 8 Arunachal Pradesh, Andaman Nicobar, Assam, Bihar, Lakshadweep, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Nagaland

Source (CPCB, 2021b)

R. Vaidya et al.
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19385

Table 9  Compliance with respect Technology Number of com- Total Number % Compliance
to Technology used for Sewage pliant STPs of STPs
treatment
ASP 107 261 41
EA 9 30 30
FAB 8 19 42
MBBR 126 182 69
OP 9 59 15
SBR 211 327 64
UASB 40 75 53
WSP 16 50 32
Other 63 140 45
No Information 0 50 0

Source (CPCB, 2021b)

is regional variation in the available capacity, with some regions having critically low or no
treatment facilities, exacerbating the damage to the local environment. Further, in certain
cases, the installed STPs are non-operational or underperforming, further exacerbating the
treatment gap. The low compliance rate for operational STPs presents an additional chal-
lenge, making water reuse and recycling difficult. Furthermore, gaps in data collected at
the local, state and national levels, which establish connectivity between different facets
of wastewater management, is also a challenge that impedes effective integrated manage-
ment of water resources. Short- and long-term interventions are required to overcome these
challenges.

5 Discussion

The challenges highlighted through a detailed assessment of the Indian wastewater man-
agement scenario demand a need for detailed and more organized data collection at the
national level and mainstreaming the application of small-scale interventions to increase
the efficiency of the current treatment infrastructure as well as application of new con-
cepts to regulation and policy making to create a long-lasting change in wastewater man-
agement. This section discusses these suggested solutions and interventions in detail.
This section is divided into three sub-sections; the first sub-section addresses the need
for more detailed data collection by discussing gaps in the available data about the waste-
water infrastructure at the national level. It also highlights why they should be addressed
by describing the relevance of missing data for efficient and integrated wastewater manage-
ment. The second section discusses possible technical solutions to the challenges observed
in the current scenario, such as a gap in treatment capacity and a low compliance rate. The
third section discusses some key concepts to keep in mind while collecting data for govern-
ance and policy initiatives for long-term effect. The ideas discussed in this section can be
applied to and adopted for wastewater management in other developing countries facing
similar challenges.

13
19386 R. Vaidya et al.

5.1 Gaps in data

5.1.1 Increased number of non‑operational installed STPs

It can be concluded from Table 3, which provides a detailed inventory of installed STPs for
the years 2015 and 2021, that a significant number of installed STPs were non-operational.
The number of non-operational STPs increased from 2015 to 2021. However, the specific
reasons why the plants are not in operation have not been documented comprehensively.
There are several causes that can lead to a plant being non-operational such as damaged
equipment and reactors, negligence of the operating agency, delayed payments, contract
assignment issues and low political priority. Understanding the trend of causes leading to
non-operationality is important as it can help formulate policies, directives and regulations
to revive/restore the plants’ functioning and stop any other plants from becoming non-oper-
ational for similar reasons in the future.

5.1.2 Underutilization of operational installed STPs

Furthermore, in many of the operational STPs, the actual utilization capacity was less
than the design capacity for the STPs. The underutilization of STP capacity can be due
to improper sewage distribution due to insufficient connectivity between STPs, or, as the
CPCB report suggests, a lack of conveyance infrastructure as the general reason for the
observed underutilization. However, extensive documentation of reasons for the underutili-
zation of STP capacities is lacking. This gap in data should be filled as it informs the need
for detailed observation and documentation of collection infrastructure in the catchment
area of each STP, which can help to achieve better operation and efficient sewage distribu-
tion in the network.

5.1.3 Non‑existent wastewater treatment facilities in several states

The inventory also shows that there are states/UTs where no treatment capacity was
installed in 2015, and the situation did not change over the next 5 years. The specific prob-
lems causing the lack of treatment facilities, such as the lack of a plumbing system and
terrain issues, should be noted. Though the capacity building has begun in these states in
2021 (LPCC, 2021; NPCB, 2021; Samom, 2021; The Arunachal Times, 2021), the assess-
ment of the exact reasons behind the delayed action, such as lack of funding or lack of
political will, is missing, This analysis is important in informing future policy and imple-
mentation initiative, especially in the context of upcoming Class II and Class II cities.

5.1.4 Low nationwide compliance rate

The 2021 inventory shows that the overall compliance rate nationwide is less than 25%.
Furthermore, the compliance data for more than 50% of states and union territories is una-
vailable and is most likely to fall in the non-compliant category. It is vital to gather the
missing compliance data to get an accurate understanding of the current compliance status.
It is also important to understand the reasons behind non-compliance, especially in cases
like old plants that were designed for relaxed standards and, therefore, now are not able to
comply with the current stricter standards. Additionally, acquiring more details about the
non-compliant water quality parameters is also equally important. These datasets can help

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19387

identify possible design insufficiencies and also help create custom quick and small-scale
interventions according to site-specific requirements that can improve the nationwide com-
pliance rate to an acceptable number.

5.1.5 Data availability for decentralized wastewater treatment facilities

It is evident from the data obtained that the centrally installed sewage treatment capacity
is significantly less compared to the total sewage generated in India. It should be noted
that the quantum of sewage generated is estimated based on calculated water demand; it
is not actually measured. In case households use soaking pits, this level is likely to reduce.
Additionally, it is possible that decentralized sewage treatment plants fill the gap between
the generated and centrally treated sewage. However, not much data about the quantity and
quality of sewage treated by decentralized plants is available (Geetha et al., 2022). This
information is necessary to complete the wastewater treatment picture in urban areas.

5.1.6 Noteworthy characteristics of the STP design

The design of an STP includes specifications for primary, secondary and tertiary treat-
ment units with the accompanying mechanical and electrical works. The approach taken
for design varies for each treatment plant. The form used for inventory does not include any
opportunity to highlight exemplary characteristics of a plant design, such as gravity flow
designs to reduce energy costs and, in opposition, possible issues with the design/operation
of the plant, such as faulty equipment brands or inefficient design flow rates. Such data can
help set measures to avoid common problems and encourage the integration of best prac-
tices. Furthermore, the form should include some standard responses to non-descriptive
limited options questions such as technology used and compliance status to avoid getting
different responses stating the same thing.
Proactive action is needed from relevant authorities to minimize these identified data
gaps to build a complete picture connecting all facets of the wastewater management sce-
nario. This will allow practitioners, government and researchers to develop policies, initia-
tives and technologies to improve the current conditions. This assessment of data gaps is
relevant to most developing nations and can help improve their policy initiatives on waste-
water treatment.

5.2 Solutions and opportunities

Having identified gaps in the functioning of the wastewater management systems in devel-
oping countries, such as the gap between generated sewage and available treatment capac-
ity, and gap between available treatment capacity and compliant treatment capacity, and
also design standards and revised standards, this next section focuses on suggesting solu-
tions for closing the observed gaps.

5.2.1 Improving sanitation

The data collected over the last two decades shows that more than 50% of sewage gener-
ated in urban areas is let into nature untreated nationwide (CPCB, 2015, 2021b). Several
states in the country report the presence of no treatment facilities, meaning 100% of the
sewage generated in their urban areas is let untreated into rivers and other water bodies,

13
19388 R. Vaidya et al.

Table 10  Water quality Parameters Value (S.D.)

Parameters for standard raw
sewage considered for the
COD (mg/L) 500 ± 25
simulation
BOD (mg/L) 245 ± 12
Ammoniacal Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L) 26 ± 1.3
TKN (add separately) 40 ± 2
Soluble phosphate ­(PO4−) 3.25 ± 0.15
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 100 ± 5

Table 11  Simulation results for Parameter HRT

anaerobic treatment system with
minimal MLVSS (~ 150 mg/L) 6h 12 h 18 h 24 h
for varied hydraulic retention
times (HRTs) COD (mg/L) 375 369 365 361
BOD (mg/L) 209 206 203 201
Ammoniacal nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L) 27.8 27.8 27.8 27.7
Soluble phosphate ­(PO4−) 3.24 3.26 3.27 3.28
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 4 3 2 2

or at least this is the picture portrayed. Furthermore, considering the rapid rates of devel-
opment, peri-urban and rural areas are likely to contribute a significant volume of poorly
treated sewage in the near future., which is likely to go untreated.
A simple intervention that can mitigate some of the degradation caused to the environ-
ment due release of untreated sewage is to construct small anaerobic treatment systems
in natural and built drainage canals. Simulations for standard raw wastewater (Table 10)
show that a simple reactor-type anaerobic treatment system with a hydraulic retention
time of 24 h can reduce the BOD of the incoming sewage by nearly 20% and COD by
28% (Table 11). This reduction is while maintaining minimal volatile mixed liquor sus-
pended solids (MLVSS) in the system (~ 150 mg/L). Increasing the amount of MLVSS
will improve the results further. An anaerobic upward sludge blanket flow reactor with 24 h
residence time and a developed sludge depth of 1m will remove nearly 70% of the incom-
ing COD and 65% of the incoming BOD (Table 12). This type of low-cost and less time-
consuming intervention can support the treatment system until proper sewage conveyance
and treatment plants (centralized or decentralized) are designed and constructed.

5.2.2 Improving compliance of sewage treatment plants

The compliance rate of operational sewage treatment plants across the country with respect
to effluent water quality was 23% in 2021, with respect to the standards given by the
National Green Tribunal (NGT). In light of predicted water scarcity, prevention of freshwa-
ter bodies getting polluted and the need to increase reuse of treated wastewater, the effluent

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19389

Table 12  Simulation results for Parameter HRT

anaerobic upward flow sludge
blanket reactor system with 1 m UASB (24 h)
sludge depth with 24 h hydraulic
retention time COD (mg/L) 160
BOD (mg/L) 84
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 32
Total phosphate ­(PO4−) 2
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 4

compliance standards are getting more stringent (Wang et al., 2015; Shagun, 2019; Schel-
lenberg et al., 2020).
The stricter standards attempt to comply with increased levels of biological nutrient
removals (BNR) and only marginal efforts towards stricter BOD/COD. Total N&P in the
treated wastewater has now received greater significance in order to avoid eutrophication
in receiving waters while also avoiding chemical methods of nutrient removal. Treat-
ment logic indicates that BNR can be achieved in conventional surface aerated lagoons by
manipulating the operating conditions such that the nitrate buildup in the treated wastewa-
ter can be used early in the treatment train to create anaerobic respiration that, on the one
hand, denitrifies the recycled nitrate while also resorting to luxury phosphate consumption
under anoxic growth conditions. This is best optimized by simulation software such as Bio-
win, which can improve the functioning of such “non-compliant” sewage treatment plants.
A detailed analysis of water quality parameters at the outlet and in the bioreactor was car-
ried out to measure characteristics like dissolved oxygen, MLSS levels, TSS, BOD, COD,
total nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen. The as-is state of the treatment
plant can be simulated to understand the problems in the operation of the plant. Once the
problem is identified, several modification scenarios can be tried to obtain optimal operat-
ing conditions. Such less expensive methodologies can help tap the entire installed capac-
ity to achieve the highest treated water quality standard.
Furthermore, though biological treatment systems are robust in handling a range of
raw sewage parameters, maintaining certain operational conditions is essential to achieve
the best results. It is, however, important to train operators to understand the physical and
chemical parameters, such as solid retention time and tweak the operations to achieve the
best results. Having trained operators to manage STPs can also help deal with predictable
overload /underload situations to give consistent output treated water quality.

5.3 Key concept moving forward

This section discusses the relevance of gaps in data for key concepts important for govern-
ance and policy initiatives that can bring long-term and sustainable changes to the waste-
water management scenario in developing countries.

5.3.1 Wastewater as a valuable resource for nutrient and energy

Urban areas have the dual challenge of meeting the growing domestic water demand and
safely disposing off wastewater generated (Jamwal et al., 2014). In order to ensure effi-
cient water use across all sectors and improve water quality and related ecosystems, it has

13
19390 R. Vaidya et al.

become crucial to follow circular economy principles and accept wastewater as a valuable
resource for nutrients and energy recovery (Kamyotra et al., 2011; Avgyan, 2018; Bassi
et al., 2023). For example, Chanakya and Sharatchandra (Chanakya et al., 2008) showed
that in Bengaluru, nearly 77 tons of N is discharged daily through sewage and related
wastewater and therefore behaves an efficient nutrient recycling system. Urban water man-
agement that promotes the recovery and reuse of wastewater (along with its nutrients) is
becoming increasingly relevant towards planning sustainable cities (CPCB, 2000). Treated
sewage can be used for various purposes, such as irrigation, horticulture, firefighting,
industrial cooling, civil construction, etc. (CPCB, 2021b).
Municipal sewage has a very high economic value, and nearly half of the sewage gener-
ated in India is directly or indirectly reused (recycled) for irrigation (CPCB, 2000; Schel-
lenberg et al., 2020). It has been reported that irrigation with wastewater saves 25–50%
of N and P fertilizers and leads to 15–27% higher crop productivity (Kaur et al., 2012).
The nutrient value of wastewater varies from Rs 400–76/ha/annum for application-level of
500 cm/ha/annum (CPCB, 2009). The value of wastewater as organic manure inagriculture
has been recognized for over a century, but its use has been restricted by constraints such as
social acceptability; public health concerns; accumulation of chlorides, sulfates and (some-
times accidentally) heavy metals through mix up, with industrial discharges (CPCB, 2000;
Wallis-Lage, 2010; Avagyan, 2017; Morris et al., 2021). Further, a good match between
wastewater fertilizer content and timely crop requirements is important for the efficient use
of wastewater.
Most of the limitations of wastewater reuse in agriculture stem from the quality of
treated water. Therefore, it is evident that efficient wastewater treatment is the first require-
ment of wastewater reuse. Any form of water reuse must meet appropriate quality standards
to avoid newer forms of concomitant environmental and health problems (Jamwal et al.,
2014). There could be several reasons for the relapse of the effluent quality, such as limita-
tions of secondary biological treatments (Daniel et al., 2002; Jamwal et al., 2009, 2014)
and periodic overflow during monsoon season. Greater attention to compliance enforce-
ment is an appropriate path to ensure efficient water reuse (Bassi et al., 2023).
The push to fill the gaps in data discussed in the first section of the discussion section,
such as reasons for non-operation of a facility, compliance data and reasons for non-com-
pliance, etc., if any, is the first step towards achieving this goal and truly efficient circular
water economy.

5.3.2 Centralization versus decentralization

The Government of India continues to rely heavily on the “end of pipe” approach to deal
with wastewater treatment. Conventional sewage treatment philosophy has been to ‘pipe it
away first and then think about what comes next (ADB, 2006). This means when sewage is
generated, the first thought is to transport it far away from the point of origin. This can be
a Nala, river, lake or a treatment facility far away. However, various studies show that such
a top-down, centralized approach has often been ineffective in pollution abatement (CPCB,
2000; Padigala, 2015). In a centralized system, the collection alone accounts for 80% of
the cost. Another issue with centralized systems is that a large volume of wastewater is
released at one point (CPCB, 2000). This leads to higher transport costs, long construction
periods and the inability to effectively reuse the large volume of treated sewage (ADB,
2006). Furthermore, the linear design approach increases the risks of inefficiency (ADB,
2006).

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19391

In this context, low-cost decentralized infrastructure is becoming increasingly relevant

(CPCB, 2000). Decentralized treatment is therefore important in bridging the gap between
generated sewage and centralized treatment facilities available to handle it. It also relieves
the high capital cost of creating piped networks for sewage transport to distantly placed
central facilities. Decentralizing the treatment can also facilitate local water recycling
for particular purposes like landscaping and flushing. Moreover, it is apparent that both
knowledge and technology exist to enable such a transformation. However, there is a lack
of complementary socio-economic methodologies for implementation (CPCB, 2000). Spe-
cific efforts are therefore needed to establish a decentralized and participatory approach to
sewage treatment issues (Padigala, 2015). However, decentralization often makes it hard to
control the quality of the effluent. Furthermore, large-scale recycling uses such as irriga-
tion might be more efficiently managed by centralized treatment facilities offering better
control over quality and quantity consistency in the discharged water.
Centralized and decentralized systems both have their own merits and demerits. The
best approach to get the most efficient, exhaustive treatment network and maximum reuse
can be achieved by balancing centralized and decentralized treatment systems with a bal-
ance between nutrient removal and water quality. Developing solid and comprehensive pol-
icy support as well as socio-economic methodologies for implementation are paramount to
realizing this hybrid treatment approach.

6 Conclusion

6.1 Findings

A complete Wastewater management scenario analysis was done for the representative
developing country, India. The findings of this analysis provide some experience, trends
and suggestions for the efficient management of wastewater, which can be useful for
other developing countries.
The analysis of national wastewater data concludes that sewage generation in Indian
urban areas has increased by almost 20% in the past 5 years. Even though the total treat-
ment capacity has increased by 8155 MLD in the past 5 years, only 40% of the sewage
generated appears to be treated in centralized treatment facilities. Trends in technol-
ogy use show that SBR is the most preferred technology for designing centralized sew-
age treatment plants. Further, the analysis identified several areas of concern that need
attention. These include increasing numbers of non-operational treatment plants, low
and non-compliance in terms of effluent water quality in most states, and the absence of
treatment facilities in several states. Interventions such as using simulation software to
optimize plant functioning to improve performance and compliance of non-operational
plants and installations of inline treatment plants in wastewater channels and Nalas car-
rying untreated sewage can help to solve most of these concerns.
Additionally, expanding the current datasets to include underlying reasoning for underu-
tilization of treatment capacity and low compliance rates, and best practices of treatment
plants is essential for improved management of existing and future systems. From the per-
spective of recycling and reuse of wastewater, compliance data collection and intervention
to improve compliance are of utmost importance. Finally, to create a complete wastewater
treatment/ management scenario, it is essential to include monitoring and data collection
regarding decentralized facilities in urban areas.

13
19392 R. Vaidya et al.

The sewage generation and treatment capacity gap trend in India is very similar to other
prominent developing nations. The trends in technology used for wastewater treatment in
India are also very relevant to other developing countries. Therefore, the salient discussion
points that emerged from the analysis of the Indian scenario, such as areas of concern,
interventions for improvement, gaps in data, and key concepts moving forward, are very
pertinent to the progress of wastewater management in other developing countries.

6.2 Research limitations

The analysis of the wastewater management scenario in India provides valuable insights
but it is also important to acknowledge certain limitations that may have impacted the
scope and depth of the study.
Major limitation is the lack of comprehensive data availability for other developing
countries in the same depth as the data for India. As a result, direct comparisons between
the wastewater management scenarios in India and other developing nations were chal-
lenging. While the trends and insights drawn from India can be informative, it is crucial
to consider the unique contextual factors and characteristics of individual countries when
applying the findings to other contexts. The presented study primarily analyzes the exist-
ing wastewater management scenario but rapid advancements can significantly impact the
wastewater management landscape. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted in the
context of the time period and may require updating as the field continues to evolve.
Despite these limitations, the research provides a unique comparative analysis of waste-
water management scenarios of several developing countries. Further, it provides valuable
insights that can help overcome the shared wastewater management challenges in develop-
ing countries.

6.3 Recommendations for future research

Drawing from the comprehensive assessment conducted in this study, authors believe that
the following topics should be explored more to further the advancement of wastewater
management in developing countries:

• Optimizing utilization of installed treatment capacity: Understanding the underlying

factors behind underutilization can help design targeted interventions and strategies.
• Improving compliance rates and developing differentiated standards for reuse purposes
• Developing a complete treatment scenario with an assessment of both centralized
and decentralized treatment facilities. This will require detailed data collection on the
decentralized treatment scenario.

Addressing these areas can assist in developing sustainable and efficient solutions to
meet the growing wastewater management challenges of the future.
Acknowledgements Gratefully acknowledge Central Pollution Control Board and Bengaluru Water Supply
and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) for providing the required information and data. Corresponding author is
thankful to SERB-NPDF, Govt. of India for providing research fellowship.

Author contributions RV did data curation, data collection, analysis, and writing-original draft; KV who
is the corresponding Author was involved in study design, writing—review and editing; MK designed the
study and reviewed the article; CH was also involved in study design and review of the article and LR initi-
ated conception, was involved in study design, and review of the article.

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19393

Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of
the manuscript.

Data availability Data will be provided on request basis.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval Not applicable for this manuscript.

Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all sources included in the study.

Consent for publication Not applicable.

References
Abbasi, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Ghane Kanafi, A. (2022). “Designing sustainable recovery network of
end-of-life product during the COVID-19 pandemic: A real and applied case study. Discrete Dynamics
in Nature and Society. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2022/​69670​88
ADB (2006) Planning urban sanitation and wastewater management improvements: model terms of refer-
ence, Water for all series / ADB. Available at: http://​www.​ircwa​sh.​org/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​ADB-​2006-​
Plann​ingTOR.​pdf
Avagyan, A. B. (2010). New design & build biological system through the use of microalgae addressed
to sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Protection, 01(02), 183–200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
4236/​JEP.​2010.​12023
Avagyan, A. B. (2017). Environmental building policy by the use of microalgae and decreasing of risks for
Canadian oil sand sector development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(25), 20241–
20253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​017-​9864-x
Avgyan, A. B. (2018) Algae to Energy and Sustainable Development. Technologies, Resources, Econom-
ics and System analyses. New Design of Global Environmental Policy and Live Conserve Industry.
Amazon. Retrieved 30 May 2022 from https://​www.​resea​rchga​te.​net/​publi​cation/​32530​0332_​Algae_​
to_​Energy_​and_​Susta​inable_​Devel​opment_​Techn​ologi​es_​Resou​rces_​Econo​mics_​and_​System_​analy​
ses_​New_​Design_​of_​Global_​Envir​onmen​tal_​Policy_​and_​Live_​Conse​rve_​Indus​try
Bassi, N., Gupta, S., & Chaturvedi, K. (2023). Reuse of treated wastewater in India. Market Potential and
Recommendations. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13140/​RG.2.​2.​29603.​32803
Central Environmental Authority Sri Lanka. (1978). The Gazette of the Democratic Socialist Republic of
Sri Lanka: Ambient water quality standards. 2017(I), p. 4.
Chanakya, H. N., & Sharatchandra, H. C. (2008). Nitrogen pool, flows, impact and sustainability issues of
human waste management in the city of Bangalore. Current Science, 94(11), 1447–1454.
Chandana, D. P. (2013). Wastewater sector and wastewater systems in Sri Lanka. pp. 110–110.
CPCB. (2000). Wastewater Generation & Treatment : Domestic Sewage Vs Industrial Sewage; Urbanisation
& Wastewater Management in India (1).
CPCB (2009) Status of Water Supply, Wastewater and Generation and Treatment in Class-I Cities and
Class-II of India.
CPCB. (2013). Performance evaluation of sewage treatment plants under NRCD. p. 128.
CPCB (2015) Inventorization of Sewage Treatment Plants.
CPCB (2019). Environmental Act & Rules: Water Pollution. Retrieved 3 Aug 2022 from https://​cpcb.​nic.​
in/​water-​pollu​tion/
CPCB (2021a) Environmental acts and rules: Environmental protection act. Retrieved 3 Aug 2022 from
https://​cpcb.​nic.​in/​env-​prote​ction-​act/
CPCB (2021b). National Inventory of Sewage Treatment Plants March 2021b. (March), p. 183. Avail-
able at: https://​cpcb.​nic.​in/​openp​dffile.​php?​id=​UmVwb​3J0Rm​lsZXM​vMTIy​OF8xN​jE1MT​k2MzI​
yX21l​ZGlhc​GhvdG​85NTY​0LnBk​Zg
CWC (2021) Water and Related Statistics.
Daniel, M. H. B., Montebelo, A. A., Bernardes, M. C., Ometto, J. P. H. B., de Camargo, P. B., Krusche,
A. V., Ballester, M. V., Victoria, R. L., & Martinelli, L. A. (2002). Effects of urban sewage on

13
19394 R. Vaidya et al.

dissolved oxygen, dissolved inorganic and organic carbon, and electrical conductivity of small
streams along a gradient of urbanization in the Piracicaba River Basin. Water, Air, and Soil Pollu-
tion, 136(1), 189–206. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10152​87708​170
Department of Water and Sanitation; Republic of South Africa (2022) Green Drop National Report
2022. Department of Water and Sanitation, South Africa. p. 558. Available at: https://​ws.​dws.​gov.​
za/​IRIS/​lates​tresu​lts.​aspx
Elawwad, A. (2018). Optimized biological nitrogen removal of high-strength ammonium wastewater by
activated sludge modeling. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 8(3), 393–403. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​2166/​WRD.​2017.​200
Elawwad, A., Matta, M., Abo-Zaid, M., & Abdel-Halim, H. (2019). Plant-wide modeling and optimiza-
tion of a large-scale WWTP using BioWin’s ASDM model. Journal of Water Process Engineering,
31, 100819. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​JWPE.​2019.​100819
Englande, A. J. J., Krenkel, P., & Shamas, J. (2015). Wastewater treatment & water reclamation. Ref-
erence Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​
409548-​9.​09508-7
FAO (2020) AQUASTAT - FAO’s Global Information System on Water and Agriculture. Retrieved 13
Apr 2022 from https://​www.​fao.​org/​aquas​tat/​en/​overv​iew/
Geetha Varma, V., Swetti Jha, L., Raju, H. K., Lalith Kishore, R., & Ranjith, V. (2022). A review on
decentralized wastewater treatment systems in India. Chemosphere, 300, 134462. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2022.​134462
Goldar, B., & Banerjee, N. (2004). Impact of informal regulation of pollution on water quality in rivers
in India. Journal of Environmental Management, 73(2), 117–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​JENVM​
AN.​2004.​06.​008
Gupta, S. K., & Deshpande, R. D. (2004). Water for India in 2050: First-order assessment of available
options. Current Science, 86(9), 1216–1224.
Royal HaskoningDHV (2020) Assessment of Sewage Treament process.
Henz, M., Gujer, W., Mino, T. & Van Loosendrecht, M. (2000) Activated sludge models ASM1,
ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3. Retrieved 3 Aug 2022 from https://​orbit.​dtu.​dk/​en/​publi​catio​ns/​activ​
ated-​sludge-​models-​asm1-​asm2-​asm2d-​and-​asm3-2
Jamwal, P., Thomas, B. K. & Lele, S. (2014) Urbanizing watersheds: A basin-level approach to water
stress in developing cities Presentation title: Addressing water stress through wastewater reuse:
Complexities and challenges in Bangalore. Proceeding of the Resilient Cities 2014 Congress.
Jamwal, P., Mittal, A. K., & Mouchel, J. M. (2009). Efficiency evaluation of sewage treatment plants
with different technologies in Delhi (India). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 153(1–4),
293–305. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S10661-​008-​0356-9
Jones, E. R., Van Vliet, M. T. H., Qadir, M., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2021). Country-level and gridded esti-
mates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse. Earth System Science Data, 13(2),
237–254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​ESSD-​13-​237-​2021
Kamyotra, J. S. & Bhardwaj, R. M. (2011) Municipal Wastewater Management in India, India Infra-
structure Report.
Kaur, R., Wani, S., Singh, A. & Lal, K. (2012) Wastewater production, treatment and use in India. …
Report presented at the 2 nd …, pp. 1–13. Available at: http://​www.​ais.​unwat​er.​org/​ais/​plugi​nfile.​
php/​356/​mod_​page/​conte​nt/​124/​Count​r yRep​ort_​India.​pdf
Kesari, K. K., Soni, R., Jamal, Q. M., Tripathi, P., Lal, J. A., Jha, N. K., Siddiqui, M. H., Kumar, P.,
Tripathi, V., & Ruokolainen, J. (2021). Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: a Review of its Applica-
tions and Health Implications. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 232(5), 1–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
S11270-​021-​05154-8/​FIGUR​ES/5
Kim, M., Nakhla, G., & Keleman, M. (2019). Modeling the impact of food wastes on wastewater treatment
plants. Journal of Environmental Management, 237, 344–358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​JENVM​AN.​
2019.​02.​065
LPCC (2021) Monthly Progress Report.
Macedo, H. E., Lehner, B., Nicell, J., Grill, G., Li, J., Limtong, A. & Shakya, R. (2021). Global distribution
of wastewater treatment plants and their released effluents into rivers and streams. Earth System Sci-
ence Data Discussions, (August), pp. 1–33.
Martinex-Organiz, A., Herrera-Navarrete, R., Pined-Mora, D., Del Carmen-Nino, V. & Balbuena-Hernan-
dez, R. I. (2020). Reuse of treated water from municipal treatment plants in Mexico. Available at:
https://​www.​intec​hopen.​com/​books/​advan​ced-​biome​tric-​techn​ologi​es/​liven​ess-​detec​tion-​in-​biome​trics
Ministry of Water and Irrigation (2020). Jordan Water Sector Fact and Figures 2020. p. 24.
Mohan, T. R., Chanakya, H. N., Mohan Kumar, M. S., & Rao, L. (2022). Achieving biological nutri-
ent removal in an old sewage treatment plant through process modifications: A simulation and

13
Assessing wastewater management challenges in developing… 19395

experimental study. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 45, 102461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​

JWPE.​2021.​102461
Morris, J. C., Georgiou, I., Guenther, E., & Caucci, S. (2021). Barriers in implementation of wastewater
reuse: Identifying the way forward in closing the loop. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1),
413–433. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​S43615-​021-​00018-Z
Moussa, M. S., Rojas, A. R., Hooijmans, C. M., Gijzen, H. J., & van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. (2004). Model-
based evaluation of nitrogen removal in a tannery wastewater treatment plant. Water Science and Tech-
nology, 50(6), 251–260. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​WST.​2004.​0383
MPCB (2014) Comprehensive Study on Polluted River Stretches And Preparation of Action Plan of River
Girna from Malegaon to Jalgaon, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
Nathan, N. S., Saravanane, R., & Sundararajan, T. (2015). Physio-chemical behavior of the leachate due
to landfilling of municipal solid waste and secondary wastewater on groundwater quality: A review.
American Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 2(6), 87–107.
National Water Supply and Drainage Board (2011) Rarmalana/Moratuwa and Ja-ela/Ekala Wastewater Dis-
posal Project.
National Green Tribunal (2019) Effluent Discharge Standards.
National Audit Office (2020) Evaluation the efficiency of waste water management in Sri Lanka.
National Water Commission; Government of Mexico (2021) Sistema Nacional de Información del Agua
(SINA).
Nazzal, Y., Mansour, M., Al Najjar, M. & McCornick, P. (2000). Wastewater reuse law and standards in the
kingdom of Jordan.
NPCB (2021) Monthly Progress Report.
Padigala, B. (2015). Urbanization and river health in India: Understanding interactions and impacts. Pollu-
tion Research, 34(3), 519–526.
Products—EnviroSim (2020). Retrieved 3 Aug 2022 from https://​envir​osim.​com/​produ​cts
Samom, S. (2021). First sewage treatment plant in northeast India starts functioning in Manipur: Hindustan
Times. Hindustan Times. Retrieved 6 Apr 2022 from https://​www.​hindu​stant​imes.​com/​cities/​others/​
first-​sewage-​treat​ment-​plant-​in-​north​east-​india-​starts-​funct​ioning-​in-​manip​ur-​10161​12076​88266.​html
Schellenberg, T., Subramanian, V., Ganeshan, G., Tompkins, D., & Pradeep, R. (2020). Wastewater dis-
charge standards in the evolving context of urban sustainability-the case of India. Frontiers in Environ-
mental Science, 8, 30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​FENVS.​2020.​00030/​BIBTEX
Seema Mundoli, C. S., Dechamma, M. A., Sanfui, A., & Nagendra, H. (2022). A new imagination for waste
and water in India’s peri-urban interface. In V. Narain & D. Roth (Eds.), Water security, conflict and
cooperation in peri-urban South Asia: Flows across boundaries (pp. 27–43). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​79035-6_2
Shagun. (2019). After NGT asks for stringent norms for STPs: A new dilemma. DownToEarth. Retrieved
10 June 2022 from https://​www.​downt​oearth.​org.​in/​news/​waste/​after-​ngt-​asks-​for-​strin​gent-​norms-​for-​
stps-a-​new-​dilem​ma-​64412
Sharmin, A. (2016). Water and wastewater in Bangladesh, current status and design of a decentralized solu-
tion. p. 72. Available at: www.​vatek​nik.​lth.​se
Shuchismita, D., & Ashraful, I. (2015). A review on textile wastewater characterization in Bangladesh.
Journal of Resources and Environment, 5(1), 15–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5923/j.​re.​20150​501.​03
Von Sperling, M. (2016) Urban wastewater treatment in Brazil. Available at: www.​iadb.​org
Statista.com (2018). Retrieved 30 May 2023 from https://​www.​stati​sta.​com/​stati​stics/​10401​84/​water-​stress-​
score-​city-​globa​lly/
The Arunachal Times (2021). National Green Tribunal terms APSPCB’s report ‘extremely sketchy and
unreliable’|The Arunachal Times. The Arunachal Times. Retrieved 6 Apr 2022 from https://​aruna​chalt​
imes.​in/​index.​php/​2021/​06/​20/​natio​nal-​green-​tribu​nal-​terms-​apspc​bs-​report-​extre​mely-​sketc​hy-​and-​
unrel​iable/
Tortajada, C. (2020). Contributions of recycled wastewater to clean water and sanitation Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals. Clean Water, 3(1), 1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41545-​020-​0069-3
Vitanza, R., Colussi, I., Cortesi, A., & Gallo, V. (2016). Implementing a respirometry-based model into Bio-
Win software to simulate wastewater treatment plant operations. Journal of Water Process Engineer-
ing, 9, 267–275. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​JWPE.​2015.​02.​007
Von Sperling, M. (2008). Standards for wastewater treatment in Brazil. In M. Schmidt, J. Glasson, L. Emme-
lin, & H. Helbron (Eds.), Standards and thresholds for impact assessment (pp. 125–132). Springer.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​540-​31141-6_​10
Wallis-Lage, C. (2010) Overcoming the global barriers to water reuse|WaterWorld. WaterWorld. Retrieved
10 June 2022 from https://​www.​water​world.​com/​home/​artic​le/​16201​890/​overc​oming-​the-​global-​barri​
ers-​to-​water-​reuse

13
19396 R. Vaidya et al.

Wang, X. H., Wang, X., Huppes, G., Heijungs, R., & Ren, N. Q. (2015). Environmental implications of
increasingly stringent sewage discharge standards in municipal wastewater treatment plants: Case
study of a cool area of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 278–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/J.​
JCLEP​RO.​2015.​02.​007
Water Research Commission South Africa. (2022). A water reclamation and reuse guide for south african
municipal engineers.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.

Authors and Affiliations

Rucha Vaidya1 · Kavita Verma1 · Mohan Kumar2,3 · Chanakya Hoysall1 ·

Lakshminarayana Rao1

* Kavita Verma
[email protected]
Rucha Vaidya
[email protected]
Mohan Kumar
[email protected]
Chanakya Hoysall
[email protected]
Lakshminarayana Rao
[email protected]
1
Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, ICWaR, IFCWS, RBCCPS, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, India
3
Present Address: Gitam University, Bangalore, India

13