Toward this end, technoeconomic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) can serve as valuable methods for evaluating trade-offs in terms of cost and environmental impacts when comparing different POU technologies. For instance, a study conducted on POU chlorination (Aquatabs), flocculant disinfection (Procter and Gamble Purifier of Water), and ceramic filters evaluated the cost effectiveness considering costs related to startup, management, and logistics. While POU chlorination was found to be the most cost-effective method, this study was limited to one year period, which may be relatively shorter than necessary in other contexts. A recent LCA of four UV-based systems, chlorination, and trucked water delivery found chlorination to have the lowest environmental impacts over various time and scale horizons. Leveraging both TEA and LCA can help identify trade-offs between cost and environmental impacts for POU technologies. These tools together have been used in a limited way to evaluate several conventional disinfection technologies (boiling, ceramic filters, bio-sand filters, and POU chlorination). Under a specific set of assumptions, boiling and chlorination had the highest environmental impacts, while boiling was the most expensive (0.053 USD•L -1 ) and chlorination was the least expensive (0.0005 USD•L -1 ). In general, accurately comparing the relative sustainability among different studies can be difficult to due to variations in assumption, leading to different outcomes for sustainability indicators. For example, shorter studies with technology lifespans of less than one year may not consider all materials and supplies that are used in the process throughout the technology's lifetime. Considering the inherent uncertainty associated with changes over the lifetime, location, and other factors while assessing the relative sustainability of POU technologies, can help to account for the fluctuating assumptions.