Ads or Ption

This thesis comprises 30 ECTS credits and is a compulsory part in the Master of Science with a Major in
Chemical Engineering Waste Management and Resource Recovery, 120 ECTS credits
No. 2/2009

A LCA Study of Activated Carbon Adsorption and
Incineration in Air Pollution Control

Saman Saffarian
ii
A LCA Study of Activated Carbon Adsorption and Incineration in Air Pollution Control

Saman Saffarian, saman.safarian@gmail.com

Master thesis
Subject Category: Technology
University of Bors
School of Engineering
SE-501 90 BORS
Telephone +46 033 435 4640
Examiner: Dr. Peter Therning
Supervisor: Dr. Peter Therning
Supervisor, address: University of Bors, School of Engineering
SE- 501 90 BORS
Client: University of Bors
Date: December 2009
Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Granular Activated Carbon, VOCs
incineration, Thermal oxidation, Off- gas treatment, Toluene removal

iii

Dedicated to

My parents for their love and endless support

And

My lovely wife, Assal

iv
Acknowledgment

First, I would like to express my warmest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Peter Therning for
his supports and advices. I never would have been able to finish this thesis without his
guidance. I would also like to thank Mr. Paul Conlon from Chemviron Carbon/ Calgon
Carbon Company for his patience to ask my endless questions and send required information
related to process part. Finally, I am indebted to Dr. Peter Bayer from University of
Tuebingen, Germany, for his great help on sending the detailed information of his LCA
researches.

v
Abstract

The main purpose of this thesis was to compare GAC adsorption method, VOCs incineration
method and Non-treatment alternative by using LCA to find which method or alternative is
environmentally preferable. The LCA framework proposed by ISO 14040 (1997) has been
considered in this research. The comparison was made by considering a flue gas contaminated
by toluene (with three different concentration 100, 1000, 2000 mg/m
3
). The plant location
where the polluted flue gas is emitted has been assumed to be located in Bors, Sweden. The
flow rate of emitted flue gas was 10000m
3
/hr. The present thesis report contains two main
parts.

The results of LCA showed that when the toluene concentration is low (< 100 mg/m
3
), GAC
adsorption method, Non-treatment alternative and VOCs incineration method are respectively
preferable from environmental point of view. On the other side, when the toluene
concentration of inlet stream is high (>1000 mg/m
3
), the order of GAC adsorption method,
incineration and Non-treatment alternative is more desirable. Furthermore, the results
illustrated that as toluene plays the role of fuel as a hydrocarbon, VOCs incineration method
is much more suitable when toluene concentration is high due to lower demand on additional
fuel. In the other words, high toluene concentration of influent leads to less environmental
impact when VOCs incineration method is exploited. Conversely, the environmental impact
of GAC adsorption method is increased when the inlet concentration of toluene is escalated.
In overall, the weighted result showed that GAC adsorption method is the most preferable
method while Non-treatment alternative is the worst.

vi
List of Abbreviations

AC Activated Carbon
AP Acidification Potential
BFD Block Flow Diagram
Cis- DCE cis- dichloroethylene
CML Center of Environmental Science, Leiden University, the Netherlands
DAR Depletion of Abiotic Resources
DCM Di Chloro Methane
EC European Commission
EDIP Environmental Design of Industrial Products
EEA European Environmental Agency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EP Eutrophication Potential
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States)
EPS Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Design
ET Eco Toxicity
FAETP Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GWP Global Warming Potential
GWP Global Warming Potential
HT Human Toxicity
IEA Environmental Energy Agency
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
LEL Lower Explosive Limit
LP Linear Programming
LU Land Use
MAETP Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential
MEK Methyl Ethyl Ketone
NMVOC Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound
NTM Ntverket fr Transporter och Milij (the Swedish Network for
Transportation and the Environment)
ODP Ozone Depletion Potential
PAC Powder Activated Carbon
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCE Perchloroethylene
POC Photochemical Ozone Creation
POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
RPM Round Per Minute
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidation
SETAC Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
TCE Trichloroethylene
TETP Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential
VC Vinyl chloride
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

vii
Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... X
LIST OF TABLE APPENDICES ..................................................................................... XI
LIST OF DIAGRAM APPENDICES ............................................................................ XIV
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
1.1 PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................1
3. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................3
3.1 VOCS ADSORPTION PROCESS DESCRIPTION ON GAC .................................................3
3.2 VOCS INCINERATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION ............................................................4
3.2.1 Simple thermal incinerator ..................................................................................5
3.2.2 Thermal incinerator with regenerative heat recovery ..........................................5
3.2.3 Catalytic incinerator ...........................................................................................6
3.3 LCA METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................6
4. METHODS ...................................................................................................................7
4.1 PROCESS DESIGN ........................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Properties of VOCs adsorption process on GAC .................................................7
4.1.1.1 Suitable GAC selection ................................................................................7
4.1.1.2 Required amount of adsorbent for one week operation ................................8
4.1.1.3 Determination of Carbon Adsorption Vessel size .........................................8
4.1.1.4 Total pressure drop calculation ...................................................................9
4.1.1.5 Required steam properties ......................................................................... 10
4.1.1.6 Equipments design (air fan, heater, cooler and decanter) ......................... 10
4.1.2 Properties of RTO process ................................................................................ 13
4.1.2.1 Process streams ......................................................................................... 13
4.1.2.2 Input data .................................................................................................. 14
4.1.2.3 RTO process simulation ............................................................................. 14
4.1.2.4 Required amount of natural gas ................................................................. 14
4.1.2.5 RTO equipments ........................................................................................ 15
4.1.3 Non-treatment alternative.................................................................................. 15
4.2 LCA STUDY .............................................................................................................. 15
4.2.1 Goal and scope definition .................................................................................. 15
4.2.1.1 Purpose of study ........................................................................................ 15
4.2.1.2 Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 15
4.2.1.3 Options to model ....................................................................................... 16
4.2.1.4 Functional unit .......................................................................................... 16
4.2.1.5 Environmental impact category ................................................................. 16
4.2.1.6 LCA type ................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1.7 System boundaries ..................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Inventory analysis ............................................................................................. 20
4.2.2.1 Inventory analysis of GAC adsorption method .......................................... 20
4.2.2.1.1 General LCI description for GAC adsorption method ............................ 20
4.2.2.1.2 Normalized data for Case 1- GAC adsorption method ........................... 24
4.2.2.2 Inventory analysis for VOCs incineration method ...................................... 26
4.2.2.2.1 General LCI description for VOCs incineration method ......................... 27
4.2.2.2.2 Normalized data for Case 1- VOCs incineration method ........................ 28
viii
4.2.2.3 Inventory analysis for Non-treatment alternative ....................................... 31
4.2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment ............................................................................ 31
4.2.3.1 Impact category definition ......................................................................... 31
4.2.3.2 Classification ............................................................................................ 32
4.2.3.3 Characterization ........................................................................................ 32
4.2.3.4 Weighting .................................................................................................. 33
5. RESULT ( INTERPRETATION OF LCA RESULT) .............................................. 33
6. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 35
7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX 1, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENTS CATALOGS .................................. 42
APPENDIX 2, PROCESS CALCULATIONS .................................................................. 55
APPENDIX 3, ASPEN PLUS 2006 RESULTS .................................................................. 58
APPENDIX 4, LCI CALCULATIONS ............................................................................. 63
APPENDIX 5, GENERAL DATA FOR LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS ....... 75
APPENDIX 6, LCI NORMALIZED DATA GAC ADSORPTION METHOD ............ 78
APPENDIX 7, LCI NORMALIZED DATA VOCS INCINERATION METHOD ...... 99
APPENDIX 8, LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................ 108
APPENDIX 9, WEIGHTING RESULTS ........................................................................ 117
APPENDIX 10, INTERPRETATION OF RESULT ...................................................... 119

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1. The environmental burdens of collection and recycling in reality .............................3
Figure 2. The environmental burdens of collection and recycling- linear function ...................3
Figure 3. Adsorption/ desorption process ................................................................................4
Figure 4. Simple thermal incineration method ........................................................................5
Figure 5. Thermal incinerator with regenerative heat recovery ................................................5
Figure 6. Catalytic incinerator ...............................................................................................6
Figure 7. LCA framework in ISO 14040 (1997) .....................................................................6
Figure 8. Toluene loading on AP4-60 (Chemviron) ................................................................8
Figure 9. Pressure drop for VAPOR-PAC 10 (Calgon Corporation) ................................... 10
Figure 10. BFD of process (Aspen Plus 2006) ...................................................................... 11
Figure 11. RTO simulation by Aspen Plus 2006 ................................................................... 14
Figure 12. Baltic natural gas network ................................................................................... 18
Figure 13. Pipeline direction between natural gas basin and GAC manufacture .................... 18
Figure 14. LCI flow chart for GAC adsorption process ......................................................... 20
Figure 15. LCI flow chart (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1 .............................................. 25
Figure 18. LCI flow chart for VOCs incineration process ..................................................... 27
Figure 19. LCI flow chart (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1 ........................................... 30
Figure 22. Weighted result .................................................................................................... 35

x
List of Tables

Table 1. Specification of VAPOR-PAC 10 (Calgon Corporation) ........................................9
Table 2. Results of GAC adsorption process design .............................................................. 13
Table 3. The average composition of natural gas in the world ............................................... 14
Table 4. Required amount of natural gas ............................................................................... 15
Table 5. Energy requirement for transportation of produced GAC ........................................ 21
Table 6. Selected vehicles to transport equipment for GAC adsorption method ..................... 22
Table 7. Total electrical energy required for running equipment- GAC adsorption method ... 22
Table 8. Energy requirement for natural gas and RTO equipment transportation ................... 28
Table 9.Classification of environmental impact potentials .................................................... 32

xi
List of Table Appendices

Table App 5. 1. Equipments transportation details ................................................................ 75
Table App 5. 2. Emission for 1 ton GAC production ............................................................. 75
Table App 5. 3. Emission for 2831m
3
natural gas ................................................................ 76
Table App 5. 4. Emissions for road and sea transportation (NTM 2002- Euro 3) ................... 76
Table App 5. 5. Electricity production based on different energy source in Sweden for 1 TJ
net electricity (IEA 2000) and Frischknecht et al. (1996) ..................................................... 77
Table App 6. 1. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, transportation by pipeline
(GAC adsorption method) - Case 1...78
Table App 6. 2. Emission of equipment transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1 ... 79
Table App 6. 3. Emission of GAC transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case1 ............ 79
Table App 6. 4. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (GAC adsorp. method)- Case 1 80
Table App 6. 5. Emission of GAC production (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1 ................ 82
Table App 6. 6. Total emission of GAC adsorption method (kg/f.u.) - Case 1 ....................... 83
Table App 6. 7. Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (GAC adsorption
method) Case 1 .................................................................................................................. 84
Table App 6. 8. Total fossil energy for transportation of GAC and equipments (GAC
adsorption method) - Case 1 ................................................................................................. 84
(GAC adsorption method) - Case 2 ....................................................................................... 85
Table App 6. 10. Emission of equipment transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 2 . 86
Table App 6. 11. Emission of GAC transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 2 ......... 86
Table App 6. 12. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (GAC adsor. method)- Case 2 87
Table App 6. 13. Emission of GAC production (GAC adsorption method) - Case 2 .............. 89
Table App 6. 14. Total emission of GAC adsorption method (kg/f.u.) - Case 2 ..................... 90
method) Case 2 .................................................................................................................. 91
(GAC adsorption method) - Case 3 ....................................................................................... 92
Table App 6. 18. Emission of equipment transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 3 . 93
Table App 6. 19. Emission of GAC transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 3 ......... 93
Table App 6. 20. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (GAC adsor. method)- Case 3 94
Table App 6. 21. Emission of GAC production (GAC adsorption method) - Case 3 .............. 96
Table App 6. 22. Total emission of GAC adsorption method (kg/f.u.) - Case 3 ..................... 97
method) Case 3 .................................................................................................................. 98
Table App 7. 1. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (VOCs incineration method)-
Case 1, 2 and 3 . .99
Table App 7. 2. Emission of RTO equipment transportation (VOCs incineration method)
Case 1, 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................... 101
Table App 7. 3. Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (VOCs incineration
method) Case 1, 2 and 3................................................................................................... 101
Table App 7. 4. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, combustion and transportation
by pipeline (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1 ............................................................... 102
xii
Table App 7. 5. Emission of natural gas transportation by road (VOCs incineration method) -
Case 1 ................................................................................................................................ 102
Table App 7. 6. Total emission of VOCs incineration method (kg/f.u.) - Case 1 ................. 103
Table App 7. 7. Total fossil energy for transportation of natural gas and RTO equipment
(VOCs incineration method) - Case 1 ................................................................................. 103
Table App 7. 8. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, combustion and transportation
by pipeline (VOCs incineration method) Case 2 .............................................................. 104
Case 2 ................................................................................................................................ 104
Table App 7. 10. Total emission of VOCs incineration method (kg/f.u.) - Case 2 ............... 105
Table App 7. 12. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, combustion and
transportation by pipeline (VOCs incineration method) Case 3 ........................................ 106
Case 3 ................................................................................................................................ 106
Table App 7. 14. Total emission of VOCs incineration method (kg/f.u.) - Case 3 ............... 107
Table App 8. 1. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1.. 108
Table App 8. 2. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (GAC adsorption method) - Case 2 .......... 108
Table App 8. 3. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (GAC adsorption method) - Case 3 .......... 108
Table App 8. 4. Water consumption (GAC adsorption method) .......................................... 108
Table App 8. 5. Global Warming Potential (GAC adsorption method) ................................ 109
Table App 8. 6. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (GAC adsorption method) .......... 109
Table App 8. 7. Acidification Potential (GAC adsorption method)...................................... 109
Table App 8. 8. Eutrophication Potential (GAC adsorption method) ................................... 109
Table App 8. 9. Human Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption method)................................. 110
Table App 8. 10. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC
adsorption method) ............................................................................................................. 110
Table App 8. 11. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC
adsorption method) ............................................................................................................. 111
Table App 8. 12. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption
method) .............................................................................................................................. 111
Table App 8. 13. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1 ..... 112
Table App 8. 16. Water consumption (VOC incineration method) ...................................... 112
Table App 8. 17. Global Warming Potential (VOCs incineration method) .......................... 113
Table App 8. 18. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (VOCs incineration method) .... 113
Table App 8. 19. Acidification Potential (VOCs incineration method) ................................ 113
Table App 8. 20. Eutrophication Potential (VOCs incineration method) ............................. 113
Table App 8. 21. Human Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration method) ........................... 114
Table App 8. 22. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs
incineration method) ........................................................................................................... 114
Table App 8. 23. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs
incineration method) ........................................................................................................... 115
Table App 8. 24. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration
method) .............................................................................................................................. 115
Table App 8. 25. Human Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment alternative) ............................. 116
xiii
Table App 8. 26. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-
treatment alternative) .......................................................................................................... 116
Table App 8. 27. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-
treatment alternative) .......................................................................................................... 116
Table App 8. 28. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment
alternative) ......................................................................................................................... 116
Table App 8. 29. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (Non-treatment alternative) ...... 116
Table App 9. 1. Weighting result of GAC adsorption method.. 117
Table App 9. 2. Weighting result of VOCs incineration method ......................................... 118
Table App 9. 3. Weighting result of Non-treatment alternative ........................................... 118

xiv
List of Diagram Appendices

Diagram App 10. 1. Natural resource consumption- GAC adsorption method ..................... 119
Diagram App 10. 2. Energy consumption- GAC adsorption method ................................... 119
Diagram App 10. 3. Depletion of Abiotic Resources- GAC adsorption method .................. 119
Diagram App 10. 4. Global Warming Potential- GAC adsorption method........................... 119
Diagram App 10. 5. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential- GAC adsorption method .... 119
Diagram App 10. 6. Acidification Potential- GAC adsorption method ................................ 119
Diagram App 10. 7. Eutrophication Potential- GAC adsorption method .............................. 120
Diagram App 10. 8. Human Toxicity Potential- GAC adsorption method ........................... 120
Diagram App 10. 9. Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP)- GAC adsorption method ................... 120
Diagram App 10. 10. Ecotoxicity Potential (MAETP) - GAC adsorption method ............... 120
Diagram App 10. 11. Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP) - GAC adsorption method ................... 120
Diagram App 10. 12. Environmental impact comparison- GAC adsorption method ............ 120
Diagram App 10. 13. Weighted result- GAC adsorption method ......................................... 120
Diagram App 10. 14. Natural resource consumption- VOCs incineration method ............... 121
Diagram App 10. 15. Energy consumption- VOCs incineration method .............................. 121
Diagram App 10. 16. Depletion of Abiotic Resources- VOCs incineration method ............. 121
Diagram App 10. 17. Global Warming Potential- VOCs incineration method ..................... 121
Diagram App 10. 18. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential- VOCs incineration metho . 121
Diagram App 10. 19. Acidification Potential- VOCs incineration method ........................... 121
Diagram App 10. 20. Eutrophication Potential- VOCs incineration method ........................ 122
Diagram App 10. 21. Human Toxicity Potential- VOCs incineration method ...................... 122
Diagram App 10. 22. Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP) - VOCs incineration method ............. 122
Diagram App 10. 23. Ecotoxicity Potential (MAETP) - VOCs incineration method ............ 122
Diagram App 10. 24. Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP) - VOCs incineration method ............... 122
Diagram App 10. 25. Environmental impact comparison- VOCs incineration method ........ 122
Diagram App 10. 26. Weighted result- VOCs incineration method ..................................... 122
Diagram App 10. 27. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential- Non-treatment alternative . 123
Diagram App 10. 28. Human Toxicity Potential- Non-treatment alternative ....................... 123
Diagram App 10. 29. Ecotoxicity Potential (FAETP) - Non-treatment alternative ............... 123
Diagram App 10. 30. Ecotoxicity Potential (MAETP) - Non-treatment alternative ............. 123
Diagram App 10. 31. Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP) - Non-treatment alternative ................. 123
Diagram App 10. 32. Environmental impact comparison- Non-treatment alternative .......... 123
Diagram App 10. 33. Weighted result- Non-treatment alternative ....................................... 123
Diagram App 10. 34. Natural resource consumption- Case 1 .............................................. 124
Diagram App 10. 37. Natural gas consumption ................................................................... 124
Diagram App 10. 38. Energy consumption ......................................................................... 124
Diagram App 10. 39. Depletion of Abiotic Resources ......................................................... 124
Diagram App 10. 40. Global Warming Potential ................................................................. 125
Diagram App 10. 41. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential ........................................... 125
Diagram App 10. 42. Acidification Potential ...................................................................... 125
xv
Diagram App 10. 43. Eutrophication Potential .................................................................... 125
Diagram App 10. 44. Human Toxicity Potential ................................................................. 125
Diagram App 10. 45. Eco Toxicity Potential- (FAETP) ...................................................... 125
Diagram App 10. 46. Eco Toxicity Potential- (MAETP) ..................................................... 126
Diagram App 10. 47. Eco Toxicity Potential- (TETP) ......................................................... 126
1

1. Introduction

Nowadays, it is necessary to reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds to the
atmosphere when several VOCs may affect on human health such as negative impact on
reproductive system and birth defect even in very low concentration. They can also be
precursors of ozone formation at ground level [1]. Furthermore, some VOCs contribute to
global warming indirectly and some of them are toxic and carcinogenic. Eye and throat
irritation, damage to liver and central nervous system occur due to prolonged exposure to
VOCs [2].

The industries such as chemical plants, refineries, ink manufacturing, paint and color
production plants, plastic production, pharmaceutical and food industries emit pollutions like
methanol, toluene, acetone, MEK, ethyl benzene, p- xylene, DCM and 1, 2-dicholoroethane
[3]. There are many air pollution control methods to remove volatile organic compounds such
as incineration, biofiltration, adsorption on activated carbon, etc [3-5].

The sustainability assessment is the traditional approach to evaluate treatment technology
methods. It can investigate three main categories from economical, environmental and social
point of view [6]. Nowadays, the LCA is used to evaluate and compare products and services
from environmental point of view. On the other word, LCA is an important and
comprehensive method for analyzing the environmental impacts of products and services [7].

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare different strategies and air pollution control methods
for VOCs reduction in order to choose the most environmental preferable technique or
strategy. A literature study of this field revealed surprisingly a lack of data. As known, no
LCA approach has been used to compare non-treatment of polluted flue gas stream with
techniques like incineration and gas adsorption. In this work, the flow rate of polluted flue gas
is 10000m
3
/hr. The pollutant is toluene with three different concentrations (case 1=100
mg/m
3
, case 2=1000 mg/m
3
and case 3= 2000 mg/m
3
). On the other side, the temperature of
inlet flue gas and its pressure are 20
o
C and 101.3 kPa, respectively. The plant where the
polluted air is emitted was assumed to be located in Bors, Sweden.

2 Review of literature

As mentioned in the previous chapter, no study has been done to compare air pollution control
methods from environmental point of view. However, a few studies have been done so far to
compare preferable industrial liquid waste solvents treatment.

In a work by Romero-Hernandez, they compared carbon adsorption with a non-treatment
alternative to find the best way from environmental point of view. LCA was used to measure
photochemical ozone creation potential and global warming potential for both ways. The
wastewater stream contaminated by benzene and 1, 2- dichloroethane was used for impact
assessment. The assessment considered the emissions of raw material extraction, production,
use and regeneration of granular activated carbon. The results illustrated that GWP for
adsorption treatment was higher compared to non treatment option. Therefore, the polluted
stream should not be treated from environmental point of view. On the other side, the social
impact assessment has been conducted. This assessment proved that the polluted stream
should be treated morally and legally due to negative impacts on human health [6].
2

In another work Peter Bayer et al compared the influence of recycling GAC to using virgin
GAC in the wastewater treatment. They used LCA tools to evaluate environmental and
ecological impacts, human health effects and energy consumption. Several contaminants were
found in considered wastewater sample such as PCE, TCE, cis- DCE and VC. The
concentration of contaminants was 1000 mg/m
3
. The authors showed that recycling of GAC is
more favorable from environmental point of view rather than using virgin GAC [8].

LCA used as a tool for comparing two air pollution control methods has some limitations [9].
In fact, the traditional LCA has some inherent restrictions that could not answer many
significant questions. Choosing the functional unit such as kg or tone of waste generated can
be useful just for environmental comparison of two or more options. This is not suitable for
analyzing of any change in waste generation quantity. On the other hand, LCA mainly
discusses on the current society. When LCA will be able to represent future waste
management strategy with variable society, it should have a long-term sustainability
approach. Therefore, since LCA presents current situation in waste management strategy, it
cannot be used for future strategy very well. Another LCA problem is inability to give
accurate information if the geographical information is not included. This problem is due to
strong dependency of LCA on geographical location. Therefore, it is difficult to find where
and when waste management facilities should be installed [9].

Another problem of LCA is the linear relationship. As the recycling is probably non-linear
function, LCA cannot be used for identification of recycling rate [9]. If very high recycling
rate is considered, the transportation and material processing can increase the fuel
consumption, so the emission will be raised. Figure 1 and 2 shows the LCA model introduce
by Ekvall et al. This model describes burdens of material production and burdens of
collection and recycling in reality from environmental point of view [9]. There are some
solutions to overcome mentioned problems. The annual functional unit can be selected to
meet any change in waste generated quantity. To avoid the geographical dependency of LCA,
site-dependent and site-specific modeling can be useful solutions. Site-dependant modeling
would count the environmental conditions and sensitivity of region or country where the
polluted gases are emitted. This was integrated in EDIP 2003. EIA or risk assessment is an
alternative to get site-specific information. LP would be useful solution to overcome the non-
linear problem of LCA. LP model can describe the system partially linear. Totally, LCA can
be complete by adding other methodological aspects such as economic analysis, site-
dependant modeling, dynamic linear and non-linear modeling [9].

3

Figure 1.The environmental burdens of collection
and recycling in reality [9]

Figure 2.The environmental burdens of collection
and recycling- linear function [9]

3 Background

3.1 VOCs adsorption process description on GAC

The porous solid medium such as GAC is the main characteristic in adsorption process due to
capability of VOCs adsorption. The large volume of VOCs can be adsorbed on GAC due to
the porous structure of adsorbent. The adsorption function depends on adsorption medium
performance in both equilibrium and kinetics. To adsorb VOCs as much as possible, the
adsorbent must have large surface area and higher porosity [2]. AC can be manufactured from
coal, wood and nut sells. Most of activated carbons have approximately 1200 m
2
area per
gram, which is very large area for adsorption [10]. GAC has some advantages compare to
another type of adsorbent such as PAC. GAC main advantages are listed below.

1. In the case of using GAC, the operator does not need to determine dosage every day, if
the influent conditions are changed [11].
2. If PAC wants to be used in a year round, the advantage of GAC is increased [11].
3. By using GAC instead of PAC, less waste is achieved for disposal [11].
4. The effectiveness is increased by using GAC for VOCs removal compared to PAC[11].

The granular activated carbon can be desorbed after saturation in order to recover solvent
such as toluene and also to minimize GAC utilization. As shown in Figure 3, the adsorption/
desorption process consists four main steps; adsorption, desorption, drying and cooling [10].

4

Figure 3.Adsorption/ desorption process [10]

At the first step, the polluted air contains VOCs passes through a GAC column called vessel.
VOCs such as toluene can be absorbed by granular activated carbon surface and the clean air
leaves the vessel to atmosphere. A gas analyzer is installed on the top of vessel. As soon as
the gas analyzer detects VOCs, it means adsorbent has been saturated and the second step,
desorption or regeneration, is started. The regeneration can be done by two methods; steam
regeneration or nitrogen regeneration [10]. Each method has some advantages and limitations.
Steam is available in many industries, which can be collected to use in regeneration process.
Furthermore, steam has high-energy content and it can be condensed easily by cooling tower.
The nitrogen regeneration method as a hot gas solution has low energy content and it can be
hotter than steam from industrial boiler. Both nitrogen and steam are inert. Nitrogen
regeneration method provides no wastewater while steam is converted to wastewater after
condensation [12]. The liquid that consist VOCs should be cooled before separating toluene to
reuse or disposal. The steamed GAC should be dried and cooled before returning to vessel
[10].

3.2 VOCs incineration process description

The thermal treatment of flue gas is one of the most frequently and efficient process for VOCs
removal [5]. The principal of this method is based on oxidizing of VOCs at high temperature
to produce H
2
O and CO
2
. Combustion chamber (as an incinerator) combined with a heat
exchanger (as a flue gas pre-heater) is the main equipment in thermal treatment method.
Moreover, air fan is needed to provide equipments pressure drop [5]. Almost all VOCs can
be incinerated by thermal treatment method [13]. Like all treatment methods, incineration also
has some disadvantages. The main incineration problem is incomplete combustion. In some
case, incomplete combustion can produce an exhaust gas more harmful than the influent flue
gas. Therefore, the combustion process and equipments should be design to prevent
incomplete combustion [13].

This is a fact that most combustion occurs in the gas phase, because liquids and solids are also
converted to gas phase before burning [13]. As a result reaction rate expressed for any phase
is:

Decrease the concentration of A per unit time = r = k C
A
n
[13]

Where; r= Reaction rate, k= Kinetic constant, C
A
= Concentration of A and n= reaction order
5

Three techniques are available for VOCs thermal treatment; simple thermal incinerator,
thermal incinerator with regenerative heat recovery and catalytic incinerator [13]. The
properties, benefits and disadvantages of each method are explained as follows.

3.2.1 Simple thermal incinerator

In this method, the contaminated gas stream is mixed with fuel and excess air, if needed.
Burning process occurs in combustion chamber. If inlet stream contains enough VOCs, the
addition of fuel can be negligible. In this case, VOCs play the role of fuel, so the cost of
operation is decreased due to reduction in fuel consumption. If VOCs concentration in gas
stream is more than LEL, no additional fuel would be required. This amount is 43% for
toluene. Therefore, almost all air pollution treatments need additional fuel [13]. Figure 4
shows the simple thermal incineration method.

Figure 4.Simple thermal incineration method [13]

3.2.2 Thermal incinerator with regenerative heat recovery

If a heat exchanger is installed into the system, the leaving heat can be transferred to influent
gas stream in order to increase temperature. In this case, the outlet temperature and fuel
consumption are decreased due to increase influent temperature. In order to existence of gas
stream in the process, hot-gas-to-cold-gas heat exchangers should be installed, which are very
expensive. They have often severe corrosion problems as well. Figure 5 shows this kind of
thermal treatment [13].

Figure 5.Thermal incinerator with regenerative heat recovery [13]
6

3.2.3 Catalytic incinerator

Platinum metal is a common catalyst used in this method. Two porous ceramic materials,
ceramic pellets or ceramic honeycomb, are used as a substrate for catalyst. Decreasing the
required temperature from 1000-1200
o
F to 600
o
F is one of the advantages of using catalyst
incinerator. The catalyst is usually expensive, but the reduction in the fuel consumption is
significant [13]. The catalytic incinerator is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6.Catalytic incinerator [13]

3.3 LCA methodology

By quick glance on LCA framework proposed by SETAC 1990-1993, four main
methodological approaches have been introduced; goal and scope definition, life cycle
inventory analysis, impact assessment and life cycle improvement assessment [7, 14].
Although the life cycle improvement assessment has been proposed as a separate phase in
SETAC framework, it is not considered as such in LCA framework in ISO 14040 (1997). In
fact, the life cycle improvement assessment just influences on LCA framework in ISO 14040
[14]. LCA framework proposed in ISO 14040 (1997) was used in this study. This framework
is shown in Figure 7 [14].

Life Cycle Assessent Framework
Goal and Scope
Definition
Inventory Analysis
Impact Assessment
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Direct Applications:
Product Development and
Improvment
Strategic Planning
Public Policy Makeing
Marketing
Other

Figure 7.LCA framework in ISO 14040 (1997)
7

4. Methods

This part contains two main sections, process design and LCA study. As the main purpose of
this study is comparison of flue gas treatments method by using LCA tool, required energy,
raw materials, equipment types, equipments and raw materials producers, etc should be
identified to get necessary data required for LCA part. In fact, process design is the pre-step
of LCA study in this research. Furthermore, LCA study part contains three first steps of LCA
methodology; goal and scope definition, inventory analysis and impact assessment.

4.1 Process design

According to GAC advantage, adsorption on GAC was considered in this study. In addition,
steam supposed to be collected from other part of plant and applied for regeneration of GAC.
The adsorption process design includes six main steps; selection of suitable type of GAC,
determination of required amount of carbon, vessel size determination, total pressure drop
calculation, type and size of other equipments such as air fan, heater, etc and energy
consumption [15].

Thermal treatment is an efficient method to destroy almost all VOCs up to 2000 ppm as inlet
concentration. The concentrations in this study are 31.25, 312.5 and 625 ppm. Furthermore,
incinerator can be designed to handle different flow rates, 1000- 500000 cfm (5886 cfm in
this study). The residence time can be also in the range of 0.5-1 second. RTO is available with
energy recovery system to decrease the operating costs due to reduce required fuel. Thermal
oxidation can be operated with the temperature range of 700- 1000
o
C, depends on furnace
type and inlet VOCs concentration [16].

The ceramic bed is used in RTO to take heat from gases in the combustion zone. If multiple
beds are used in RTO process, the heat capturing up to 95% is possible. This heat contains the
thermal energy of fuel and also the heat produced by VOCs combustion [16]. As a result,
according to available conditions in this study, the selection of RTO method not only fulfills
all requirements, but also reduces the operating cost. On the other hand, the operation cost is
not as much as catalytic incineration method [13].

Non-treatment alternative has been also investigated in this study. The flue gas was assumed
to be emitted without any treatment. These three methods have been compared from
environmental point of view by using LCA to find the best one (Result part).

4.1.1 Properties of VOCs adsorption process on GAC

4.1.1.1 Suitable GAC selection

Chemviron Carbon and Calgon Carbon Corporation were selected as supplier and
manufacturer of GAC, respectively. According to GAC properties produced by Calgon,
among different ranges of GAC, AP4-60 was selected as an adsorbent. This type of GAC has
several applications, which were completely relevant to studied cases. It is suitable for VOCs
removal and it is also steam re-generable. On the other hand, AP4-60 has low pressure drop,
so less energy is consumed [17]. AP4-60 properties are available in Appendix1.1.

8

4.1.1.2 Required amount of adsorbent for one week operation

To determine the required amount of adsorbent, toluene Freundlich isotherm at 20
o
C was
used. This isotherm was published as a technical data by Chemviron Carbon for toluene
adsorption on AP4-60, Figure 8.

Figure 8.Toluene loading on AP4-60 (Chemviron) [17]

Eight hours per day has been considered as operation time, so the operation time for one week
is 40 hour (5 days/ week and 49 weeks/ year have been assumed). Therefore, the flow rate of
polluted air is 410
5
m
3
/week.

Toluene weight entered to vessel is different in three cases. The volumetric toluene
concentration in ppmv has been calculated for three cases by considering 3.2 kg/m
3
(if Air=1)
as toluene vapor density. Toluene vapor density is variable and its range is 3.14 to 3.3 [18,
19]. Toluene weight that should be adsorbed per week has been summarized in Table 2. The
calculation details are available in Appendix 2.1.

The required amount of GAC, AP4-60, for three cases was calculated and the result has been
shown in Table 2. The calculation details are available in Appendix 2.2. To calculate the
amount of required carbon, the adsorption uptake percentage is needed for all cases with
different concentrations. This data was gained by using Figure 8 published by Chemviron
Carbon Corporation.

4.1.1.3 Determination of Carbon Adsorption Vessel size

The first step of vessel size determination is diameter estimation. At the first step, diameter
should be estimated based on reasonable superficial velocity. If the superficial velocity is
increased, the pressure drop will be increased [15]. The superficial velocity range for AP4-60
introduced by Chemviron is 0.05-5 m/s [17]. Low superficial velocity has been assumed in
this study, 20 cm/s, to avoid high pressure drop creation. By using proposed equation in
Appendix 2.3, vessel diameter was calculated (4.2 m).

Due to Chemviron Carbons design information, the vessel depth range should be 0.2- 2 m
[17]. Therefore, there is a size limitation in this case because required diameter is more than
vessel depth. According to achieved data from Chemviron Carbon Corporation, GAC
desorption process takes place within maximum 4-5 hours [20]. Therefore, only one vessel
assumed to be installed by considering operation time (8 hr/day). In fact, GAC regeneration is
9

done when the system is shut down. The volume of vessel was determined by using GAC
bulk density. The bulk density of AP4-60 is 450 kg/m
3
given by Chemviron Carbon [17]. Ten
percent excess volume was considered for each case. The required volume of vessels was
calculated and the results are 0.55, 3.7 and 6.8 m
3
/week for Case 1, 2 and 3, respectively (see
Appendix 2.4).

According to required vessel volume for all three cases and bed depth limitation (~2 m), one
vessel can fulfill all requirements for each case. By considering carbon weight, pressure and
maximum flow rate, the desirable vessel type manufactured by Calgon Corporation (VAPOR-
PAC 10) was selected. The vessel properties are available in Appendix 1.2. According to
different amount of required GAC for each case shown in Table 2, wide range of vessels
manufactured by Calgon Corporation could be used. However, due to high flow rate that is
constant for each case, only one vessel type was selected. The specification of VAPOR-
PAC 10 is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.Specification of VAPOR-PAC 10 (Calgon Corporation) [21]

4.1.1.4 Total pressure drop calculation

The atmospheric pressure was considered as treated flue gas effluent pressure to air. Due to
atmospheric pressure of effluent treated air and also pressure drop in equipments, higher
influent pressure is needed to compress polluted air through vessel. This goal was achieved by
installing an air fan. Total pressure drop was used to design suitable air fan [15].

While the purpose is comparison, the length of pipes, number of valves has been assumed to
be the same in all three cases. Therefore, pressure drop of pipes and valves were neglected
and just one pressure drop was considered (vessel pressure drop). On the other side, the
pressure drop for carbon vessels was estimated by using Calgon Corporation diagram, Figure
9.
10

Figure 9.Pressure drop for VAPOR-PAC 10 (Calgon Corporation) [21]

By using Figure 9, the pressure drop for considered air flow rate (5886 cfm) is approximately
5.9 inch of H
2
O ( 15 cm of H
2
O) for long-term usage. The total pressure drop for each case
is summarized in Table 2.

4.1.1.5 Required steam properties

Steam is used for on-site regeneration of adsorbent [22]. As the steam is usually available in
many industries, it was assumed to be collected from other parts. The saturated steam at
140
o
C was used to desorb adsorbent [22]. Steam consumption was 2.58 kg per 1 kg toluene
recovered [23]. According to steam thermodynamic tables, the specific volume of saturated
steam at 140
o
C is approximately 0.5085m
3
/kg [24]. As activated carbon regeneration was
assumed to be operated every day after shutting down, the required amount of steam was
calculated per day (Table 2). The calculation details are available in Appendix 2.5. By
considering 20
o
C as water temperature to produce steam, the energy consumption for steam
generating was calculated and summarized in Table 2 [25]. The calculation details are
available in Appendix 2.6.

4.1.1.6 Equipments design (air fan, heater, cooler and decanter)

Air fan

If the pressure of effluent treated air supposed to be 101.3 kPa, the required pressure of
influent polluted air was calculated as following and summarized for each case in Table 2
[15].

Required influent pressure (kPa) = Total pressure drop (kPa) + Effluent pressure (101.3 kPa)

To provide the required influent pressure, air fan was used as pressure changer. Air fans for
all three cases were assumed to be supplied by SMJ. Inc. The catalog and technical data of
selected air fan is available in Appendix 1.3. Only one air fan was designed for each case. The
process BFD was simulated by Aspen Plus 2006 and illustrated in Figure 10. Air fan was
assumed to be blower and installed before the adsorption vessel.

11

Figure 10.BFD of process (Aspen Plus 2006)

Two stage contra rotating fan (CR #56- ARRANGE. #4) manufactured by SMJ Inc was
selected as pressure changer. The RPM of selected fan is 3500 and engine power range is
210-220 HP. The power of air fan is 215 HP (22.37 kW).

Combined drying and cooling

Drying and cooling (D/C) are the next steps after steaming. During steaming, the adsorbent
becomes wet and it is not suitable for continuing adsorption process. Therefore, it should be
dried and then cooled to prepare for next adsorption cycle. Due to similarity of conditions
(steam temperature, air flow rate and amount of used GAC) in this study and research done by
Gu et al, the results were used for estimating drying/cooling time [22]. The combined drying/
cooling process were considered by purging of air with 24
o
C temperature and 200 m
3
/hr flow
rate. The average temperature of ambient air in the plant location is 6.5
o
C with more than
75% relative humidity [22, 26, 27]. As combined drying/cooling process is inefficient in a
very moist environment (more than 50% relative humidity), the air heater was considered in
this study to raise the air temperature up to 24
o
C [22].

Drying is done fast at the beginning and it becomes gradually slow. If air with 24
o
C
temperature passes through the vessel, 30 minute is required to decrease the bed temperature
from 115
o
C down to 25
o
C [22]. The vessel temperature is decreased very fast due to energy
consumed during water and toluene desorption [22]. Due to the same properties of selected
GAC in this study (AP4-60) and Sorbonorit 4 (tested by Junjie Gu et al), some available data
of Sorbonorit 4 were considered for AP4-60. Therefore, it would be mentioned that
cooling/drying time is about 30 min for 96.5 kg saturated Sorbonorit [22]. On the other hand,
it was assumed that the required amount of adsorbent for one day operation is saturated and
regeneration is done every day after shutting down of system. Therefore, cooling/drying time
was calculated based on related data for Sorbonorit by following equation and the results are
summarized in Table 2.
12

Cooling/drying time (min) =
( ) ( )
( ) kg
kg Adsorbent
5 . 96
min 30

As described, due to high moist environment and low air temperature in Bors, purged
ambient air needs to be heated before passing through vessel. The best air heater (MA0-10F)
produced by HOTWATT Co. was selected (see Appendix 1.4) [28]. Due to the same
conditions for all three cases, just one model of air heater was used, but cooling/ drying time
is varied for each case, Table 2. The required electricity power to run the selected air heater
was calculated with proposed equation by manufacturer (HOTWATT) with consideration of
required flow rate (200m
3
/hr), ambient air temperature (6.5
o
C) and purged air temperature
(24
o
C) at atmospheric pressure. Therefore, required energy consumption for each air heater is
2.5 kW (see Appendix 2.7).

Cooler

After desorption, effluent stream contains toluene and water. This stream has relatively high
temperature that should be cooled before separating in decanter [10]. Due to cold weather
condition in Bors, cooling process was supposed to be done by air cooled heat exchanger to
cool down the toluene/ water mixture to 20
o
C. Effluent temperature of this stream and the
cooling capacity achieved from Aspen Plus 2006 are shown in Table 2 [29]. Aspen Plus
results are available in Appendix 3.1 and 3.2.

Based on cooling capacity, suitable air cooled heat exchanger were chosen for each case. As
shown in Table 2, wide range of cooling capacity is available. There was no air cooled heat
exchanger manufacturer with such a wide range production. Therefore, the adequate air
cooled heat exchanger for Case 1 and 2 was supposed to be supplied by Advantage
Engineering, Inc. Carrier Corporation was also assumed to provide suitable air cooled heat
exchanger for Case 3. The selected models of these equipments and their total electrical
power are summarized in Table 2. The specifications of air cooled heat exchanger are
available in Appendix 1.5 and 1.6.

As the cooling capacity of each air cooled heat exchanger and the volume of toluene water
mixture that should be cooled are different in each case, the operation time of every heat
exchanger is distinctive. By considering inlet and outlet temperature of mixture, mixture
mass, cooling capacity and operation time for each heat exchanger were calculated (53, 60, 60
second per operation day for case 1, case 2 and case3, respectively). Due to small weight of
toluene in the mixture, it was neglected in calculations. The calculation details are available in
Appendix 2.8.

Decanter

After cooling toluene/water mixture, the solvent should be separated and recovered. As the
toluene/water mixture at 20
o
C is in aqueous phase, decanter was assumed to be used for
toluene separation [30]. Based on flow rate of toluene/water mixture, a pressure vessel
produced by Franken Filtertechnik KG was used. The flow rate was achieved from Aspen
Plus 2006 that are available in Appendix 3.1. The decanter models selected for each case are
summarized in Table 2 and their specifications are available in Appendix 1.7.

13

Table 2.Results of GAC adsorption process design
Unit Case1 Case2 Case3
Flow rate of polluted flue gas cfm 5886 5886 5886
Inlet toluene concentration
mg/m
3
100 1000 2000
ppmv 31.25 312.5 625
Inlet toluene weight kg/ week 40 400 800
Adsorption uptake on GAC, AP4-60 (Fig 8.) % w/w 19 27 29
Required amount of GAC, AP4-60 kg/ week 211 1482 2760
Required amount of steam for regeneration kg/day 21 207 413
Pressure drop through vessel cm of H
2
O 15 15 15
Total pressure drop
a
kPa 1.47 1.47 1.47
Atmospheric pressure
b
kPa 101.3 101.3 101.3
Required influent pressure of compressor
c=a+b
kPa 102.77 102.77 102.77
Toluene/water mixture temperature
o
C 30.2 63.1 73
Toluene/water mixture flow rate kg/hr 1330.359 11571.922 23152.59
Total electrical power of air- cooled heat exchanger kW

3.73 134.22 544.8
Energy consumption for steam generating kWh/day 15.46 152.4 304
Cooling/drying time per day min 13 92 172
Cooling capacity of air cooled heat exchanger
kW

16.73 623 1540.96
ton

4.76 177.2 438.3
Number of vessel - 1 1 1
Air fan power kW 22.37 22.37 22.37
Air heater power kW 2.5 2.5 2.5
Total volume of vessel m
3
0.55 3.7 6.8
Vessel model manufactured by Calgon -
VAPOR-
PAC 10
VAPOR-
PAC 10
VAPOR-
PAC 10
Air fan model manufactured by SMJ Inc. -
CR #56-
ARRANG
E. #4
CR #56-
ARRANG
E. #4
CR #56-
ARRANG
E. #4
Air heater model manufactured by HOTWATT Co. -
MA0-
10F1
MA0-
10F1
MA0-
10F1
Air- cooled heat exchanger model (Case 1 and 2
manufactured by Advantage Engineering, Inc and
Case 3 manufactured by Carrier Corporation)
-
C-5APT-
RC
CCC-
180APT-
RC
30XA080-
500
Decanter model manufactured by Franken
Filtertechnik KG [31]
- MPT 042 MPT 074 MPT 104

4.1.2 Properties of RTO process

4.1.2.1 Process streams

According to toluene concentration, which is lower than LEL in all cases, fuel should be
added for combustion (toluene LEL= 43%) [13]. As a result, natural gas is another inlet
stream used as a fuel. The flue gas treated is just one outlet stream in RTO process. As a
result, two inlet streams (polluted air, natural gas) and one outlet stream (treated flue gas)
were considered as process streams [5].

14

The composition of natural gas is varied everywhere. The average composition of natural gas
in the world was considered in this study. This composition is shown in Table 3.

Table 3.The average composition of natural gas in the world [32]
CH
4
C
2
H
6
C
3
H
8
C
4
H
10
C
5
H
12+
N
2
CO
2
H
2
S
89.6% 4.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.1% 3% 0.8% 1.1%

4.1.2.2 Input data

Polluted air enters to heat exchanger with 20
o
C at 101.3 kPa should be preheated up to 790
o
C.
Natural gas was used with 20
o
C at 101.3 kPa. Natural gas and polluted air are oxidized in the
incinerator and the product that is hot gas stream leaves incinerator. The incinerator operates
with 900
o
C at 101.3 kPa. The treated air that has no toluene concentration passes through air
fan after leaving heat exchanger. Air fan should provide the pressure drop in the process. The
maximum allowable pressure drop in the equipment was assumed to be 3 kPa [5] . According
to H
2
O produced by hydrocarbons combustion, the temperature of treated air left from
chimney should be high enough to avoid liquid formation. This temperature was assumed to
be 155
o
C.

4.1.2.3 RTO process simulation

The process was simulated by Aspen Plus 2006. All three cases have the same simulations.
Shell and tube heat exchanger was used to simulate RTO process. An air fan was required to
provide the equipments pressure drops. Due to high percentage of methane in considered
natural gas shown in Table 3, just methane was considered as inlet fuel in Aspen Plus
simulation. The process simulation is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11.RTO simulation by Aspen Plus 2006

4.1.2.4 Required amount of natural gas

Required amount of natural gas was the main purpose of RTO simulation. Due to different
toluene concentrations, the amount of natural gas needed for each case is different. In the
other word, the higher toluene concentration in inlet stream, the lower required natural gas.
15

Aspen Plus results indicated the required amount of inlet natural gas (see Table 4 and
Appendix 3.3).

Table 4.Required amount of natural gas
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Required amount of natural gas (m
3
/hr) 53.4 37.6 20.15

4.1.2.5 RTO equipments

RTO equipment used in this study is MODEL 75, AES- 86231 manufactured by Anguil
Environmental Systems Inc [33]. This type of RTO equipment contains system fan and
combined fan with 50 and 3 HP size, respectively (totally 39.54 kW). By considering flow
rate, destruction efficiency, oxidation temperature, etc, this type of RTO is the same for all
three cases. The specification of selected RTO equipment is available in Appendix 1.8.

4.1.3 Non-treatment alternative

As no treatment is done in this alternative, no equipment was considered. On the other hand,
just toluene emission makes difference between three cases.

4.2 LCA study

By using process design data, GAC adsorption, VOCs incineration and Non-treatment
alternative were compared by LCA. This part contains three main methodological approaches
in LCA; goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis and impact assessment.

4.2.1 Goal and scope definition

4.2.1.1 Purpose of study

The overall purpose of this study is comparison of two industrial flue gas treatment methods
(VOCs incineration and GAC adsorption) and non-treatment alternative to find which one is
preferable from environmental point of view.

4.2.1.2 Stakeholders

The relevant stakeholders and audiences of this study were classified under four main
categories as following.

Industries; where their flue gas contains VOCs especially toluene such as refineries,
chemical plants, paint and color production plants, plastic manufacturers, ink
manufacturers, pharmaceutical plants, food manufacturers, etc.
Equipment producers; who produce equipments both for production line in mentioned
industries and air treatment equipments such as SMJ Inc, HOTWATT, Carrier, Anguil
Environmental System Inc, etc.
16

Material manufacturers; who are producers of raw materials for mentioned industries
and also materials for industrial flue gas treatment such as Chemviron Carbon, Calgon
Carbon Corporation, etc.
Authorities; who are decision makers of environmental policies such as EEA, EPA,
EC, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvrdsverket), etc.

4.2.1.3 Options to model

The flue gas considered in this study was assumed to contain just toluene in three different
concentrations 100, 1000, 2000 mg/m
3
. The flow rate of contaminated flue gas was assumed
to be equal for all three cases (10000m
3
/hr). Among different types of adsorption process,
GAC adsorption was considered in this study. On the other hand, required steam for GAC
regeneration was collected from other parts of plant, so no equipment was considered for
steam generating. RTO was also considered as VOCs incineration method. In non-treatment
alternative, flue gas was assumed to be emitted without any treatment.

4.2.1.4 Functional unit

The definition of functional unit should respect function, mass, quality and time unit [34]. In
this study, the function is cleaning up the polluted flue gas. The functional flow of the flue gas
was divided into two main parts: treated flue gas and toluene captured by the treatment
methods. As specific industry has not considered in this study and flue gas treatment was
generally investigated, the threshold of emitted toluene concentration was neglected. In the
other word, according to Directive 1999/13/EC, limit value of emission in flue gas depends on
industry type. Therefore, treated flue gas was assumed to be toluene free [34, 35]. To meet all
functional unit factors, the functional unit in this study was defined as treatment of 10000
m3/hr polluted flue gas for a period of one year with no toluene concentration in treated flue
gas.

4.2.1.5 Environmental impact category

According to toluene characteristics, it has no significant global environmental effects. In
fact, toluene effects are locally [36]. When toluene is released to local environment, it will not
present for a long time. It is rapidly evaporated from soil and surface water. The remaining
toluene in the soil is broken down by micro-organisms. The toluene existing in the water can
be taken by aquatic animals and plants. Toluene also as a VOC can contribute to formation of
ground level ozone. It has also negative impacts on human health [36]. Therefore, impact
categories of toluene if it is released to environment without any treatment consist of human
toxicity, ecotoxicity (emission to water, air, and soil), and photochemical ozone creation
potential [7]. On the other hand, GAC production can affect on depletion of energy resource,
global warming, photochemical ozone creation, acidification, eutrophication and human
health [8].

As natural gas is the main energy source for operating RTO in VOCs incineration method and
it is needed for GAC production, environmental impacts of natural gas extraction, purification
and transportation were considered in this study. The impact categories considered for natural
gas consist of depletion of resources, global warming, human toxicity, photo-oxidant
formation, eutrophication, acidification and ecotoxicity [32].

17

4.2.1.6 LCA type

LCA type in this study is a combination of accounting and change-oriented. Because of
environmental impact investigation of VOCs incineration and GAC adsorption process,
accounting LCA is preferable. On the other hand, due to another purpose of this study, which
is comparison of two flue gas treatment methods from environmental point of view, change-
oriented LCA could be also applicable. Therefore, the combination of accounting and change-
oriented can fulfill the study purposes [7].

4.2.1.7 System boundaries

As system boundary is the baseline for drawing required LCI flowchart, five different
boundaries were considered in this study as follows.

System boundary in relation to natural system

The system boundary in relation to natural system is cradle- to- cradle for GAC adsorption
method. The system boundary for GAC adsorption was assumed to be started from coal
extraction and continue into GAC production. After using produced GAC, it was assumed to
be reactivated after one year operation. On the other hand, for GAC production process,
natural gas should be extracted and transported to GAC manufacture plant.

This kind of system boundary is completely different for VOCs incineration method. The
natural gas should be extracted and transported to plant where the polluted air is emitted.
Natural gas is consumed for operating of RTO and burning toluene in polluted air. Therefore,
system boundary in VOCs incineration is cradle- to- grave because there is no recycling
process.

Geographical boundaries

The plant where the polluted flue gas is emitted was assumed to be in Bors, Sweden. The
selected GAC, AP4-60, is produced by Calgon Carbon Corporation in Datong (Shanxi,
province, China) [37]. The produced GAC is transported from Datong to Tianjin port in China
(323 km by road vehicles). Due to long distance between China and Sweden, produced GAC
is transported from Tianjin to Gothenburg by ship (11496 Nautical miles
1
). GAC is also
transported between Gothenburg to Bors by truck (60 km).

According to European natural gas network published by Inogate, natural gas imported to
Sweden is extracted in Yamal field (north of Russia) and transported by pipeline to
Gothenburg [38]. The required natural gas for Sweden is fed by Baltic pipeline. In fact,
extracted natural gas from north of Russia is exported to Belarus, Poland, Germany, Denmark
and Sweden, respectively [39]. The length of Baltic pipeline, from Yamal field to
Gothenburg, is approximately 4960 km
2
(Red line in Figure 12). Required natural gas for
VOCs incineration was assumed to be transported from Gothenburg to Bors (60 km) by road
vehicles. Baltic natural gas pipeline is shown in Figure 12.

1
1 Nautical mile= 1.852 km, (http://e-ships.net/dist.htm)
2
http://maps.google.com/
18

Figure 12.Baltic natural gas network [38, 39]

On the other hand, required natural gas for GAC production is extracted from Ordos basin in
Yinchuan (northeast of China) and transported to GAC manufacturing location in Datong by
885 km pipeline. The pipeline direction from Yinchuan to Datong is shown in Figure 13 with
red line [40, 41].

Figure 13.Pipeline direction between natural gas basin and GAC manufacture [41]

The main equipments for GAC adsorption and VOCs incineration methods are provided from
USA and Germany. Although the equipments are produced in different cities of USA, they
were assumed to be transported to New York port by road vehicles and then transported to
Sweden by ship. The transportation way and distance are available in Table App 5.1.

Time horizon

According to LCA type assumed in this study (combination of accounting and change-
oriented) both prospective and retrospective time horizon must be considered [7]. If polluted
flue gas is emitted without any treatment, the toluene can create ground level ozone. The
creation of O
3
at ground level has both short-term impacts on human respiratory system and
long-term effects on lung system based on exposure duration [42]. According to change-
oriented approach of LCA and by considering of 9.5 years for depreciation life of chemical
19

process equipments [43], time horizon of this study is at least 10 years in short-term vision.
On the other hand, some environmental impact categories considered in this study such as
global warming have long-term impacts [7]. Therefore, time horizon is varied regarding to
short or long term vision.

Criteria for initial inclusion of inputs and outputs
3

According to Swedish Program for Environmental Product Declarations (1999), the
production of capital goods such as vehicles, machinery, building, etc were neglected in this
study [7]. Due to transportation of some required equipments from USA and Germany, the
environmental impact of transportation was considered.

As the steam regeneration of GAC was considered during operation of adsorption vessel, the
reactivation of GAC is postponed. Therefore, used GAC needs to be reactivated after one
year. After several times reactivation, reactivated GAC lose the ability of adsorption. Thus,
according to one year duration considered as functional unit period in this study, used GAC
does not need to be landfilled. As a result, the waste management of GAC was neglected. On
the other side, no waste management for natural gas extraction and treatment was considered.

In this study, the environmental impact of extraction, treatment, transportation by pipeline and
combustion of natural gas were considered. The treatment consists of purification,
desulphurization, gasification and addition of odorant [32].

Due to lack of data about accurate place of hard coal mine and distance between hard coal
mine and GAC production plant in Datong, transportation of hard coal to production plant
was neglected. The environmental impacts of ten different processes during GAC production
were considered. According to Bayers research in 2005, these main processes for GAC
production consist of wet grinding of coal, mixing with binding agent, creation of briquettes,
oxidation, drying, carbonization, activation, crushing, sieving and packaging [8]. On the
other hand, due to lack of data about occupied land area by plants, land use impact category
was neglected in this study.

According to small amount of natural gas required for GAC production based on functional
unit and annual production of Ordos basin (2.8 billion m
3
) and lack of data about allocation,
no input energy was considered for natural gas transportation by pipeline [41].

As extraction and treatment of natural gas were assumed to be done in the same place,
therefore, no transportation was considered between natural gas extraction and treatment
location. Furthermore, the emission of electricity distribution was neglected.

System boundary in relation to allocation

Among three different allocation methods proposed in ISO 14041 (1998), the partitioning
method was used [7]. The most important allocation in this study is related to transportation
of equipments and adsorbent. By considering the weight of transported material and
equipments and selection of suitable vehicle, weight partitioning was used.

3
ISO 14041 (1998)
20

As total extracted natural gas from north of Russia and Ordos basin in China is not consumed
in flue gas treatment in Bors, so there is a kind of allocation in natural gas extraction,
treatment and transportation. The inventory of emissions was calculated based on results
gained by Dinca et al [32]. As their functional unit was production of 100 GJ heat by natural
gas, they observed involved allocation in their study based on required natural gas for
production of 100 GJ heat (2831 m
3
). To avoid repetitive calculations, further allocation was
neglected for natural gas processing.

GAC production environmental impacts were calculated by using results achieved by Bayer et
al [8]. As they calculated indicator values based on one tone GAC production, there is no
allocation related to GAC production in this study.

4.2.2 Inventory analysis

4.2.2.1 Inventory analysis of GAC adsorption method

In this part, general LCI of GAC adsorption method is firstly described with a flow chart.
Then three separate flow charts are constructed with normalized data for each case.

4.2.2.1.1 General LCI description for GAC adsorption method

LCI flow chart

Figure 14 shows LCI flow chart for GAC adsorption method in general.

Figure 14.LCI flow chart for GAC adsorption process

Summary of Raw materials flow, equipments and transportations

According to similarity of GAC type and production process considered in this study and
research done by Bayer et al, the result was used for GAC production process [8]. GAC
21

production block in Figure 14 consists of 10 different processes mentioned in Part 5.1.7. To
produce 1 ton GAC, 3 ton hard coal is required as raw material [8]. Hard coal was assumed to
be extracted in Datong close to GAC manufacture plant. On the other hand, required amount
of natural gas for 1 ton GAC activation is 330 m
3
[8]. Natural gas is extracted in Yinchuan
and transported to Datong by 885 km pipeline [40, 41]. Produced GAC in Datong should be
transported by semi- trailer truck to Tianjin (323 km). After that, required GAC was assumed
to be transported 21291 km from Tianjin to Gothenburg by large ship and then is transported
60 km to Bors by medium sized distribution truck [7].

Vessels, chillers and decanter are also transported from USA and Germany to plant location
in Bors. The distance of transportation and transportation type of these equipments are
shown in Table App 5.1.

Energy consumption

The energy required for natural gas extraction depends on extraction from off-shore or on-
shore reservoirs [44]. As natural gas is extracted from on-shore reservoir in Yinchuan,
required energy for extraction is 7.2% of natural gas energy content extracted [44]. Therefore,
according to energy content of natural gas(~38.3 MJ/m
3
), required energy for extraction of
natural gas is 2.76 MJ/m
3
[45]. On the other hand, required energy for natural gas treatment is
approximately equal to 2.2% of energy content of treated natural gas [44]. Therefore, 0.85 MJ
energy is needed for treatment of one cubic meter natural gas [45]. By considering all
activities of GAC production (from hard coal extraction to GAC packaging), total energy
required for production of 1 ton GAC is 1600 kWh [8].

On the other side, according to road and sea transportation data published by NTM in Table
App 5.4, required energy for transportation of produced GAC from Datong to Bors is
summarized in Table 5 [7]. By considering two available data for energy and emission of
road vehicles manufactured between 1996- 2000 (Euro 2) and later than 2000 (Euro 3), most
recent data (Euro 3) was used for both energy and emission of road transportation [7].

Table 5.Energy requirement for transportation of produced GAC [7]
Direction
Distance
(km)
Vehicle type
Pay load
capacity (ton)
Energy
(MJ/t.km)
Datong- Tianjin 323 Truck with semi-trailer 26 0.72
Tianjin- Gothenburg 21291 Large ship >8000- 280000 0.216
Gothenburg- Bors 60 Medium sized truck 8.5-14 1.87

According to data published by NTM, selected vehicles for equipment transportation are
summarized in Table 6 [7]. The information of equipments transportation is available in
Table App 5.1. The energy required for each vehicle is also available in Table App 5.4.

22

Table 6.Selected vehicles to transport equipment for GAC adsorption method
Equip. Producer
Equipment
model
*
Equip.
weight
(kg)
Vehicle type
**
Distance
4

(km)
Vessel
Calgon
Carbon Co.
VAPOR-
PAC 10
12474
Truck with semi-trailer
Large ship
Medium sized truck
600
6610
60
Chiller
Advantage
Engineering
Inc.
C-5APT-RC 205 Truck with semi-trailer
Large ship
Medium sized truck
1162
6610
60
CCC-180APT-
RC
1905
Chiller

Carrier

30XA080-500 12200
Medium sized truck
Large ship
Medium sized truck
188
6610
60
Decanter
Franken
Filtertechnik
KG
MPT042 2020 Truck with semi-trailer
Small ship
440
465
285
MPT074 5760
MPT104 8600
*To see details of equipment model refer to Appendix 4- process design part
**Pay load capacity and energy requirement for vehicle type is the same as Table 5 and Table App 5.4

Electrical energy was considered as energy for operating some major equipments of GAC
adsorption process in use block shown in Figure 14. The model of some equipment such as air
fan and air heater is the same for all three cases while their operation times are different. The
electrical energy required for equipments was calculated based on functional unit and
summarized in Table 7. The calculation details are available in Appendix 4.1-4.3.

Table 7.Total electrical energy required for running equipment- GAC adsorption method
Equipment
Case 1
(kWh/f.u.
5
)
Case 2
(kWh/f.u.)
Case 3
(kWh/f.u.)
Steam generating 3788 37338 74480
Air fan 43845 43845 43845
Air heater 133 939.17 1755.8
Chiller 15 548.06 2224.6
Total electrical energy for running equipments 47781 82671 122305.4

Emission

To calculate the emission of natural gas extraction, treatment and transportation, the result
achieved by Dinca et al was used by considering some changes due to different functional
units. The emissions considered in this study for natural gas extraction, treatment and
transportation are based on result of site 1 in research done by Dinca et al [32]. According to
Dinca et al, gas turbine for heat production works at back pressure in site 1. Therefore, the
specific fuel consumption of considered turbine at back pressure is 3.9 GJ/MWh [32]. By

4
Distance calculation has been done by:
Road: http://maps.google.com/
Sea: http://e-ships.net/
5
Functional unit
23

considering the energy content of natural gas, which is 38.3 MJ/m
3
, natural gas consumption
is 101.83 m
3
/MWh for considered gas turbine [32, 45]. As the functional unit considered by
Dinca is production of 100 GJ heat (27.8 MWh), by some calculation it is specified that 2831
m
3
natural gas is responsible for emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment and 450 km
transportation by pipeline (Table App 5.3) [32].

Due to similarity of selected adsorbent (AP4-60) and used GAC in research done by Bayer et
al, emissions of GAC production used by Bayer et al was used in this study [8]. The
emissions of 1 ton GAC production by considering hard coal extraction to GAC packaging
are summarized in Table App 5.2 [8, 46].

As shown in Table 5, three different vehicles were used to transport GAC from Datong to
Bors (truck with semi-trailer, large ship and medium sized truck). To calculate total emission
produced by these three vehicles, road and sea transportation emissions published by NTM
2002 (Euro 3) was used [7]. By considering the same vehicles for transportation of
equipments as shown in Table 6, the same emissions were also considered for GAC and
equipments transportation. The emissions of sea and road vehicles considered in this study are
available in Table App 5.4.

As mentioned, all equipments operate by electrical energy in GAC adsorption method. As
electricity production is done by using several resources in Sweden such as nuclear energy,
hydro energy, etc, the emissions of each method were separately considered. By comparing
the electricity production in 2000 and 2005, the results showed that there is no big difference
between resource percentages used to produce electricity in 2000 and 2005. Therefore, data
published by IEA 2000 and Frischknecht et al were used to calculate total emissions of
electricity production in Sweden [7, 47]. The percentage of electricity production in Sweden
based on different energy source and emissions of electricity production are shown in Table
App 5.5.

Water use

As illustrated in Figure 14, water is directly used in GAC production and use parts. On the
other hand, water is used as an input resource to produce electricity [7]. The amount of water
required for electricity production was calculated based on Frischknecht et al [7]. On the
other hand, 12 ton water is needed for production of 1 ton GAC [8]. As the amount of water
vapor for steam regenerating of GAC is different in each case, required water for use part
based on functional unit is 5145 (kg/f.u.), 50715(kg/f.u.) and 101185 (kg/f.u.) respectively for
Case 1, 2 and 3. The calculation details are available in Appendix 4.1-4.3.

Natural resource

In addition to using of natural resources, which has several emissions, extraction of natural
resources results depletion of global resources. By considering system boundary for GAC
adsorption method, approximately 7.2 m
3
natural gas should be consumed to extract 100
cubic meter of natural gas [44]. On the other hand, to treat 100 m
3
natural gas 2.2 m
3
natural
gas is required [44]. The amount of natural gas and hard coal as two major natural resources
used in GAC production process is summarized in Appendix 4.1-4.3. Although some natural
resources are not directly used during treatment of polluted flue gas, they are source of
electricity production. The natural resources for electricity production are listed in Table App
5.5 as ground depletion.
24

4.2.2.1.2 Normalized data for Case 1- GAC adsorption method

As shown in Figure 15, the inputs and outputs of each block were normalized based on
functional unit. These inputs and outputs consist of raw materials flow, required energy,
process and transportation emissions, required water and natural resources. Required amount
of natural gas (69.63 m
3
) is extracted and treated in Yinchuan and transported by 885 km
pipeline to Datong. On the other hand, 633 kg hard coal and 2532 kg water are needed to
produce 211 kg GAC. The energy required to produce GAC is 1215.36 MJ. Required GAC
for use part is transported from Datong to Bors (transportation distance and selected vehicles
are available in Table App 6.1). According to selected vehicles types and by considering
required energy for each vehicle (Table App 5.4), total energy required for GAC and
equipments transportation was calculated. In the use part, 211 kg GAC and 5145 kg water are
required to treat polluted flue gas (Appendix 4.1). On the other hand, electrical energy for
operating equipments in use part is 0.172 TJ. All emissions shown in Figure 15 were
calculated separately in Table App 6.1-6.5. Total emissions considered in the system
boundary of Case 1 are shown in Table App 6.6. All calculation details are available in
Appendix 4.1.

As shown in Figure 15, water is used directly in GAC production and use part. By
considering required amount of water to produce electricity and water used in GAC
production and use part, total water required in Case 1 is equal to 353858 kg (Appendix 4.1).
As electricity is produced from different natural resources in Sweden, total natural resources
for electricity production were calculated and summarized in Table App 6.7. By considering
required natural gas and hard coal in system boundary of Case 1, total natural gas and hard
coal is 167.8 m
3
and 1400 kg, respectively (Appendix 4.1). Total fossil energy required for
transportation of GAC and equipments are available in Table App 6.8.


Figure 16 shows the normalized data for Case 2 where the concentration of toluene is 1000
mg/m
3
. The extraction, treatment and transportation of natural gas required for Case 2 are like
Case 1. However, they were calculated based on required natural gas in Case 2
(489.06m
3
/f.u.). The energy required for extraction and treatment of natural gas was
calculated based on percentage of natural gas extracted or treated. Hard coal required for
producing 1482 kg GAC is 4446 kg. The energy needed for producing 1482 kg GAC is
8536.32 MJ. Like Case 1, the location of GAC production is in Datong and produced GAC is
transported to Bors (transportation details are available in Appendix 4.2).

The equipments are transported with two differences compared to Case 1. The reason of
difference is due to using different decanter and chiller with different weight. The energy
required for GAC and equipment transportation was calculated according to NTM 2002 [7].
As shown in Figure 16, electrical energy for use part is 0.298 TJ. All emissions considered in
the system boundary of Case 2 were calculated in Table App 6.9-6.13 and summarized in
Table App 6.14. All calculation details for Case 2 are available in Appendix 4.2. Total water
required for GAC production, use part and also electricity production is equal to 653893 kg.
Total natural resources required for Case 2 are available in Table App 6.15. Furthermore, total
fossil energy required for running of vehicles was calculated in Table App 6.16.

25


As illustrated in Figure 17, natural gas required for Case 3 (910.8 m
3
) is extracted and treated
by consuming different amount of energy (2513.8 and 774.18 MJ, respectively). Natural gas
required for Case 3 is also transported by 885 km pipeline from Yinchuan to Datong for thr
purpose of GAC production. As shown in Figure 17, 8280 kg hard coal and 33120 kg water
are needed for GAC production plant to produce 2760 kg GAC. The required energy for
production of that amount of GAC is 15897.6 MJ. By considering vehicle types and
transportation distance, energy required for equipment and GAC transportation is 53883.7 and
13644.4 MJ, respectively. The electrical energy required for operating equipments in use part
is 0.44 TJ. All emissions shown in Figure 17 were calculated in Table App 6.17- 6.21 and
summarized in Table App 6.22. The calculation details are available in Appendix 4.3.
According to system boundary of Case 3, total required water is 998669 kg. Total natural
resources were also calculated and summarized in Table App 6.23. Fossil energy needed for
equipments and GAC transportation was calculated in Table App 6.24.

Figure 15.LCI flow chart (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1

26



4.2.2.2 Inventory analysis for VOCs incineration method

The general description of VOCs incineration method is the first part of VOCs incineration
life cycle inventory analysis. After that, three considered cases are separately explained and
their results are summarized in Appendix 7.

27

4.2.2.2.1 General LCI description for VOCs incineration method

LCI flow chart

General LCI flow chart for VOCs incineration method is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18.LCI flow chart for VOCs incineration process

Summary of natural gas and equipments transportation

Natural gas is extracted and treated in Yamal field (north of Russia) and transported by 4960
km pipeline to Gothenburg. According to Swedish Energy Agency, as Bors is not connected
to Swedish natural gas network, natural gas required for operating of RTO equipment was
assumed to be transported 60 km by truck with semi-trailer from Gothenburg to Bors [48].
RTO equipment, produced by Anguil, is transported from Milwaukee (USA) to Bors by sea
and road (Details are available in Table App 5.1).

Energy consumption

As there is no off-shore natural gas reservoir in Russia, energy required for extraction of on-
shore reservoir was considered in this method [32]. Therefore, energy required for extraction
and treatment of natural gas is 2.76 and 0.85 MJ/m
3
, respectively.

Furthermore, natural gas is transported 6o km by truck with semi-trailer from Gothenburg to
Bors. RTO equipment should be transported from Milwaukee to Bors by large ship and
semi-trailer truck. By considering transportation data published by NTM in 2002 (Euro 3),
energy required for natural gas and RTO transportation was calculated based on Table 8 [7].

28

Table 8.Energy requirement for natural gas and RTO equipment transportation [7]

Direction
Distance
(km)
Vehicle type
Pay load
capacity (ton)
Energy
(MJ/t.km)
Natural gas Gothenburg- Bors 60 Truck with semi-trailer 26 0.72
RTO equip.
Milwaukee New York 1440 Truck with semi-trailer 26 0.72
New York- Gothenburg 6610 Large ship >8000-280000 0.216
Gothenburg- Bors 60 Truck with semi-trailer 26 0.72

Natural gas and electrical energy are two major energy sources required in use part shown in
Figure 18. In fact, natural gas is required for burning polluted flue gas and electrical energy is
needed to operate RTO equipment. As the same RTO equipment was considered for all three
cases, the electrical energy required for operation of RTO equipment is the same for all cases.
On other side, according to different concentration of toluene in each case, different amount
of natural gas is needed to burn polluted flue gas.

Emissions

The results of research done by Dinca et al were used for emission calculation of natural gas
extraction, treatment and pipeline transportation by considering different functional unit
between this study and Dincas research (Table App 5.3). The emissions produced by natural
gas combustion in use part were also calculated based on Dincas results. To calculate
emissions of electricity production in Sweden, data published by IEA 2000 and Frischknecht
et al were used (Table App 5.5) [7, 47].

As illustrated in Table 8, only two types of vehicles were used to transport natural gas and
RTO equipment in VOCs incineration method. To calculate total emissions produced by these
vehicles, data published by NTM 2002 (Euro 3) was used (Table App 5.4) [7].

Water use

As shown in Figure 18, there is no direct water use in considered system boundary for VOCs
incineration method. Water is only used for electricity production according to data published
by IEA 2000 and Frischknecht et al (Table App 5.5) [7].

Natural resource

In addition to natural gas required for burning polluted flue gas in use part, natural gas needed
for extraction and treatment of natural gas was considered in order to calculation of total
natural resource depletion. According to data published by IEA 2000 and Frischknecht et al,
natural resources for electricity production were also considered in VOCs incineration part
(Table App 5.5) [7]. Required fossil energy for sea and road vehicles was calculated for total
natural resource depletion based on Table App 5.4.

4.2.2.2.2 Normalized data for Case 1- VOCs incineration method

As shown in Figure 19, natural gas, only input in use part, should be extracted in Yamal field
and treated at the same place. The required natural gas is transported by 4960 km pipeline
from Yamal field to Gothenburg. Then, it is transported 60 km from Gothenburg to Bors by
semi-trailer truck. According to IEA 2000 and Frischknecht et al, several natural resources
29

were considered to produce 0.279 TJ electricity in Sweden [7]. RTO equipment is transported
from Milwaukee (USA) to Bors by sea and road transportation with details mentioned in
Table 8. All common emissions between all three cases were calculated in Table App 7.1 and
7.2. The emissions of Case 1 are separately available in Table App 7.4 and 7.5. The summery
of all emissions in Figure 19 is also available in Table App 7.6. The emission of use part is
only produced by natural gas combustion. Furthermore, the fossil energy required for vehicles
such as trucks and ship was considered in order to calculate total natural resource depletion
(Table App 7.7). All natural resources used to produce electricity for all cases are shown in
Table App 7.3. To see all calculation details refer to Appendix 4.4.


As illustrated in Figure 20, natural gas required for Case 2 is 73696m
3
/f.u. The natural gas
required for this case is also extracted from Yamal field and transported by 4960 km pipeline
to Gothenburg and then transported 60 km by semi-trailer truck from Gothenburg to Bors.
As the same RTO equipment is used for all three cases, the same amount of electricity
(0.279TJ) is required for operating of RTO. Therefore, the energy required and emissions
produced in electricity production and equipment transportation are the same for Case 1 and
2. All calculation details are available in Appendix 4.5. Instead of common emissions of all
three cases in VOCs incineration method (Appendix 7.1), other emissions considered in
system boundary of Case 2 are available in Table App 7.8 and 7.9 and summarized with
common emissions in Table App 7.10. Moreover, as electricity required in all three cases is
the same, the natural resources needed to produce electricity are also the same for all three
cases (Table App 7.3). By considering RTO equipment and natural gas transportation,
required fossil fuels for running ship and truck were also calculated and summarized in Table
App 7.11.


As the amount of toluene existing in polluted flue gas in Case 3 is more than Case 1 and 2,
less natural gas is needed compared to other cases. The natural gas required for this case is
39494m
3
/f.u (Figure 21). As previous cases, natural gas should be transported 4960 km by
pipeline from Russia to Gothenburg and then transported 60 km by semi-trailer truck from
Gothenburg to Bors. The electricity required for Case 3 is 0.279 TJ, so there is no difference
between emissions of electricity production in this case and Case 1 and 2. On the other hand,
RTO equipment in Case 3 that should be transported from USA to Sweden is the same as
other cases. Therefore, energy required for transportation of RTO equipment and also
produced emissions in Case 3 are equal with other cases. All emissions considered in system
boundary of Case 3 were calculated and summarized in Table App 7.14. As shown in Table
App 7.3, natural resources to produce electricity in Case 3 are also the same as natural
resource in other cases since the required electricity is the same in all three cases. Total fossil
energy required for RTO equipment and natural gas transportation is available in Table App
7.15. All calculations are available in Appendix 4.6.

30

Figure 19.LCI flow chart (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1


31


4.2.2.3 Inventory analysis for Non-treatment alternative

As no equipment was considered for non-treatment alternative, no system boundary was used
for this alternative. In fact, as polluted flue gas was assumed to be emitted without any
treatment, toluene is only emission in non-treatment alternative. Therefore, emission to air is
only environmental impact of this alternative. By considering functional unit, the amount of
toluene emitted was calculated in Appendix 4.7. The results show that total amount of toluene
emitted is 1960, 19600 and 39200 (kg/f.u.) for Case 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

4.2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

As many standards are available for life cycle impact assessment, different definitions have
been come up for LCIA. In fact LCIA is a comprehensive way to translate results of
inventory analysis to a comparable data [7]. There are several standards for LCIA included
some differences in suggested process; SETAC 1993, LCANET 1997, ISO 14040 1997 and
ISO 14042 2000 [7]. By considering all mentioned standards ISO 14042 2000, the most
recent one, was used for doing LCIA in this study. According to selected standard, LCIA
should be done by considering six different steps; impact category definition, classification,
characterization, normalization, grouping/ weighting and data quality analysis. According to
ISO 14042, the first three steps are mandatory and the rest is optional [49].

4.2.3.1 Impact category definition

By considering all parameters related to impact category definition proposed by ISO 14042
2000 (completeness, practicality, independence, possibility to integrate to LCA calculation,
environmental relevance and scientific methods), three major impact categories were
considered in this study; resource use, human health consequence and ecological consequence
[49].

32

According to different system boundaries considered for treatment methods and also non-
treatment alternative, all mentioned impact categories are not relevant to all treatment
methods. Therefore, as just toluene is emitted in non-treatment alternative and by considering
system boundaries in this study, non-treatment alternative has no impact on resource use.
Furthermore, all three major impact categories are the same for both GAC adsorption and
VOCs incineration methods.

4.2.3.2 Classification

The classification part of LCIA was done based on emissions and natural resources calculated
in inventory analysis part and data published in CML 2002 [7]. There are nine different sub-
categories in impact assessment based on data published by CML 2002; depletion of abiotic
resources, land use, global warming, ozone depletion potential, human toxicity, ecotoxicity
potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, acidification and eutrophication potentials
[7]. As already mentioned in goal and scope definition, due to lack of data about occupied
land, land use was neglected for all methods and alternative.

By comparing results of LCI shown in Appendix 6 and 7 and data published by CML 2002, it
was specified that due to using natural resources to produce electricity and fossil energy for
transportation, GAC adsorption and VOCs incineration methods have impacts on depletion of
resources. On the other side, non-treatment alternative has no impact on resource depletion.
According to existence of CO
2
and CH
4
emissions for treatment methods, both of them have
global warming potential. The results of LCI also show that there is no substance in both
methods and alternative that can create ozone depletion.

As GAC adsorption and VOCs incineration methods have chemical substances like Cd, PAH,
Pb, both of them have potentiality of human toxicity and ecotoxicity. Furthermore, according
to toluene emission in non-treatment alternative, it has also human toxicity and ecotoxicity
potential. Due to CO and SO
2
existing in GAC adsorption and VOCs incineration methods
and toluene in non-treatment alternative, all three methods and alternative have
photochemical ozone creation potential. On the other hand, LCI results show that both GAC
adsorption and VOCs incineration have acidification and eutrophication potentials while non-
treatment alternative does not. All environmental impact potentials are summarized in Table
9.

Table 9.Classification of environmental impact potentials
DAR LU GWP ODP HT ET POCP AP EP
GAC adsorption method
VOCs incineration method
Non-treatment alternative

4.2.3.3 Characterization

The quantitative part of LCIA, characterization, was done based on data published by CML
2002 and summarized in Appendix 8.1,8.2 and 8.3 [7]. The NMVOC emissions considered in
this study was assumed to be just formaldehyde. On the other hand, all Cr emission was
supposed to be Cr VI. By considering time horizon of this study (mentioned in goal and scope
definition part), GWP for 500 years was used as global warming indicators [7]. According to
33

CML 2002, as different ecotoxicity potentials like FAETP, MAETP and TETP should not add
before weighting, all these potentials were calculated separately and were added in weighting
part [50]. The water use was also calculated for all three cases just for comparison based on
its weight. However, no water use was considered in data published by CML [7].

4.2.3.4 Weighting

Considering the purpose of this study, the optional step of LCIA (weighting) was done to
make the results much more understandable. According to different ready-made LCIA
methods such as Ecoindicator99, EPS, Environmental themes and EDIP, Environmental
themes was chosen as weighing method [7]. As Environmental themes, which has Dutch base
was adopted to Swedish environmental policy in 1994, this method completely fulfilled the
purpose of this study due to geographical boundary [7]. Moreover, among all weighing
methods, Environmental themes is only method that can cover all environmental impact
existing in LCI of this study [7]. By considering time horizon of this study, which is long term
perspective, since ET-long (20-100 years) was used as weighing indicator, Environmental
themes could cover this issue [7]. The weighting results of all cases in GAC adsorption and
VOCs incineration methods and also Non-treatment alternative are available in Appendix 9.

5. Result ( Interpretation of LCA result)

According to Diagram App 10.1 and 10.2, when GAC adsorption method is used, the natural
resource and energy consumption is increased by increasing of toluene concentration in
influent stream. Furthermore, the environmental impact of GAC adsorption method is
increased when the toluene concentration is raised. This result is shown in Diagram App 10.3
-10.11. These environmental impacts consist of depletion of abiotic resources, global
warming potential, photochemical ozone creation, acidification, eutrophication, human
toxicity and ecotoxicity.

According to Diagram App 10.12, when toluene concentration is increased, the most negative
environmental impacts is ranked from high to low as following order; global warming
potential, depletion of abiotic resources, ecotoxicity (MAETP), ecotoxicity (FAETP), human
toxicity, photochemical ozone creation, acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity (TETP).
In the other words, by using GAC adsorption method, the most negative impact is global
warming potential when the toluene concentration is increased. Moreover, GAC adsorption
method has the lowest environmental impact on ecotoxicity (TETP) in the same situation. As
shown in Diagram App 10.13, all environmental impacts were summarized based on weighted
indices. The most important result gained from this diagram shows that the environmental
impact of GAC adsorption method is increased when the toluene concentration is raised.

The analysis of VOCs incineration method shows different results. As shown in Diagram App
10.14, most natural resources are equally consumed in all three cases except natural gas when
VOCs incineration method is applicable. Furthermore, Diagram App 10.15 shows that the
energy consumption of natural gas extraction, treatment and transportation is decreased when
the toluene concentration is increased. As shown in Diagram App 10.16 10.24, by
increasing toluene concentration, the environmental impact of DAR, GWP, POCP, AP, EP,
HT and ET is decreased. Furthermore, Diagrams App 10.25 and 10.26 show that the
environmental impact of VOCs incineration method is decreased when the toluene
concentration is increased.

34

The results of Non-treatment alternative shown in Diagram App 10.27- 10.31 illustrate that
the environmental impact of this alternative on POCP, HT and ET is increased when the inlet
toluene concentration is increased. These results are shown in overall in Diagram App 10.32
and 10.33.

All diagrams in Appendix 10.4 show the comparison of methods and alternative in terms of
different toluene concentration. As illustrated in Diagram App 10.34, when the toluene
concentration is low (Case 1), GAC adsorption method has lower impacts on natural resource
consumption compared to VOCs incineration method regardless of the impact on hard coal
resource. Furthermore, Non-treatment alternative has no environmental impact on natural
resource consumption. According to Diagram App 10.35 and 0.36 (unlike Case 1) the results
of Case 2 and 3 show that by increasing of toluene concentration, VOCs incineration method
has lower impact on natural resource consumption compared to GAC adsorption.

Moreover, as no treatment is performed in Non-treatment alternative, no energy is used.
Therefore, according to Diagram App 10.38, this alternative has no environmental impact on
energy consumption. As illustrated in Diagram App 10.39 and 10.40, Non-treatment
alternative has no environmental impact on depletion of abiotic resources and global
warming. Furthermore, GAC adsorption method is environmentally preferable compared to
VOCs incineration method for all three cases. On the other hand, the environmental impact of
VOCs incineration method on DAR and GWP is decreased by increasing of toluene
concentration in polluted flue gas. As shown in Diagram App 10.41, Non-treatment
alternative has high impact on POCP since toluene is emitted without any treatment. GAC
adsorption method is preferable compared to VOCs incineration in terms of impact on POCP.

On the other hand, as shown in Diagram App 10.42 and 10.43, Non-treatment has also no
impact on AP and EP. Like GWP and DAR, when the concentration of toluene is increased in
inlet stream, environmental impact of VOCs incineration method is decreased on AP and EP.
In addition, GAC adsorption method has less impact compared to VOCs incineration method
on these two impact categories. Moreover, as illustrated in Diagram App 10.44, GAC
adsorption method has less impact on HT compared to VOCs incineration method when the
inlet toluene concentration is low (Case 1). In this case, Non-treatment alternative is
environmentally preferable compared to VOCs incineration. The results comparison of Case
2 and 3 is completely the same. It means that GAC adsorption method, VOCs incineration
method and Non-treatment alternative are respectively preferable in Case 2 and 3 in terms of
environmental impact on HT.

According to Diagram App 10.45, the order of GAC adsorption method, Non-treatment
alternative, and VOCs incineration method are environmentally preferable in terms of impacts
on FAETP. On the other side, according to Diagram App 10.46 and 10.47, the results show
that if polluted flue gas is emitted without any treatment, it has lower environmental impact
on MAETP and TETP compared to when it is treated.

By considering all diagrams shown in Appendix 10, the main result shows that environmental
impact of GAC adsorption method on energy and natural resource consumption, DAR, GWP,
POCP, AP, EP, HT and ET is increased by increasing of toluene concentration (>1000
mg/m
3
). On the other side, environmental impact of VOCs incineration method on mentioned
impact categories is decreased when toluene concentration is increased. By considering Non-
treatment alternative, as toluene is emitted without any treatment, this alternative affects more
on POCP, HT and ET when toluene concentration is escalated.
35

According to Figure 22, which is the most important result gained from this study, it is
concluded that GAC adsorption method is environmentally preferable when the concentration
of toluene is low (< 100 mg/m
3
). In fact, when the toluene concentration is not very high,
Non-treatment alternative is preferable rather than VOCs incineration method. On the other
hand, the result of Case 2 and 3 showed that when toluene concentration of inlet stream is
increased (>1000 mg/m
3
), GAC adsorption method, VOCs incineration method and Non-
treatment alternative are respectively more desirable from environmental point of view.
Moreover, using VOCs incineration becomes much more significant when the toluene
concentration of inlet stream is increased. In this case, the environmental impact of VOCs
incineration is decreased by increasing of inlet toluene concentration.

Figure 22.Weighted result

6. Discussion

To interpret the results of LCA and present it to stakeholders mentioned in goal and scope
definition, quantitative results was considered in this study. The quantitative results consist of
three different categories; energy consumption, impact assessment characterization and
weighted results [7]. According to goal and scope definition, since present study has different
kind of audiences, the formats of results interpretation were selected in a way that all
involved stakeholders can gain their own interested results.

By considering all calculations done in the inventory analysis and impact assessment, their
results were interpreted in two ways. Once, all three cases of each treatment method or
alternative were compared (i.e. Case 1, 2 and 3 for GAC absorption method), and then the
same cases of different methods and alternative were compared (i.e. Case 1 of GAC
adsorption vs. Case 1 of VOCs incineration vs. Case 1 of Non-treatment alternative). All
interpretation diagrams are available in Appendix 10.

Furthermore, according to big difference existing between some cases and also by considering
the main purpose of this study, which is comparison of flue gas treatment methods, results
were interpreted in normalized form in some cases such as natural resource consumption,
energy consumption and environmental impact comparison shown in Appendix 10.
According to Henrikke Baumann et al, to prepare diagrams in normalized form, the cases
related to GAC adsorption method were assumed to be 1 unit as a basis, then other cases
related to VOCs incineration and Non-treatment alternative were compared to GAC
adsorption results to find how many times they are more or less [7].

36

As illustrated in Diagram App 10.1, when GAC adsorption method is used, the difference of
natural gas and hard coal are very big compared to other resources. In fact, as the treatment
process needs more GAC for treating of polluted flue gas with higher toluene concentration,
more natural gas and hard coal are required for GAC production. On the other side, according
to Diagram App 10.2, as the required amount of GAC is increased for polluted flue gas with
higher toluene concentration, there is a big difference for natural gas extraction and treatment.

On the other hand, according to Diagram App 10.14, the natural resource consumption in
VOCs incineration method is quite different from GAC adsorption method. In fact, as
polluted air is incinerated in this method, the existence toluene as a hydrocarbon plays the role
of fuel. Therefore, when the concentration of toluene is increased, the natural gas demand is
decreased. By following this fact, as shown in Diagram App 10.15, since inlet contaminated
flue gas with higher toluene concentration is less natural gas dependent, less energy is
consumed for natural gas extraction, treatment and transportation in the cases with more
toluene concentration. On the other side, since the same RTO equipment is used for all three
cases, the energy consumption for electricity production and equipment transportation are the
same for all three cases.

The results gained from Non-treatment alternative are completely different from other two
treatment methods. GAC adsorption and VOCs incineration methods have the same impact
categories (Table 9) while Non-treatment alternative has just some of them. As no treatment
process is done in this alternative, there is no impact on depletion of adiabatic resource and
energy consumption. According to Diagram App 10.27- 10.31, POCP, HT and ET are three
environmental impacts of Non-treatment alternative. Since toluene is emitted without any
treatment, all mentioned environmental impacts are the result of toluene emitted.

As shown in Diagram App 10.34, unlike all natural resources, when VOCs incineration is
used, hard coal is consumed less compared to when GAC adsorption method is exploited. In
fact, hard coal is used for GAC and electricity production. Therefore, using hard coal as raw
material for GAC production is the reason of higher impacts of GAC adsorption method
compared to VOCs incineration method while Non-treatment alternative has no
environmental impact on natural resource consumption. According to Diagram App 10.37,
when VOCs incineration method is used, the required amount of natural gas is decreased by
increasing of toluene concentration in polluted flue gas. The reason is that toluene plays the
role of fuel as a hydrocarbon.

Additionally, as shown in Diagram App 10.38, when the concentration of toluene is low
(Case 1 and 2), VOCs incineration method consumes more energy compared to GAC
adsorption method because the amount of toluene concentration is not enough high to act as a
fuel. In this case, more amount of natural gas is needed to incinerate toluene. On the other
side, when the toluene concentration is relatively high (Case 3), VOCs incineration method
consumes less energy compared to GAC adsorption method due to requirement of less natural
gas as additional fuel.

According to Diagram App 10.44, the comparison of two treatment methods and alternative
based on human toxicity results differently. In fact, since there is low concentration of toluene
in Case 1, Non-treatment alternative is environmentally preferable compared to VOCs
incineration method. In the other words, huge amount of natural gas is required to incinerate
polluted flue gas with low concentration of toluene. Conversely, the comparison of Case 2
and 3 in terms of environmental impacts on HT makes different result. In fact, in Case 2 and
37

3, as more amount of toluene is emitted when Non-treatment alternative is considered,
therefore treatment of polluted flue gas has low environmental impact on human toxicity. In
this case, GAC adsorption method and VOCs incineration method are respectively preferable.

In overall (as illustrated in this Figure 22) GAC adsorption method, Non-treatment alternative
and VOCs incineration method are respectively preferable from environmental point of view
in Case 1 when the inlet toluene concentration is low. It means that when the concentration of
toluene is very low, it is more preferable to release polluted flue gas to environment than
treating it with VOCs incineration method. On the other side, the results show that when the
concentration of toluene is relatively high (Case 2 and 3), GAC adsorption method is the best
technique compared to VOCs incineration method and Non-treatment alternative.
Furthermore, the weighted results show that unlike GAC adsorption method and Non-
treatment alternative, the environmental impact of VOCs incineration method is decreased by
increasing of inlet toluene concentration.

7. Conclusion

By considering of all aspects studied in this work, it is concluded that finding the best
treatment method or strategy is impossible since different toluene concentration in inlet
stream requires different treatment strategy. In the other words, the order of GAC adsorption
method, Non-treatment alternative and VOCs incineration method is preferable from
environmental point of view when the concentration of inlet toluene is low (e.g. Case 1=100
mg/m
3
). However, GAC adsorption, VOCs incineration and Non-treatment alternative are
respectively preferable when there is high concentration of toluene in inlet stream (e.g. Case
2= 1000 mg/m
3
and Case 3= 2000 mg/m
3
).

Furthermore, it is concluded that negative environmental impacts of GAC adsorption method
is increased by increasing of toluene concentration in inlet stream. However, treatment of
polluted flue gas with higher toluene concentration by VOCs incineration method has less
environmental impacts. In the other words, using VOCs incineration method is more
preferable when there is high inlet toluene concentration.

As a final conclusion, despite all results gained from this study, as the considered toluene
concentration of polluted flue gas for Case 1, 2 and 3 was just an assumption for this study, it
is possible that gained orders of preferable treatment strategy mentioned above are still valid
for other concentrations (e.g. <100 mg/m
3
or <1000 mg/m
3
).

38

References
1. Liu, P.-W.G., et al., Source impacts by volatile organic compounds in an industrial
city of southern Taiwan. Science of The Total Environment, 2008. 398(1-3): p. 154-
163.
2. Das, D., V. Gaur, and N. Verma, Removal of volatile organic compound by activated
carbon fiber. Carbon, 2004. 42(14): p. 2949-2962.
3. A. Aizpuru, L.M.J.C.R.J.L.F., Biofiltration of a mixture of volatile organic compounds
on granular activated carbon. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 2003. 83(4): p.
479-488.
4. Brasquet, C. and P. Le Cloirec, Adsorption onto activated carbon fibers: Application
to water and air treatments. Carbon, 1997. 35(9): p. 1307-1313.
5. Stulir, R., et al., Fully integrated unit for thermal treatment of gas wastes. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 2001. 21(13-14): p. 1383-1395.
6. Romero-Hernandez, O., To treat or not to treat?Applying chemical engineering tools
and a life cycle approach to assessing the level of sustainability of a clean-up
technology. The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2004. 6: p. 6.
7. Henrikke Baumann, A.-M.T., The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. 2004, Lund:
Studentlitteratur. 543.
8. Bayer, P., et al., Economical and ecological comparison of granular activated carbon
(GAC) adsorber refill strategies. Water Research, 2005. 39(9): p. 1719-1728.
9. Ekvall, T., et al., What life-cycle assessment does and does not do in assessments of
waste management. Waste Management, 2007. 27(8): p. 989-996.
10. Adsorption desorption technology. 2008 [cited 2008 24 July]; Available from:
http://sutcliffespeakman.com/techfrmr.htm.
11. Steve Van Dyke, A.W., Chang Lee,Refugio Ortiz, Adsorption, Senior Design CHE
396. 1999, University of Illinois.
12. Worrall, M. Capturing organic vapor from non-condensable gases using activated
carbon technology. Chemical Processing 1998.
13. Nevers, N.d., Air Pollution Control Engineering. 1995, New York: McGraw-Hill, cop.
506.
14. Rebitzer, G., et al., Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope
definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 2004.
30(5): p. 701-720.
15. Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, D.o. Army, Editor. 2001, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
39

16. Choi, B.S. and J. Yi, Simulation and optimization on the regenerative thermal
oxidation of volatile organic compounds. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2000. 76(2):
p. 103-114.
17. AP3-60 AND AP4-60 Coal based Extruded activated Carbon. 2008 [cited 2008 20
July]; Available from: http://www.zwicky.dk/ny/datablade/A-2050%20-%20E%20-
%20AP3-60%20&%20AP4-60%20-%2018.10.04.pdf.
18. Toxicology and Poisoning. 2008 [cited 2008 20 July].
19. Material Safety Data Sheet. 2007 [cited 2008 21 July].
20. Conlon, P., GAC desorption time 2008, Chemviron Carbon: London.
21. VAPOR-PAC 10, Equipment for VOC Control. 2008 [cited 2008 30 July];
Available from:
http://www.calgoncarbon.com/carbon_equipment/VaporPac10.pdf.pdf.
22. J. Gu, N.M.F.H.J.B., Drying of an Activated Carbon Column after Steam
Regeneration. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 1999. 22(10): p. 859-864.
23. Conlon, P., Steam consumption for AP4-60 regeneration. 2008, Chemviron Carbon:
London.
24. Winnick, J., Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. 1997, NewYork, USA: John
Wiley and Son 702.
25. Wight, G.D., Fundamentals of Air Sampling. 1994, CRC Press.
26. Larsson, L. Biomass- Wood. 2006 [cited 2008 19 Dec]; Available from:
www.agores.org/Publications/CityRES/English/Boras-SE-english.pdf.
27. SAGE. Average Annual Relative Humidity. 2002 [cited 2008 19Dec]; Available
from: http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/maps/avgannrh/atl_avgannrh_eur.jpg.
28. Air Process Heaters. 2008 [cited 2008 12 Aug]; Available from:
http://www.hotwatt.com/airmfg.htm.
29. Petchers, N., Combined Heating, Cooling and Power Handbook. 2003: The Fairmont
Press, Inc. 875.
30. Environmental processes '96. Hydrocarbon Processing, 1996. 75(8): p. 85.
31. MPT- Multiphase Separators. 2007 [cited 2008 1 Sep]; Available from:
http://www.frankenfilter.com/.
32. Dinca, C., P. Rousseaux, and A. Badea, A life cycle impact of the natural gas used in
the energy sector in Romania. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007. 15(15): p. 1451-
1462.
33. Inman, K. REGENERATIVE THERMAL OXIDIZER - MODEL 75, AES- 86231. 2006
[cited 2008 29 Aug]; Available from: http://anguil.com/prregthe.php.
40

34. Chevalier, J., et al., Environmental assessment of flue gas cleaning processes of
municipal solid waste incinerators by means of the life cycle assessment approach.
Chemical Engineering Science, 2003. 58(10): p. 2053-2064.
35. EC, The limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of
organic solvents in certain activities and installations, E. Communities, Editor. 1999,
European Communities. p. 22.
36. Agency, E. Pollution Inventory (Toluene). 2008 [cited 2008 Oct 20]; Available from:
http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/business/444255/446867/255244/substances/241/?
37. Conlon, P., Manufacture place of AP4- 60. 2008, Chemviron Carbon and Calgon
Carbon Company: London.
38. INOGATE. INOGATE Map of Natural Gas Pipelines 2003 [cited 2008 24th Oct];
Available from: http://www.inogate.org/en/resources/map_gas
39. Lise, W., B.F. Hobbs, and F. van Oostvoorn, Natural gas corridors between the EU
and its main suppliers: Simulation results with the dynamic GASTALE model. Energy
Policy, 2008. 36(6): p. 1890-1906.
40. Xinhuanet, Large-scale development of China's "energy bank" starts, in Xinhua News
Agency 2003: XI'AN.
41. Kaoru Yamaguchi, K.C. Natural Gas in China. 2003 [cited 2009 14 Jan]; Available
from: eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/data/pdf/221.pdf.
42. Schnitzhofer, R., et al., Long-term measurements of CO, NO, NO2, benzene, toluene
and PM10 at a motorway location in an Austrian valley. Atmospheric Environment,
2008. 42(5): p. 1012-1024.
43. Richard Turton, R.C.B., Wallace B. Whiting, Joseph A. Shaeiwitz, Analysis, Synthesis
and Design of Chemical Processes 2nd ed. Prentice Hall international series in the
physical and chemical engineering sciences. Vol. 1. 2003: Upper Saddle River, N.J. :
Prentice Hall PTR, cop. 987.
44. Villanueva, D.G.H.a.L.A., The comparative air emissions of diesel- and compressed-
natural-gas fueled buses in Venezuela: A case study employing a fuel chain approach.
Interciencia 1995. 20(6): p. 354-359.
45. BFIN. Fossil fuel energy. 2008 [cited 2009 16 Jan]; Available from:
http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html.
46. Bayer, P., Life cycle inventory for GAC production. 2008: Tuebingen.
47. WNA. Nuclear power in Sweden. 2008 [cited 2009 18 Jan]; Available from:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html.
48. Heden, H. The Swedish Energy Market. 2005 [cited 2009 31 Jan]; Available from:
www.energimarknadsinspektionen.se/upload/ENGLISH/Engelska%20rapporter/The%
20Swedish%20Energy%20Market.pdf.
41

49. Pennington, D.W., et al., Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment
practice. Environment International, 2004. 30(5): p. 721-739.
50. Hans de Bruijn, R.v.D., Mark A.J. Huijbergts. Life Cycle Assessment, An operational
guide to the ISO standard. 2002 [cited 2009 13th Feb]; Available from:
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/index.html.
51. Vapor Phase Adsorption Equipment. 2008 [cited 2008 30 July]; Available from:
http://www.calgoncarbon.com/carbon_equipment/vapor.html.
52. Fans for Industry. 1996 [cited 2008 27 Aug]; Available from:
http://www.smjfans.com/catalog/indust.pdf.
53. CENTRAL CHILLERS- APT-RC SERIES, AIR-COOLED, 5 - 180 TONS. 2008 [cited
2008 Sep 2]; Available from:
http://www.advantageengineering.com/pdf/literature/advantageAPTliterature.pdf.
54. Product data, AQUAFORCE,30XA080-500, Air-Cooled Liquid Chillers. 2006
[cited 2008 18 Sep]; Available from: www.carrier.com.
55. Bayer, P., Life cycle inventory for GAC production. 2005: Tuebingen.

42

Appendix 1, Materials and equipments catalogs

1.1 Selected GAC properties by Chemviron Carbon (AP4-60) [17]

43

44

1.2 Selected vessel properties by Calgon Carbon (VAPOR-PAC 10)[51]

45

46

1.3 Selected air fan properties by SMJ Inc. [52]

47

1.4 Selected Air heater produced by HOTWATT [28]

48

49

1.5 Air- cooled chillers manufactured by Advantage Engineering, Inc. [53]

50

1.6 Air- cooled chillers manufactured by Carrier Corporation [54]

51

52

1.7 Decanter models manufactured by Franken Filtertechnik KG, [31]

Multiple Separator Series
Type
Flow rate
(m
3
/h)
Length
mm
Width
mm
Height
mm
MPT-modules
MPT 042 2.0 1850 500 700 2 m400
MPT 052 4.0 2250 600 800 2 m50
MPT 072 8.0 2900 850 800 2 m70
MPT 074 16.0 2900 850 1300 4 m70
MPT 104 32.0 3800 1100 1400 4 m100
MPT 106 40.0 4800 1100 1400 6 m100
MPT 154 48.0 3800 1600 1400 4 m150
MPT 156 60.0 4800 1600 1400 6 m150
MPT 212 80.0 4800 2200 1400 12 m100
MPT 218 120.0 5800 2200 2000 18 m100

53

1.8 Selected RTO equipment manufactured by Anguil Environmental System, Inc [33]

54

55

Appendix 2, Process calculations

2.1 Toluene weight calculation per week

Case 1: 410
5
(m
3
/week) 100 (mg/m
3
) 10
-6
(kg/mg) = 40 (kg Toluene/ week)
Case 2: 410
5
(m
3
/week) 1000(mg/m
3
) 10
-6
(kg/mg) = 400 (kg Toluene/week)
Case 3: 410
5
(m
3
/week) 2000(mg/m
3
) 10
-6
(kg/mg) = 800 (kg Toluene/week)

2.2 Calculation of required amount of adsorbent per week

Case 1: 40 (
week
kgToluene
)
19 . 0
1
(
kgToluene
kgAP 60 4
) = 211 (
week
kgAP 60 4
) [15]
Case 2: 400 (
week
kgToluene
)
27 . 0
1
(
kgToluene
kgAP 60 4
) = 1482 (
week
kgAP 60 4
) [15]
Case 3: 800 (
week
kgToluene
)
29 . 0
1
(
kgToluene
kgAP 60 4
) = 2760 (
week
kgAP 60 4
) [15]

2.3 Vessel diameter calculation

A=
V
Q
=
(
4
14 . 3
[ ]
2
D D=
5 . 0
14 . 3
4
(
V
Q
[15]

Where; A= Cross-sectional of the absorber vessel, Q= Vapor flow rate, D= Diameter and V=
Superficial velocity

D=
( )
5 . 0
3
100
1 20
14 . 3
78 . 2
4
(
(
(
(
(
\
|

|
|
\
|
cm
m
s
cm
s
m
= 4.2 m [15]

2.4 Vessel volume calculation

Vessel
V
(
week
m
3
) = required amount of AP4-60(
week
kg
)
y BulkDensit AP 60 4
1
(
kg
m
3
)

Case 1:
Vessel
V
(
week
m
3
) = 211(
week
kg
)
450
1
(
kg
m
3
) = 0.47 1.1 0.55 [17]
Case 2:
Vessel
V
(
week
m
3
) = 1482 (
week
kg
)
450
1
(
kg
m
3
) = 3.291.1 3.7 [17]
56

Case 3:
Vessel
V
(
week
m
3
) = 2760 (
week
kg
)
450
1
(
kg
m
3
) = 6.131.1 6.8 [17]

2.5 Steam consumption calculation
S (kg) = Recovered Toluene adsorbed in 8 hr (kg Toluene)
6
2.58(
kgToluene
kgSteam
) [23]
Where; S= required steam for generation of GAC saturated in one day
Case 1: S (kg) = 82.58 =20.64 21
Case 2: S (kg) = 802.58 =206.4 207
Case 3: S (kg) = 1602.58 =412.8 413

2.6 Energy consumption for steam regenerating

Q (kj) = m (kg Steam) h (
kgSteam
kj
) = m (kg Steam) (h
g
h
f
) (
kgSteam
kj
) [24, 25]
Where; h
g
= enthalpy of saturated vapor at 140
o
C = 2733.9 (
kg
kj
)
h
f
= enthalpy of saturated liquid at 20
o
C = 83.96 (
kg
kj
)

Case 1: Q (kj) = 21 (kg Steam) (2733.9 83.96) (
kg
kj
) = 55649
Case 2: Q (kj) = 207 (kg Steam) (2733.9 83.96) (
kg
kj
) = 548538
Case 3: Q (kj) = 413 (kg Steam) (2733.9 83.96) (
kg
kj
) =1094425

2.7 Electricity power calculation for air heater

Watts =
3
) (F DeltaT e AirFlowRat
[28]

Air flow rate = 200 m
3
/hr 117.72 SCFM
Delta T = 24-6.5=17.5
o
C 63.5
o
F

Watts =
3
5 . 63 72 . 117
= 2491.74 2.5 kW

6
Toluene weight is available in Appendix 2.1
57

2.8 Running time of chillers for one day operation

T (s)
7
=
acity CoolingCap
Q
=
) (
) ( ) (
kW acity CoolingCap
kg
kj
h kg m

Where; Q = Energy required for cooling (kj)
m = water mass (kg)
8

h = h
f inlet water
- h
f outlet water
(
kg
kj
)

Case 1: T (s) =
) ( 73 . 16
) )( 20 32 ( ) ( 21
kW
kg
kj
h h kg
oC
f
oC
f

=
) ( 73 . 16
) )( 96 . 83 79 . 125 ( ) ( 21
kW
kg
kj
kg
= 53
Case 2: T (s) =
) ( 623
) )( 20 63 ( ) ( 207
kW
kg
kj
h h kg
oC
f
oC
f

=
) ( 623
) )( 96 . 83 7 . 263 ( ) ( 207
kW
kg
kj
kg
= 60
Case 3: T (s) =
) ( 96 . 1540
) )( 20 73 ( ) ( 413
kW
kg
kj
h h kg
oC
f
oC
f

=
) ( 96 . 1540
) )( 96 . 83 6 . 305 ( ) ( 413
kW
kg
kj
kg
= 60

7
To see cooling capacity refer to Table 9
8
To see the steam mass refer to Table 6
58

Appendix 3, Aspen Plus 2006 results

3.1 Toluene/water mixture temperature

59

60

3.2 Cooling capacity
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

61

3.3 Required amount of methane, natural gas

62

63

Appendix 4, LCI Calculations

4.1 GAC adsorption method- Case 1

4.1.1 Hard coal (kg/ f.u.) =
) ( 1000
) ( 3000 ) ( 211
kgGAC
kgHardCoal kgGAC
= 633

4.1.2 Natural gas (m
3
/f.u.) =
) ( 1
) ( 330 ) ( 211 . 0
3
tonGAC
NaturalGas m tonGAC
= 69.63

4.1.3 GAC transportation

Truck with semi-trailer (t.km) = 0.211 (ton) 323 (km) = 68.15
Large ship (t.km) = 0.211 (ton) 21291 (km) = 4492.3
Medium sized truck (t.km) = 0.211 (ton) 60 (km) = 12.66

4.1.4 Equipment transportation

Vessel transportation

Truck with semi-trailer (t.km) = 12.47 (ton) 600 (km) = 7482
Large ship (t.km) = 12.47(ton) 6610 (km) = 82426.7
Medium sized truck (t.km) = 12.47(ton) 60 (km) = 748.2

Chiller transportation


Decanter transportation

Small ship (t.km) = 2.02 (ton) 465 (km) = 939.3

4.1.5 Energy for natural gas extraction (MJ/f.u.) = 69.63 (m
3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 192.18

4.1.6 Energy for natural gas treatment (MJ/f.u.) = 69.63 (m
3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 59.18

4.1.7 Energy for GAC production (MJ/f.u.) =
) ( 1
) ( 1600 ) ( 211 . 0
tonGAC
kWh tonGAC
= 337.6 (kWh) =
1215.36 (MJ/f.u.)
64

4.1.8 Energy for GAC transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 49.07+970.34+23.67= 1043.08

Truck with semi-trailer (MJ/f.u.) = 68.15 (t.km) 0.72 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 49.07
Large ship (MJ/f.u.) = 4492.3 (t.km) 0.216 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 970.34
Medium sized truck (MJ/f.u.) = 12.66 (t.km) 1.87 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 23.67

4.1.9 Energy for equipment transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 24598.27+487.21+1460.22 = 26545.7

4.1.9.1 Energy for vessel transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 5388.77+17809.9+1399.6 = 24598.27

Truck with semi-trailer (MJ/f.u.) = 7482 (t.km) 0.72(
km t
MJ
.
) = 5388.77
km t
MJ
.
) = 17809.9
km t
MJ
.
) = 1399.6

4.1.9.2 Energy for chiller transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 171.51+292.7+23= 487.21

km t
MJ
.
) = 171.51
km t
MJ
.
) = 292.7
km t
MJ
.
) = 23

4.1.9.3 Energy for decanter transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 639.94+ 405.78+ 414.5 = 1460.22

Truck with semi-trailer (MJ/f.u.) = 888.8 (t.km) 0.72(
km t
MJ
.
) = 639.94
Small ship (MJ/f.u.) = 939.3 (t.km) 0.432 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 405.78
km t
MJ
.
) = 414.5

4.1.10 Electrical energy for equipments (kWh/f.u)=3788+43845+133+15= 47781(0.172 TJ)

Energy for steam generating (kWh/f.u)
9
= 15.46 (kWh) 5(day) 49(week) = 3788
Energy for air fan (kWh/f.u)
10
= 22.37 (kW) 8 (hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 43845
Energy for air heater (kWh/f.u)
11
= 2.5 (kW)
60
13
(hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 133

9
See Table 6
10
See part 4.1.6
11
See part 4.1.6
65

Energy for chiller (kWh/f.u)
12
= 3.73 (kW)
60
1
(hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 15

4.1.11 Total water use (kg/f.u.) = 2532+ 5145+ 346181= 353858

Water use for GAC production (kg/f.u.)=
) ( 1000
) ( 12000 ) ( 211
kgGAC
kgWater kgGAC
= 2532
Water use for using part (kg/f.u.)
13
= 21(kg/day) 5(day) 49(week)= 5145
Water use for electricity production (kg/f.u.)
14
= 346181

4.1.12 Required natural gas as a natural resource (m
3
/ f.u.) = 5.01+1.53+69.63+ 91.61=167.8

Natural gas for natural gas extraction (m
3
/ f.u.) = 69.63 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 5.01
Natural gas for natural gas treatment (m
3
/ f.u.) = 69.63 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 1.53
Natural gas for GAC production (m
3
/ f.u.) = 69.63
Natural gas for electricity production (m
3
/ f.u.)
15
= 91.61

4.1.13 Required hard coal as a natural resource (kg/f.u.) = 633+ 767.13 1400

Hard coal for GAC production (kg/f.u.) = 633
Hard coal for electricity production (kg/f.u.)
16
= 767.13


4.2.1 Hard coal (kg/ f.u.) =
) ( 1000
) ( 3000 ) ( 1482
kgGAC
kgHardCoal kgGAC
= 4446

3
/f.u.) =
) ( 1
) ( 330 ) ( 482 . 1
3
tonGAC
NaturalGas m tonGAC
= 489.06



12
See part 4.1.6
13
See part 4.1.5
14
See Table App 6.7
15
See Table App 6.7
16
See Table App 6.7
66







Small ship (t.km) = 5.76 (ton) 465 (km) = 2678.4

3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 1349.8

3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 415.7

) ( 1
) ( 1600 ) ( 482 . 1
tonGAC
kWh tonGAC
= 2371.2 (kWh)
= 8536.32 (MJ/f.u.)

4.2.8 Energy for GAC transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 344.65+6815.51+166.24= 7326.4

km t
MJ
.
) = 344.65
km t
MJ
.
) = 6815.51
km t
MJ
.
) = 166.24

4.2.9 Energy for equipment transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 24590.34+4527.42+4163.8= 33281.6

4.2.9.1 Energy for vessel transportation (MJ/f.u)=5387.04+17804.17+1399.13= 24590.34

km t
MJ
.
) = 5387.04
km t
MJ
.
) = 17804.17
67

km t
MJ
.
) = 1399.13

4.2.9.2 Energy for chiller transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 1593.8+2719.88+213.74= 4527.42

km t
MJ
.
) = 1593.8
km t
MJ
.
) = 2719.88
km t
MJ
.
) = 213.74

4.2.9.3 Energy for decanter transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 1824.77+1157.07+1181.95= 4163.8

Truck with semi-trailer (MJ/f.u.) = 2534.4 (t.km) 0.72(
km t
MJ
.
) = 1824.77
Small ship (MJ/f.u.) = 2678.4 (t.km) 0.432 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 1157.07
km t
MJ
.
) = 1181.95

4.2.10 Electrical energy for equipments (kWh/f.u)= 37338 +43845+939.17+548.06 = 82671
(0.298 TJ)

17
= 152.4 (kWh) 5(day) 49(week) = 37338
18
= 22.37 (kW) 8 (hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 43845
19
= 2.5 (kW)
60
92
(hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 939.17
20
= 134.22 (kW)
60
1
(hr) 5(day) 49(week) = 548.06

4.2.11 Total water use (kg/f.u.) = 17784 + 50715+ 585394= 653893

) ( 1000
) ( 12000 ) ( 1482
kgGAC
kgWater kgGAC
= 17784
21
= 207 (kg/day) 5(day) 49(week)= 50715
22
= 585394

17
See Table 6
18
See part 4.1.6
19
See part 4.1.6
20
See part 4.1.6
21
See part 4.1.5
22
See Table App 6.8
68

3
/f.u.)=35.21+10.76+489.06+158.8=
693.83
3
/ f.u.) = 489.06 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 35.21
Natural gas for natural gas treatment (
m3
/ f.u.) = 489.06 (
m3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 10.76
3
/ f.u.) = 489.06
3
/ f.u.)
23
= 158.8

4.2.13 Required hard coal as a natural resource (kg/f.u.) = 4446+ 1328.1= 5774.1

24
= 1328.1


4.3.1 Hard coal (kg Hard coal/ f.u.) =
) ( 1000
) ( 3000 ) ( 2760
kgGAC
kgHardCoal kgGAC
= 8280

3
/f.u.) =
) ( 1
) ( 330 ) ( 76 . 2
3
tonGAC
NaturalGas m tonGAC
= 910.8







Large ship (t.km) = 12.2 (ton) 6610 (km) = 80642
Medium sized truck (t.km) = 12.2 (ton) 60 (km) = 732

23
See Table App 6.8
24
See Table App 6.8
69


Small ship (t.km) = 8.6 (ton) 465 (km) = 3999

3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 2513.8

3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 774.18

) ( 1
) ( 1600 ) ( 76 . 2
tonGAC
kWh tonGAC
= 4416 (kWh) =
15 897.6 (MJ/f.u.)

4.3.8 Energy for GAC transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 641.88+ 12692.84+309.67= 13644.4

km t
MJ
.
) = 641.88
km t
MJ
.
) = 12692.84
km t
MJ
.
) = 309.67

4.3.9 Energy for equipment transportation(MJ/f.u.) =24590.34+23076.57+6216.77=53883.7

4.3.9.1 Energy for vessel transportation (MJ/f.u)=5387.04+17804.17+1399.13= 24590.34

km t
MJ
.
) = 5387.04
km t
MJ
.
) = 17804.17
km t
MJ
.
) = 1399.13

4.3.9.2 Energy for chiller transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 4289.03+17418.7+1368.84=23076.57

km t
MJ
.
) = 4289.03
Large ship (MJ/f.u.) = 80642 (t.km) 0.216 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 17418.7
Medium sized truck (MJ/f.u.) = 732(t.km) 1.87 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 1368.84

70

4.3.9.3 Energy for decanter transportation (MJ/f.u.)= 2724.48+1727.57+1764.72=6216.77

km t
MJ
.
) = 2724.48
Small ship (MJ/f.u.) = 3999 (t.km) 0.432 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 1727.57
Truck with semi-trailer (MJ/f.u.) = 2451 (t.km) 0.72 (
km t
MJ
.
) = 1764.72

4.3.10 Electrical energy for equipments (kWh/f.u)= 74480+43845+1755.8+2224.6=122305.4
(0.44 TJ)

25
= 304 (kWh) 5(day) 49(week) = 74480
26
= 22.37 (kW) 8 (hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 43845
27
= 2.5 (kW)
60
172
(hr) 5(day) 49(week) = 1755.8
28
= 544.8 (kW)
60
1
(hr) 5 (day) 49 (week) = 2224.6

4.3.11 Total water use (kg/f.u.) = 33120+101185+864364= 998669

) ( 1000
) ( 12000 ) ( 2760
kgGAC
kgWater kgGAC
= 33120
29
= 413(kg/day) 5(day) 49(week)= 101185
30
= 864364

3
/ f.u.) = 65.58+20.04+910.8+234.47=
1230.9
3
/ f.u.) = 910.8 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 65.58
3
/ f.u.) = 910.8 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 20.04
3
/ f.u.) = 910.8
3
/ f.u.)
31
= 234.47

4.3.13 Required hard coal as a natural resource (kg/f.u.) = 8280+1961= 10241

32
= 1961

25
See Table 6
26
See part 4.1.6
27
See part 4.1.6
28
See part 4.1.6
29
See part 4.1.5
30
See Table App 6.23
31
See Table App 6.23
32
See Table App 6.23
71

4.4 VOCs incineration- Case 1

3
/f.u.) = 53.4 (
hr
m
3
)
33
8(hr) 5(day) 49(week) = 104664

4.4.2 Natural gas transportation

Truck with semi-trailer(t.km) = 104664(m
3
) 0.8(
3
m
kg
)
34

) ( 1000
) ( 1
kg
ton
60(km) = 5023.9

4.4.3 RTO equipment transportation

Truck with semi-trailer(t.km) = 21.32 (ton) (1440+60) (km) = 31980

4.4.4 Energy for natural gas extraction (MJ/f.u.) = 104664 (m
3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 288872.64

4.4.5 Energy for natural gas treatment (MJ/f.u.) = 104664 (m
3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 88964.4

4.4.6 Energy for natural gas transportation (MJ/f.u.) = 5023.9(t.km) 0.72(
km t
MJ
.
)
35
=3617.2

4.4.7 Energy for RTO transportation (MJ/f.u) = 23025.6+30439.84 = 53465.44

km t
MJ
.
) = 23025.6
km t
MJ
.
) = 30439.84

4.4.8 Electrical energy for RTO (kWh/f.u)= 39.54 (kW) 8(hr) 5(day)49(week)=77498.4
= 278994.24 (MJ/f.u.) = 0.279 (TJ/f.u.)

3
/ f.u.) = 7535.8+2302.6+104664+148.7=
114651.1

3
/ f.u.) = 104664 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 7535.8
3
/ f.u.) = 104664 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 2302.6
Natural gas for using part (m
3
/ f.u.) = 104664
3
/ f.u.)
36
= 148.7

33
See Table 13
34
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html
35
See Table 17
36
See Table App 7.3
72


3
/f.u.) = 37.6 (
hr
m
3
)
37
8(hr) 5(day) 49(week) = 73696


Truck with semi-trailer(t.km)= 73696 (m
3
) 0.8(
3
m
kg
)
38

) ( 1000
) ( 1
kg
ton
60(km) = 3537.41



3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 203401

3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 62641.6

4.5.6 Energy for natural gas transportation (MJ/f.u.)=3537.41(t.km)0.72(
km t
MJ
.
)
39
=2546.93


km t
MJ
.
) = 23025.6
km t
MJ
.
) = 30439.84

= 278994.24 (MJ/f.u.) = 0.279 (TJ/f.u.)

3
/ f.u.) =5306.1+1621.3+73696+148.7=
80772.1
3
/ f.u.) = 73696 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 5306.1
3
/ f.u.) = 73696 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 1621.3
3
/ f.u.) = 73696
3
/ f.u.)
40
= 148.7

37
See Table 13
38
39
See Table 17
40
See Table App 7.3
73


3
/f.u.) = 20.15 (
hr
m
3
)
41
8(hr) 5(day) 49(week) = 39494


Truck with semi-trailer(t.km)= 39494 (m
3
) 0.8(
3
m
kg
)
42

) ( 1000
) ( 1
kg
ton
60(km) = 1895.71

3
) 2.76 (
3
m
MJ
) = 109003.44

3
) 0.85 (
3
m
MJ
) = 33570

4.6.6 Energy for natural gas transportation (MJ/f.u.)=1895.71(t.km)0.72(
km t
MJ
.
)
43
=1364.91


km t
MJ
.
) = 23025.6
km t
MJ
.
) = 30439.84

= 278994.24 (MJ/f.u.) = 0.279 (TJ/f.u.)

3
/ f.u.) =2843.57+868.9+39494+148.7=
43355.17
3
/ f.u.) = 39494 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 7
= 2843.57
3
/ f.u.) = 39494 (m
3
/ f.u.)
100
2 . 2
= 868.9
3
/ f.u.) = 39494
3
/ f.u.)
44
= 148.7

41
See Table 13
42
43
See Table 17
44
See Table App 7.3
74

4.7 Non-treatment alternative All cases

4.7.1 Toluene emitted (kg/f.u.)

Case 1 (kg/f.u) = 100(
3
m
mg
)10000 (
hr
m
3
)
) ( 10
) ( 1
6
mg
kg
8(hr) 5(day) 49(week)= 1960
Case 2 (kg/f.u)=1000(
3
m
mg
)10000(
hr
m
3
)
) ( 10
) ( 1
6
mg
kg
8(hr)5(day)49(week)= 19600
Case 3 (kg/f.u)=2000(
3
m
mg
)10000(
hr
m
3
)
) ( 10
) ( 1
6
mg
kg
8(hr)5(day)49(week)= 39200

75

Appendix 5, General data for life cycle inventory analysis

Table App 5. 1. Equipments transportation details
45

Equip. Producer
Production
location
Direction
of transportation
Trans.
type
Distance
46

(km)
Vessel
Calgon Carbon
Co.
Pittsburgh
(USA)
Pittsburgh- New York Road 600
New York- Gothenburg Sea 6610
Gothenburg- Bors Road 60
Chiller
Advantage
Engineering Inc.
Green wood,
IN
(USA)
Greenwood- New York Road 1162
Chiller Carrier
Farmington,
CT
(USA)
Farmington- New York Road 188
Decanter
Franken
Filtertechnik KG
Huerth
(Germany)
Huerth- Hamburg Road 440
Hamburg- Malmo Sea 465
Malmo- Bors Road 285
RTO Anguil
Milwaukee,
WI
(USA)
Milwaukee New York Road 1440

Table App 5. 2. Emission for 1 ton GAC production [8, 55]
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Dust 0.690360585
NH
3
0.005018036
HCl 0.14884193
N
2
O 0.036467891
CO
2
, fossil 8674.769289
CO 0.969775026
As 4.46E-06
Cd 1.29E-06
Cr 7.80E-06
Ni 7.65E-05
NO
x
3.527739836
SO
2
5.295258169
CH
4
44.11464419
C
6
H
6
0.00029659
PCDD, PCDF 3.93E-11
NMVOC, unspecified. 0.152416759
PAH, unspecified. 4.30E-07
C
20
H
12
1.57E-09
PAH without B(a)P 7.87E-07
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

Nitrogen compound 1.09E-08
Salts inorganic 6.07E-08
AOX 1.21E-11
BSB-5 2.43E-10
CSB 8.01E-09

45
Vessel, chillers and decanter are used in GAC adsorption method and RTO is used in VOCs incineration
46
Distance calculation has been done by:
Road: http://maps.google.com/
Sea: http://e-ships.net/
76

Table App 5. 3. Emission for 2831m
3
natural gas [32]
Emission
Natural gas extraction
(kg)
Natural gas treatment
(kg)
Natural gas transportation
(kg)
*
Natural gas combustion
(kg)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
o

a
i
r

CO
2
81.43 100.7 135.63 5700
CH
4
128.5 37.3 84.9 4.11E-03
SO
2
0.00023 0.00161 0.0022 0.422
NOx 5.18 2.97 0.065 6.58
CO 2.11 0.173 1.91 5.11
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

Na 0.000021 0.00036 0.00014 0.033
Al 5.63 E-05 8.698 E-05 3.62 E-05 0.0103
Ca 0.00033 0.00086 0.000246 0.0678
Mg 0.000072 0.000202 2.42 E-05 0.00828
K 0.000048 0.000118 1.04 E-05 0.00327
Fe 0.000035 0.000135 3.102 E-05 0.00539
Ba 4.73 E-06 2.919 E-05 3.503 E-05 0.000995
Ti 8.62 E-07 7.602 E-06 1.748 E-05 0.000584
Sr 4.63 E-06 1.64 E-05 3.116 E-06 0.000417
Pb 5.45 E-06 1.801 E-05 3.062 E-06 0.000471
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
o

l
a
n
d

Ba 0.000043 0.0005 0.000602 0.0283
Cu 8.73 E-06 2.764 E-05 6.357 E-05 0.018
Mn 6.83 E-05 3.06 E-04 2.174 E-05 0.0053
Zn 2.78 E-06 7.828 E-05 1.33 E-05 0.00577
Cr 8.347 E-06 3.808 E-05 1.256 E-05 0.00294
Ni 5.62 E-07 9.836 E-06 6.294 E-06 0.0021
As 3.74 E-06 1.033 E-05 4.444 E-06 0.00193
Pb 5.82 E-06 1.679 E-05 4.533 E-06 0.00151
O
3
6.12 E-04 0.49 E-04 5.3 E-05 0.0161
V 4.23 E-07 6.343 E-06 3.551 E-06 0.000916
Co 6.84 E-07 3.01 E-06 9.32 E-07 0.000244
Hg 8.02 E-08 3.298 E-07 7.584 E-08 2.68E-05
*450 km transportation by pipeline

Table App 5. 4. Emissions for road and sea transportation (NTM 2002- Euro 3) [7]
Vehicles type
Energy
(MJ/t.km)
CO
2

(g/t.km)
NO
x

(g/t.km)
HC
(g/t.km)
PM
(g/t.km)
CO
(g/t.km)
SO
2

(g/t.km)
Truck with semi-trailer 0.72 52 0.33 0.047 0.0057 0.046 0.013
Medium sized truck 1.87 136 0.9 0.12 0.015 0.12 0.034
Large ship 0.216 15.4 0.429 0.020 0.0204 0.0087 0.262
Small ship 0.432 30.8 0.729 0.02 0.0246 0.042 0.515

77

Table App 5. 5. Electricity production based on different energy source in Sweden for 1 TJ net electricity (IEA 2000) and
Frischknecht et al. (1996) [7]

Hard coal,
coke oven,
Lignite sub
bituminous
coal, peat
Liquid
fuels (oil)
Natural
gas
Nuclear
energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro
energy
Wind
Percentage (%) 2 0.04 2.06 0.27 46.5 1.95 46.98 0.2
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

Copper ore kg 4.28 5.46 4.18 4.39 2.26 0.444 0.0578 41.4
Crude oil kg 2580 478 73100 1260 246 2777 74.8 670
Lignite kg 1950 41400 1230 265 238 126 65.4 233.5
Limestone kg 2210 1880 431 200 163 85.7 655 755
Natural gas m
3
1898 392 6058 59112 415 285 23.6 378
Hard coal kg 183000 1400 1490 12100 1260 293 294 1530
Uranium ore kg 0.133 0.0947 0.0839 0.0183 7.85 0.00866 0.00449 0.0166
Water kg 1.07E07 1.35E07 1.93E07 6.08E05 2.53E06 6.58E04 1.17E04 46450
Wood kg 1320 27.5 28.6 104 21.4 1.74E05 2.95 15.7
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 1.79E-03 9.28E-03 0.0158 2.87E-04 1.3E-04 2.49E-04 6.71E-05 0.00132
CH
4
kg 1003.5 31.49 307 373.7 10.26 13.69 2.39 15.28
CO kg 56.6 45.1 75.15 81.97 6.01 187.89 5.79 34.61
CO
2
kg 275833 370979 229380 245831 3605 8964 1045 4578
Cs-134 kBq 0.0388 0.0277 0.0245 5.35E-03 2.3 2.54E-03 1.31E-03 0.00487
Hg kg 0.0325 0.0194 1.01E-03 7.48E-04 2.28E-04 0.0128 4.01E-05 0.00023
Kr-85 kBq 5.03E06

3.59E06 3.18E06 6.93E05 2.97E08 3.28E05 1.7E05 630000
N
2
O kg 1.79 1.8 5.53 1.5 0.8 13.6 0.015 0.0755
NH
3
kg 1.497 1.8 0.224 0.0601 0.051 0.00322 0.0056 0.02146
NMVOC kg 33.9 12.6 588 62 3.93 45.8 0.947 10.54
NO
x
kg 451.7 558 504.6 408.44 9.599 252 3.196 9.845
PAH kg 3.52E-03 3.58E-03 5.34E-03 0.0216 4.5E-04 2.97E-04 9.92E-05 8.49E-04
Particles kg 321.59 257.66 96.87 16.13 7.08 29.4 2.09 12.16
Pb kg 0.0659 0.0292 0.136 4.05E-03 1.73E-03 9.38E-03 1.27E-03 0.02671
Rn-222 kBq 7.3E06 5.21E06 4.62E06 101E06 4.32E08 4.78E05 2.47E05 905000
SO
x
kg 1062.07 3623.53 2359.4 58.29 25.1 42.7 2.86 19.04
Sr-90 kBq 0.0536 0.0382 0.0338 0.00738 3.17 0.00349 0.00181 0.0067
U-238 kBq 12.184 5.024 0.317 0.0778 22.776 0.0337 0.01766 0.0692
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
.
COD kg 1.18 0.098 6.14 0.8 0.09 0.554 0.0263 0.305
Cs-134 kBq 6.888 4.915 4.359 0.9 407.62 0.45 0.233 0.865
N total kg 0.714 0.098 7.423 0.27 1.491 0.603 0.019 0.15
Oil kg 2.55 0.474 69.8 2.96 0.252 10 0.0745 0.685
PO
4
3-
kg 17.5 0.138 0.193 1.19 0.128 0.0563 0.029 0.149
Sr-90 kBq 6.49 4.63 4.1 0.894 384 0.424 0.22 0.815
U-238 kBq 25.7 1.45 1.82 0.281 109 0.133 0.069 0.256

78

Appendix 6, LCI normalized data GAC adsorption method

6.1 Case 1

Table App 6. 1. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, transportation by pipeline (GAC adsorption
method) - Case 1

(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
transportation (kg/f.u.)
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
2.002815555 2.476771784 6.671788622
CH
4
3.160528047 0.917413978 4.17632422
SO
2
5.65698E-06 3.95988E-05 0.00010822
NO
x
0.127404944 0.073048781 0.003197421
CO 0.051896608 0.00425503 0.093954997
Emission
to water
Na 5.16507E-06 8.8544E-06 6.88675E-06
Al 1.38473E-06 2.13932E-06 1.78072E-06
Ca 8.11653E-06 2.11522E-05 1.2101E-05
Mg 1.77088E-06 4.9683E-06 1.19042E-06
K 1.18059E-06 2.90227E-06 5.11587E-07
Fe 8.60844E-07 3.3204E-06 1.52591E-06
Ba 1.16337E-07 7.17944E-07 1.72316E-06
Ti 2.12014E-08 1.86975E-07 8.5986E-07
Sr 1.13877E-07 4.03367E-07 1.53279E-07
Pb 1.34046E-07 4.42966E-07 1.50623E-07
Emission
to soil
Ba 1.05761E-06 1.22978E-05 2.9613E-05
Cu 2.14719E-07 6.79821E-07 3.12708E-06
Mn 1.67988E-06 7.52624E-06 1.06941E-06
Zn 6.83756E-08 1.92534E-06 6.54242E-07
Cr 2.05299E-07 9.36599E-07 6.1784E-07
Ni 1.38227E-08 2.41922E-07 3.09609E-07
As 9.19874E-08 2.54072E-07 2.18605E-07
Pb 1.43146E-07 4.12959E-07 2.22983E-07
O
3
1.50525E-05 1.20518E-06 2.60713E-06
V 1.04039E-08 1.5601E-07 1.74678E-07
Co 1.68234E-08 7.40326E-08 4.58461E-08
Hg 1.97256E-09 8.11161E-09 3.73065E-09
1) All emission is for extraction, treatment and transportation of 69.63 m
3
natural gas
2) Natural gas is extracted from Ordos basin Yinchuan, China
3) Natural gas transportation distance by pipeline= 885 km from Yinchuan to Datong, China

79

Table App 6. 2. Emission of equipment transportation (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1

Truck with
semi-trailer
Medium
sized truck
Large ship Small ship
Total
(t.km)
1

Vessel 7482 748.2 82426.7
Chiller 238.21 12.3 1355.05
Decanter 1464.5 939.3
Total 9184.71 760.5 83781.75 939.3
Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
2
CO
2
52 136 15.4 30.8
NO
x
0.33 0.9 0.429 0.729
HC 0.047 0.12 0.02 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.015 0.0204 0.0246
CO 0.046 0.12 0.0087 0.042
SO
2
0.013 0.034 0.262 0.515
Total emission (g/f.u.)
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
3

CO
2
477604.92 103428.00 1290238.95 28930.44 1900202.31 CO
2

NO
x
3030.95 684.45 35942.37 684.75 40342.52 NO
x

HC 431.68 91.26 1675.64 18.79 2217.36 HC
PM 52.35 11.41 1709.15 23.11 1796.01 PM
CO 422.50 91.26 728.90 39.45 1282.11 CO
SO
2
119.40 25.86 21950.82 483.74 22579.82 SO
2

1) See Appendix 4.1.4
2) Emission published by NTM 2002 [7]
3) Total emission= Total Weight. Distance (t.km) Emission to air (g/t.km)

Table App 6. 3. Emission of GAC transportation (GAC adsorption method)
1
- Case1
Truck with semi-trailer Medium sized truck Large ship
Total (t.km)
2

68.15 12.66 4492.3

Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2
52 136 15.4
NO
x
0.33 0.9 0.429
HC 0.047 0.12 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.015 0.0204
CO 0.046 0.12 0.0087
SO
2
0.013 0.034 0.262
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
4

CO
2
3543.8000 1721.7600 69181.4200 74446.9800 CO2
NO
x
22.4895 11.3940 1927.1967 1961.0802 NOx
HC 3.2031 1.5192 89.8460 94.5683 HC
PM 0.3885 0.1899 91.6429 92.2213 PM
CO 3.1349 1.5192 39.0830 43.7371 CO
SO
2
0.8860 0.4304 1176.9826 1178.2990 SO2
1) 211 kg GAC

80

Table App 6. 4. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (GAC adsorption method)
1
- Case 1
Source of electricity
production
Hard coal, coke oven,
Lignite sub
bituminous coal, peat
Liquid fuels
(oil)
Natural gas
Electrical energy by
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.172 TJ)
2

0.00344 (TJ) 0.000688(TJ) 0.0035432 (TJ) 0.0004644 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 6.1576E-06 6.38464E-06 5.59826E-05 1.33283E-07
CH
4
kg 3.45204 0.02166512 1.0877624 0.17354628
CO kg 0.194704 0.0310288 0.26627148 0.038066868
CO
2
kg 948.86552 255.233552 812.739216 114.1639164
Cs-134 kBq 0.00013347 1.90576E-05 8.68084E-05 2.48454E-06
Hg kg 0.0001118 1.33472E-05 3.57863E-06 3.47371E-07
Kr-85 kBq 17303.2 2469.92 11267.376 321.8292
N
2
O kg 0.0061576 0.0012384 0.019593896 0.0006966
NH
3
kg 0.00514968 0.0012384 0.000793677 2.79104E-05
NMVOC kg 0.116616 0.0086688 2.0834016 0.0287928
NO
x
kg 1.553848 0.383904 1.78789872 0.189679536
PAH kg 1.2109E-05 2.46304E-06 1.89207E-05 1.0031E-05
Particles kg 1.1062696 0.17727008 0.343229784 0.007490772
Pb kg 0.0002267 2.00896E-05 0.000481875 1.88082E-06
Rn-222 kBq 25112 3584.48 16369.584 46904.4
SO
x
kg 3.6535208 2.49298864 8.35982608 0.027069876
Sr-90 kBq 0.00018438 2.62816E-05 0.00011976 3.42727E-06
U-238 kBq 0.04191296 0.003456512 0.001123194 3.61303E-05
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.0040592 0.000067424 0.021755248 0.00037152
Cs-134 kBq 0.02369472 0.00338152 0.015444809 0.00041796
N total kg 0.00245616 0.000067424 0.026301174 0.000125388
Oil kg 0.008772 0.000326112 0.24731536 0.001374624
PO
4
3-
kg 0.0602 0.000094944 0.000683838 0.000552636
Sr-90 kBq 0.0223256 0.00318544 0.01452712 0.000415174
U-238 kBq 0.088408 0.0009976 0.006448624 0.000130496
1) Total electricity required for GAC adsorption in Case 1 = 0.172 TJ (See Appendix 4.1.10)
2) Energy source percentage based on Table App 5.5

81

Table App 6.4. (Continue) Electricity production emissions in Sweden (GAC adsorption method)
1
- Case 1
production
Nuclear
energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro
energy
Wind
Total emission
(kg/f.u.) or
(kBq/f.u.)
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.172 TJ)
2

0.07998 (TJ) 0.002354 (TJ) 0.0808 (TJ) 0.000344 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 1.03974E-05 5.86146E-07 5.42168E-06 4.541E-07 8.55174E-05
CH
4
kg 0.8205948 0.03222626 0.193112 0.0052563 5.78620318
CO kg 0.4806798 0.44229306 0.467832 0.0119058 1.932781848
CO
2
kg 288.3279 21.101256 84.436 1.574832 2526.442192
Cs-134 kBq 0.183954 5.97916E-06 0.000105848 1.675E-06 0.184309325
Hg kg 1.82354E-05 3.01312E-05 3.24008E-06 7.912E-08 0.000180759
Kr-85 kBq 23754060 772.112 13736 216.72 23800147.16
N
2
O kg 0.063984 0.0320144 0.001212 2.597E-05 0.124922868
NH
3
kg 0.00407898 7.57988E-06 0.00045248 7.382E-06 0.011756089
NMVOC kg 0.3143214 0.1078132 0.0765176 0.0036258 2.73975716
NO
x
kg 0.76772802 0.593208 0.2582368 0.0033867 5.537889756
PAH kg 0.000035991 6.99138E-07 8.01536E-06 2.921E-07 8.85211E-05
Particles kg 0.5662584 0.0692076 0.168872 0.004183 2.442781276
Pb kg 0.000138365 2.20805E-05 0.000102616 9.188E-06 0.001002792
Rn-222 kBq 34551360 1125.212 19957.6 311.32 34664724.6
SO
x
kg 2.007498 0.1005158 0.231088 0.0065498 16.87905696
Sr-90 kBq 0.2535366 8.21546E-06 0.000146248 2.305E-06 0.254027221
U-238 kBq 1.82162448 7.93298E-05 0.001426928 2.38E-05 1.869683339
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.0071982 0.001304116 0.00212504 0.0001049 0.036985668
Cs-134 kBq 32.6014476 0.0010593 0.0188264 0.0002976 32.66456987
N total kg 0.11925018 0.001419462 0.0015352 0.0000516 0.151206588
Oil kg 0.02015496 0.02354 0.0060196 0.0002356 0.307738296
PO
4
3-
kg 0.01023744 0.00013253 0.0023432 5.126E-05 0.074295844
Sr-90 kBq 30.71232 0.000998096 0.017776 0.0002804 30.77182779
U-238 kBq 8.71782 0.000313082 0.0055752 8.806E-05 8.819781066

82

Table App 6. 5. Emission of GAC production (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1
O
u
t
p
u
t

emission
to air
Dust 0.145666083
NH
3
0.001058806
HCl 0.031405647
N2O 0.007694725
CO
2
, fossil 1830.37632
CO 0.20462253
As 9.40931E-07
Cd 2.72511E-07
Cr 1.64633E-06
Ni 1.6137E-05
NO
x
0.744353105
SO
2
1.117299474
CH
4
9.308189924
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05
PCDD, PCDF 8.30078E-12
NMVOC 0.032159936
PAH 9.06452E-08
C
20
H
12
3.32032E-10
emission
to water
AOX 2.56198E-12
BSB-5 5.12397E-11
CSB 1.69091E-09
1) All emission units in (kg/f.u.)
2) Emissions for 211 kg GAC production
3) Emission of GAC production based on Bayer et al.(2005)

83

Table App 6. 6. Total emission of GAC adsorption method (kg/f.u.) - Case 1
Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
transportation
GAC
production
GAC
Transportation
Equipment
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
2.002815555 2.476771784 6.671788622 1830.37632 74.44698 1900.20231 2526.442192 6342.619178
CH
4
3.160528047 0.917413978 4.17632422 9.308189924 5.78620318 23.34865935
SO
2
5.65698E-06 3.95988E-05 0.00010822 1.117299474 1.17829899 22.57981623 16.87905696 41.75462513
NO
x
0.127404944 0.073048781 0.003197421 0.744353105 1.9610802 40.34252475 5.537889756 48.78949896
CO 0.051896608 0.00425503 0.093954997 0.20462253 0.04373711 1.282108485 1.932781848 3.613356609
Dust (PM) 0.145666083 0.092221275 1.796014827 2.442781276 4.476683461
NH
3
0.001058806 0.011756089 0.012814895
HCl 0.031405647 0.031405647
N
2
O 0.007694725 0.124922868 0.132617593
As 9.40931E-07 9.40931E-07
Cd 2.72511E-07 8.55174E-05 8.57899E-05
Cr 1.64633E-06 1.64633E-06
Ni 1.6137E-05 1.6137E-05
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 6.25805E-05
PCDD, PCDF 8.30078E-12 8.30078E-12
NMVOC 0.032159936 2.73975716 2.771917096
PAH, unspec. 9.06452E-08 9.06452E-08
C
20
H
12
3.32032E-10 3.32032E-10
PAH - B(a)P 1.66016E-07 8.85211E-05 8.86871E-05
HC 0.09456825 2.21736237 2.31193062
Hg 0.000180759 0.000180759
Pb 0.001002792 0.001002792
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 5.16507E-07 8.8544E-06 6.88675E-06

1.62577E-05
Al 1.38473E-06 2.13932E-06 1.78072E-06

5.30477E-06
Ca 8.11653E-06 2.11522E-05 1.2101E-05 4.13697E-05
Mg 1.77088E-06 4.9683E-06 1.19042E-06 7.9296E-06
K 1.18059E-06 2.90227E-06 5.11587E-07 4.59445E-06
Fe 8.60844E-07 3.3204E-06 1.52591E-06 5.70715E-06
Ba 1.16337E-07 7.17944E-07 1.72316E-06 2.55745E-06
Ti 2.12014E-08 1.86975E-07 8.5986E-07 1.06804E-06
Sr 1.13877E-07 4.03367E-07 1.53279E-07 6.70524E-07
Pb 1.34046E-07 4.42966E-07 1.50623E-07 7.27635E-07
Nitrogen comp 2.30579E-09 2.30579E-09
Salts inorganic 1.28099E-08 1.28099E-08
AOX 2.56198E-12 2.56198E-12
BSB-5 5.12397E-11 5.12397E-11
CSB 1.69091E-09 1.69091E-09
COD 0.036985668 0.036985668
N total 0.151206588 0.151206588
Oil 0.307738296 0.307738296
PO4
3-
0.074295844 0.074295844
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 1.05761E-06 1.22978E-05 2.9613E-05 4.29684E-05
Cu 2.14719E-07 6.79821E-07 3.12708E-06 4.02162E-06
Mn 1.67988E-06 7.52624E-06 1.06941E-06 1.02755E-05
Zn 6.83756E-08 1.92534E-06 6.54242E-07 2.64796E-06
Cr 2.05299E-07 9.36599E-07 6.1784E-07 1.75974E-06
Ni 1.38227E-08 2.41922E-07 3.09609E-07

5.65353E-07
As 9.19874E-08 2.54072E-07 2.18605E-07

5.64665E-07
Pb 1.43146E-07 4.12959E-07 2.22983E-07

7.79089E-07
O
3
1.50525E-05 1.20518E-06 2.60713E-06

1.88648E-05
V 1.04039E-08 1.5601E-07 1.74678E-07

3.41091E-07
Co 1.68234E-08 7.40326E-08 4.58461E-08

1.36702E-07
Hg 1.97256E-09 8.11161E-09 3.73065E-09

1.38148E-08
84

Table App 6. 7. Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (GAC adsorption method) Case 1
Source of electricity production
Hard coal,
coke oven
Lignite sub bituminous
coal, peat
Liquid fuel (oil) Natural gas
Electrical energy by considering
energy source percentage
1

0.00344 (TJ) 0.000688(TJ) 0.0035432 (TJ) 0.0004644 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.0147232 0.00375648 0.014810576 0.002038716
Crude oil kg 8.8752 0.328864 259.00792 0.585144
Lignite kg 6.708 28.4832 4.358136 0.123066
Limestone kg 7.6024 1.29344 1.5271192 0.09288
Natural gas m
3
6.52912 0.269696 21.4647056 27.4516128
Hard coal kg 629.52 0.9632 5.279368 5.61924
Uranium ore kg 0.00045752 6.5154E-05 0.000297274 8.49852E-06
Water kg 36808 9288 68383.76 28235.52
Wood kg 4.5408 0.01892 0.10133552 0.0482976
2) Input ground depletion based on Table App 5.5

Table App 6.7. (Continue) Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (GAC adsorption method) Case 1
Source of electricity production Nuclear energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro energy Wind Total natural
resources
(kg/ f.u.)or(m
3
/ f.u.)
1

0.07998 (TJ) 0.002354 (TJ) 0.0808 (TJ) 0.000344 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.1807548 0.001045176 0.0046702 0.0142416 0.236040788
Crude oil kg 19.67508 6.537058 6.04384 0.23048 301.283586
Lignite kg 19.03524 0.296604 5.28432 0.080324 64.36889
Limestone kg 13.03674 0.2017378 52.924 0.25972 76.938037
Natural gas m
3
33.1917 0.67089 1.90688 0.130032 91.6146364
Hard coal kg 100.7748 0.689722 23.7552 0.52632 767.12785
Uranium ore kg 0.627843 2.03856E-05 0.0003628 5.7104E-06 0.629060335
Water kg 202349.4 154.8932 945.36 15.9788 346180.912
Wood kg 1.711572 409.596 0.23836 0.0054008 416.2606859

Table App 6. 8. Total fossil energy for transportation of GAC and equipments (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1
Vehicle type Fuel type
Total Weight. Distance
(t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship Heavy oil 88274.05 0.216 19067.1948
Small ship Heavy oil 939.3 0.432 405.7776
Medium sized distribution truck Diesel 773.16 1.87 1445.8092
Truck with semi-trailer Diesel 9252.86 0.72 6662.0592
Total fossil energy (MJ/f.u.) 27580.8408
1) See Appendix 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
2) Energy requirements published by NTM 2002 [7]

85

6.2 Case 2

method) - Case 2

(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
14.06716906 17.3960939 46.8606199
CH
4
22.19859049 6.44363755 29.33323475
SO
2
3.97329E-05 0.00027813 0.000760107
NO
x
0.894853687 0.51307248 0.022457718
CO 0.364506038 0.02988604 0.659911406
Emission
to water
Na 3.62779E-06 6.2191E-05 4.83705E-05
Al 9.72592E-06 1.5026E-05 1.25072E-05
Ca
5.70081E-05 0.00014857 8.49938E-05
Mg 1.24381E-05 3.4896E-05 8.36118E-06
K 8.29208E-06 2.0385E-05 3.59323E-06
Fe 6.04631E-06 2.3321E-05 1.07175E-05
Ba
8.17115E-07 5.0426E-06 1.2103E-05
Ti 1.48912E-07 1.3133E-06 6.0394E-06
Sr 7.9984E-07 2.8331E-06 1.07659E-06
Pb 9.41497E-07 3.1113E-06 1.05793E-06
Emission
to soil
Ba
7.42832E-06 8.6376E-05 0.000207993
Cu
1.50812E-06 4.7749E-06 2.19636E-05
Mn 1.17989E-05 5.2862E-05 7.51124E-06
Zn
4.8025E-07 1.3523E-05 4.59519E-06
Cr
1.44196E-06 6.5784E-06 4.33952E-06
Ni 9.70864E-08 1.6992E-06 2.1746E-06
As
6.46091E-07 1.7845E-06 1.53542E-06
Pb
1.00541E-06 2.9005E-06 1.56617E-06
O
3

0.000105724 8.4648E-06 1.83117E-05
V 7.3074E-08 1.0958E-06 1.22688E-06
Co
1.18162E-07 5.1998E-07 3.22009E-07
Hg 1.38547E-08 5.6974E-08 2.6203E-08
3
natural gas

86


Truck with
semi-trailer
Medium
sized truck
Total
(t.km)
1

Vessel 7482 748.2 82426.7
Chiller 2213.61 114.3 12592.05
Decanter 4176 2678.4
Total 13871.61 862.5 95018.75 2678.4
Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
2
CO
2
52 136 15.4 30.8
NO
x
0.33 0.9 0.429 0.729
HC 0.047 0.12 0.02 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.015 0.0204 0.0246
CO 0.046 0.12 0.0087 0.042
SO
2
0.013 0.034 0.262 0.515
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
3

CO
2
721323.72 117300.00 1463288.75 82494.72 2384407.19 CO
2

NO
x
4577.63 776.25 40763.04 1952.55 48069.48 NO
x

HC 651.97 103.50 1900.38 53.57 2709.41 HC
PM 79.07 12.94 1938.38 65.89 2096.28 PM
CO 638.09 103.50 826.66 112.49 1680.75 CO
SO
2
180.33 29.33 24894.91 1379.38 26483.94 SO
2


1
- Case 2
Total (t.km)
2

478.7 478.7 31553.3
Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2

52 136 15.4
NO
x

0.33 0.9 0.429
HC
0.047 0.12 0.02
PM
0.0057 0.015 0.0204
CO
0.046 0.12 0.0087
SO
2

0.013 0.034 0.262
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
4

CO
2

24892.4000 12090.4000 485920.8200 522903.6200
CO
2

NO
x

157.9710 80.0100 13536.3657 13774.3467
NO
x

HC
22.4989 10.6680 631.0660 664.2329
HC
PM
2.7286 1.3335 643.6873 647.7494
PM
CO
22.0202 10.6680 274.5137 307.2019
CO
SO
2

6.2231 3.0226 8266.9646 8276.2103
SO
2

1) 1482 kg GAC

87

1
- Case 2
production
Lignite sub
Liquid fuels
(oil)
Natural gas
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.298 TJ)
2

0.00596 (TJ) 0.0001192 (TJ) 0.0061388 (TJ) 0.0008046 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 1.06684E-05 1.10618E-06 9.6993E-05 2.3092E-07
CH
4
kg 5.98086 0.003753608 1.8846116 0.30067902
CO kg 0.337336 0.00537592 0.46133082 0.065953062
CO
2
kg 1643.96468 44.2206968 1408.117944 197.7956226
Cs-134 kBq 0.000231248 3.30184E-06 0.000150401 4.30461E-06
Hg kg 0.0001937 2.31248E-06 6.20019E-06 6.01841E-07
Kr-85 kBq 29978.8 427.928 19521.384 557.5878
N
2
O kg 0.0106684 0.00021456 0.033947564 0.0012069
NH
3
kg 0.00892212 0.00021456 0.001375091 4.83565E-05
NMVOC kg 0.202044 0.00150192 3.6096144 0.0498852
NO
x
kg 2.692132 0.0665136 3.09763848 0.328630824
PAH kg 2.09792E-05 4.26736E-07 3.27812E-05 1.73794E-05
Particles kg 1.9166764 0.030713072 0.594665556 0.012978198
Pb kg 0.000392764 3.48064E-06 0.000834877 3.25863E-06
Rn-222 kBq 43508 621.032 28361.256 81264.6
SO
x
kg 6.3299372 0.431924776 14.48388472 0.046900134
Sr-90 kBq 0.000319456 4.55344E-06 0.000207491 5.93795E-06
U-238 kBq 0.07261664 0.000598861 0.001946 6.25979E-05
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.0070328 1.16816E-05 0.037692232 0.00064368
Cs-134 kBq 0.04105248 0.000585868 0.026759029 0.00072414
N total kg 0.00425544 1.16816E-05 0.045568312 0.000217242
Oil kg 0.015198 5.65008E-05 0.42848824 0.002381616
PO
4
3-
kg 0.1043 1.64496E-05 0.001184788 0.000957474
Sr-90 kBq 0.0386804 0.000551896 0.02516908 0.000719312
U-238 kBq 0.153172 0.00017284 0.011172616 0.000226093

88

1
- Case 2
production
Nuclear
energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro energy Wind
Total emission
(kg/f.u.) or
(kBq/f.u.)
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.298 TJ)
2

0.13857 (TJ) 0.005811 (TJ) 0.1400004 (TJ) 0.000596 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd Kg 1.80141E-05 1.44694E-06 9.39403E-06 7.8672E-07 0.00013864
CH
4
Kg 1.4217282 0.07955259 0.334600956 0.00910688 10.01489285
CO Kg 0.8328057 1.09182879 0.810602316 0.02062756 3.625860168
CO
2
Kg 499.54485 52.089804 146.300418 2.728488 3994.762503
Cs-134 kBq 0.318711 1.47599E-05 0.000183401 2.9025E-06 0.319301318
Hg Kg 3.1594E-05 7.43808E-05 5.61402E-06 1.3708E-07 0.00031454
Kr-85 kBq 41155290 1906.008 23800.068 375.48 41231857.26
N
2
O Kg 0.110856 0.0790296 0.002100006 4.4998E-05 0.238068028
NH
3
Kg 0.00706707 1.87114E-05 0.000784002 1.279E-05 0.018442701
NMVOC Kg 0.5445801 0.2661438 0.132580379 0.00628184 4.812631639
NO
x
Kg 1.33013343 1.464372 0.447441278 0.00586762 9.432729232
PAH Kg 6.23565E-05 1.72587E-06 1.3888E-05 5.06E-07 0.000150043
Particles Kg 0.9810756 0.1708434 0.292600836 0.00724736 4.006800422
Pb Kg 0.000239726 5.45072E-05 0.000177801 1.5919E-05 0.001722333
Rn-222 kBq 59862240 2777.658 34580.0988 539.38 60053892.02
SO
x
Kg 3.478107 0.2481297 0.400401144 0.01134784 25.43063251
Sr-90 kBq 0.4392669 2.02804E-05 0.000253401 3.9932E-06 0.440082013
U-238 kBq 3.15607032 0.000195831 0.002472407 4.1243E-05 3.234003899
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD Kg 0.0124713 0.003219294 0.003682011 0.00018178 0.064934778
Cs-134 kBq 56.4839034 0.00261495 0.032620093 0.00051554 56.5887755
N total Kg 0.20660787 0.003504033 0.002660008 0.0000894 0.262913987
Oil Kg 0.03491964 0.05811 0.01043003 0.00040826 0.549992287
PO
4
3-
Kg 0.01773696 0.000327159 0.004060012 8.8804E-05 0.128671647
Sr-90 kBq 53.21088 0.002463864 0.030800088 0.00048574 53.30975038
U-238 kBq 15.10413 0.000772863 0.009660028 0.00015258 15.27945902

89

O
u
t
p
u
t

emission
to air
Dust 1.023114387
NH
3
0.007436729
HCl 0.22058374
N2O 0.054045414
CO
2
, fossil 12856.00809
CO 1.437206589
As 6.60882E-06
Cd 1.91403E-06
Cr 1.15633E-05
Ni 0.000113342
NO
x
5.228110437
SO
2
7.847572606
CH
4
65.37790269
C
6
H
6
0.000439546
NMVOC 0.225881637
PAH 6.36664E-07
C
20
H
12
2.33209E-09
emission
to water
AOX 1.79946E-11
BSB-5 3.59892E-10
CSB 1.18764E-08

90


Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
transportation
GAC
production
GAC
Transportation
Equipment
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
14.06716906 17.39609387 46.8606199 12856.00809 522.90362 2384.40719 3994.762503 19836.40528
CH
4
22.19859049 6.443637552 29.33323475 65.37790269 10.01489285 133.3682583
SO
2
3.97329E-05 0.00027813 0.000760107 7.847572606 8.2762103 26.48394443 25.43063251 68.03943782
NO
x
0.894853687 0.513072481 0.022457718 5.228110437 13.7743467 48.06947865 9.432729232 77.9350489
CO 0.364506038 0.02988604 0.659911406 1.437206589 0.30720191 1.680749985 3.625860168 8.105322136
Dust (PM) 1.023114387 0.64774941 2.096276817 4.006800422 7.773941036
NH
3
0.007436729 0.018442701 0.025879431
HCl 0.22058374 0.22058374
N
2
O 0.054045414 0.238068028 0.292113442
As 6.60882E-06 6.60882E-06
Cd 1.91403E-06 0.00013864 0.000140554
Cr 1.15633E-05 1.15633E-05
Ni 0.000113342 0.000113342
C
6
H
6
0.000439546 0.000439546
PCDD, PCDF 5.83022E-11 5.83022E-11
NMVOC 0.225881637 4.812631639 5.038513276
PAH, unspec. 6.36664E-07 6.36664E-07
C
20
H
12
2.33209E-09 2.33209E-09
PAH - B(a)P 1.16604E-06 0.000150043 0.000151209
HC 0.6642329 2.70940867 3.37364157
Hg 0.00031454 0.00031454
Pb 0.001722333 0.001722333
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 3.62779E-06 6.21906E-05 4.83705E-05

0.000114189
Al 9.72592E-06 1.50259E-05 1.25072E-05

3.72591E-05
Ca 5.70081E-05 0.000148566 8.49938E-05 0.000290568
Mg 1.24381E-05 3.48958E-05 8.36118E-06 5.56951E-05
K 8.29208E-06 2.03847E-05 3.59323E-06 3.227E-05
Fe 6.04631E-06 2.33215E-05 1.07175E-05 4.00853E-05
Ba 8.17115E-07 5.04262E-06 1.2103E-05 1.79627E-05
Ti 1.48912E-07 1.31326E-06 6.0394E-06 7.50157E-06
Sr 7.9984E-07 2.83313E-06 1.07659E-06 4.70956E-06
Pb 9.41497E-07 3.11126E-06 1.05793E-06 5.11069E-06
Nitrogen comp 1.61951E-08 1.61951E-08
AOX 1.79946E-11 1.79946E-11
BSB-5 3.59892E-10 3.59892E-10
CSB 1.18764E-08 1.18764E-08
COD 0.064934778 0.064934778
N total 0.262913987 0.262913987
Oil 0.549992287 0.549992287
PO4
3-
0.128671647 0.128671647
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 7.42832E-06 8.63758E-05 0.000207993 0.000301797
Cu 1.50812E-06 4.77486E-06 2.19636E-05 2.82466E-05
Mn 1.17989E-05 5.2862E-05 7.51124E-06 7.21722E-05
Zn 4.8025E-07 1.3523E-05 4.59519E-06 1.85984E-05
Cr 1.44196E-06 6.57838E-06 4.33952E-06 1.23599E-05
Ni 9.70864E-08 1.69919E-06 2.1746E-06

3.97087E-06
As 6.46091E-07 1.78452E-06 1.53542E-06

3.96603E-06
Pb 1.00541E-06 2.9005E-06 1.56617E-06

5.47208E-06
O
3
0.000105724 8.46483E-06 1.83117E-05

0.000132501
V 7.3074E-08 1.09576E-06 1.22688E-06

2.39572E-06
Co 1.18162E-07 5.19983E-07 3.22009E-07

9.60154E-07
Hg 1.38547E-08 5.69735E-08 2.6203E-08

9.70312E-08
91

Hard coal,
coke oven
coal, peat
1

0.00596 (TJ) 0.0001192 (TJ) 0.0061388 (TJ) 0.0008046 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.0255088 0.00065083 0.02565684 0.003532194
Crude oil kg 15.3768 0.0569776 448.6878 1.013796
Lignite kg 11.622 4.93488 7.54974 0.213219
Limestone kg 13.1716 0.224096 2.645478 0.16092
Natural gas m
3
11.31208 0.0467264 37.184004 47.5615152
Hard coal kg 1090.68 0.16688 9.14562 9.73566
Uranium ore kg 0.0007927 1.1288E-05 0.00051498 1.47242E-05
Water kg 63772 1609.2 118463.4 48919.68
Wood kg 7.8672 0.003278 0.1755468 0.0836784

Renewable
wastes
resources
(kg/ f.u.) or (m
3
/ f.u.)
1

0.13857 (TJ) 0.005811 (TJ) 0.1400004 (TJ) 0.000596 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore Kg 0.3131682 0.002580084 0.008092023 0.0246744 0.403863373
Crude oil Kg 34.08822 16.137147 10.47202992 0.39932 526.2320905
Lignite Kg 32.97966 0.732186 9.15602616 0.139166 67.32687716
Limestone Kg 22.58691 0.4980027 91.700262 0.44998 131.4372487
Natural gas m
3
57.50655 1.656135 3.30400944 0.225288 158.796308
Hard coal Kg 174.5982 1.702623 41.1601176 0.91188 1328.100981
Uranium ore Kg 1.0877745 5.03233E-05 0.000628602 9.8936E-06 1.089796989
Water Kg 350582.1 382.3638 1638.00468 27.6842 585394.4327
Wood Kg 2.965398 1011.114 0.41300118 0.0093572 1022.63146

(t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship Heavy oil 126572.05
0.216
27339.5628
Small ship Heavy oil 2678.4 0.432 1157.0688
2) Energy requirement published by NTM 2002 [7]

92

6.3 Case 3

method) - Case 3

(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
26.1979668 32.39758384 87.27079039
CH
4
41.3415047 12.0002967 54.62869649
SO
2
7.3996E-05 0.000517975 0.001415585
NO
x
1.66652914 0.955519603 0.04182409
CO 0.67883716 0.055658213 1.228984809
Emission
to water
Na 6.7562E-06 0.000115821 9.00827E-05
Al 1.8113E-05 2.79835E-05 2.32928E-05
Ca
0.00010617 0.000276682 0.000158288
Mg 2.3164E-05 6.49882E-05 1.55714E-05
K 1.5443E-05 3.79634E-05 6.69185E-06
Fe 1.126E-05 4.34327E-05 1.99597E-05
Ba
1.5218E-06 9.39112E-06 2.254E-05
Ti 2.7733E-07 2.44574E-06 1.12475E-05
Sr 1.4896E-06 5.27627E-06 2.00498E-06
Pb 1.7534E-06 5.79425E-06 1.97024E-06
Emission
to soil
Ba
1.3834E-05 0.000160862 0.000387355
Cu
2.8086E-06 8.89245E-06 4.0904E-05
Mn 2.1974E-05 9.84475E-05 1.39885E-05
Zn
8.9439E-07 2.51845E-05 8.55785E-06
Cr
2.6854E-06 1.22512E-05 8.0817E-06
Ni 1.8081E-07 3.16448E-06 4.04986E-06
As
1.2032E-06 3.32341E-06 2.85948E-06
Pb
1.8724E-06 5.40174E-06 2.91675E-06
O
3

0.00019689 1.57645E-05 3.41027E-05
V 1.3609E-07 2.04069E-06 2.28488E-06
Co
2.2006E-07 9.68389E-07 5.99693E-07
Hg 2.5802E-08 1.06105E-07 4.87991E-08
3
natural gas

93


Truck with
semi-trailer
Medium
sized truck
Total
(t.km)
1

Vessel 7482 748.2 82426.7
Chiller 3025.6 80642
Decanter 6235 3999
Total 13717 3773.8 163068.7 3999
Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
2
CO
2
52 136 15.4 30.8
NO
x
0.33 0.9 0.429 0.729
HC 0.047 0.12 0.02 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.015 0.0204 0.0246
CO 0.046 0.12 0.0087 0.042
SO
2
0.013 0.034 0.262 0.515
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
3

CO
2
713284.00 513236.80 2511257.98 123169.20 3860947.98 CO
2

NO
x
4526.61 3396.42 69956.47 2915.27 80794.77 NO
x

HC 644.70 452.86 3261.37 79.98 4438.91 HC
PM 78.19 56.61 3326.60 98.38 3559.77 PM
CO 630.98 452.86 1418.70 167.96 2670.49 CO
SO
2
178.32 128.31 42724.00 2059.49 45090.11 SO
2


1
- Case 3
Total (t.km)
2

891.5 165.6 58763.16

Emission
to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2
52 136 15.4
NO
x
0.33 0.9 0.429
HC 0.047 0.12 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.015 0.0204
CO 0.046 0.12 0.0087
SO
2
0.013 0.034 0.262
Total
emission
to air
(g/f.u.)
4

CO
2

46358.0000 22521.6000 904952.6640 973832.2640
CO
2

NO
x

294.1950 149.0400 25209.3956 25652.6306
NO
x

HC
41.9005 19.8720 1175.2632 1237.0357
HC
PM
5.0816 2.4840 1198.7685 1206.3340
PM
CO
41.0090 19.8720 511.2395 572.1205
CO
SO
2

11.5895 5.6304 15395.9479 15413.1678
SO
2

1) 2760 kg GAC

94

1
- Case 3
production
Lignite sub
Liquid fuels
(oil)
Natural gas
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.44 TJ)
2

0.0088 (TJ) 0.000176 (TJ) 0.009064 (TJ) 0.001188(TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 1.5752E-05 1.63328E-06 0.000143211 3.40956E-07
CH
4
kg 8.8308 0.00554224 2.782648 0.4439556
CO kg 0.49808 0.0079376 0.6811596 0.09738036
CO
2
kg 2427.3304 65.292304 2079.10032 292.047228
Cs-134 kBq 0.00034144 4.8752E-06 0.000222068 6.3558E-06
Hg kg 0.000286 3.4144E-06 9.15464E-06 8.88624E-07
Kr-85 kBq 44264 631.84 28823.52 823.284
N
2
O kg 0.015752 0.0003168 0.05012392 0.001782
NH
3
kg 0.0131736 0.0003168 0.002030336 7.13988E-05
NMVOC kg 0.29832 0.0022176 5.329632 0.073656
NO
x
kg 3.97496 0.098208 4.5736944 0.48522672
PAH kg 3.0976E-05 6.3008E-07 4.84018E-05 2.56608E-05
Particles kg 2.829992 0.04534816 0.87802968 0.01916244
Pb kg 0.00057992 5.1392E-06 0.001232704 4.8114E-06
Rn-222 kBq 64240 916.96 41875.68 119988
SO
x
kg 9.346216 0.63774128 21.3856016 0.06924852
Sr-90 kBq 0.00047168 6.7232E-06 0.000306363 8.76744E-06
U-238 kBq 0.1072192 0.000884224 0.002873288 9.24264E-05
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.010384 0.000017248 0.05565296 0.0009504
Cs-134 kBq 0.0606144 0.00086504 0.039509976 0.0010692
N total kg 0.0062832 0.000017248 0.067282072 0.00032076
Oil kg 0.02244 0.000083424 0.6326672 0.00351648
PO
4
3-
kg 0.154 0.000024288 0.001749352 0.00141372
Sr-90 kBq 0.057112 0.00081488 0.0371624 0.001062072
U-238 kBq 0.22616 0.0002552 0.01649648 0.000333828
1) Total electricity required for GAC adsorption in Case 3 = 0.44 TJ (See Appendix4.3.10)

95

1
- Case 3
production
Nuclear
energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro energy Wind
Total emission
(kg/f.u.) or
(kBq/f.u.)
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.44 TJ)
2

0.2046 (TJ) 0.00858 (TJ) 0.206712 (TJ) 0.00088 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd Kg 0.000026598 2.13642E-06 1.38704E-05 1.1616E-06 0.000204704
CH
4
Kg 2.099196 0.1174602 0.49404168 0.0134464 14.78709012
CO Kg 1.229646 1.6120962 1.19686248 0.0304568 5.35361904
CO
2
Kg 737.583 76.91112 216.01404 4.02864 5898.307052
Cs-134 kBq 0.47058 2.17932E-05 0.000270793 4.2856E-06 0.471451611
Hg Kg 4.66488E-05 0.000109824 8.28915E-06 2.024E-07 0.000464422
Kr-85 kBq 60766200 2814.24 35141.04 554.4 60879252.32
N
2
O Kg 0.16368 0.116688 0.00310068 0.00006644 0.35150984
NH
3
Kg 0.0104346 2.76276E-05 0.001157587 1.88848E-05 0.027230834
NMVOC Kg 0.804078 0.392964 0.195756264 0.0092752 7.105899064
NO
x
Kg 1.9639554 2.16216 0.660651552 0.0086636 13.92751967
PAH Kg 0.00009207 2.54826E-06 2.05058E-05 7.4712E-07 0.00022154
Particles Kg 1.448568 0.252252 0.43202808 0.0107008 5.91608116
Pb Kg 0.000353958 8.04804E-05 0.000262524 2.35048E-05 0.002543042
Rn-222 kBq 88387200 4101.24 51057.864 796.4 88670176.14
SO
x
Kg 5.13546 0.366366 0.59119632 0.0167552 37.54858492
Sr-90 kBq 0.648582 2.99442E-05 0.000374149 0.000005896 0.649785523
U-238 kBq 4.6599696 0.000289146 0.003650534 0.000060896 4.775039314
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD Kg 0.018414 0.00475332 0.005436526 0.0002684 0.095876854
Cs-134 kBq 83.399052 0.003861 0.048163896 0.0007612 83.55389671
N total Kg 0.3050586 0.00517374 0.003927528 0.000132 0.388195148
Oil Kg 0.0515592 0.0858 0.015400044 0.0006028 0.812069148
PO
4
3-
Kg 0.0261888 0.000483054 0.005994648 0.00013112 0.189984982
Sr-90 kBq 78.5664 0.00363792 0.04547664 0.0007172 78.71238311
U-238 kBq 22.3014 0.00114114 0.014263128 0.00022528 22.56027506

96

O
u
t
p
u
t

emission
to air
Dust 1.905395215
NH
3
0.013849779
HCl 0.410803727
N2O 0.100651379
CO
2
, fossil 23942.36324
CO 2.676579072
As 1.23079E-05
Cd 3.5646E-06
Cr 2.1535E-05
Ni 0.000211081
NO
x
9.736561947
SO
2
14.61491255
CH
4
121.756418
C
6
H
6
0.000818588
NMVOC 0.420670255
PAH 1.18569E-06
C
20
H
12
4.34316E-09
emission
to water
AOX 3.35122E-11
BSB-5 6.70244E-10
CSB 2.21181E-08

97

Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
transportation
GAC
production
GAC
Transportation
Equipment
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
26.19796675 32.39758384 87.27079039 23942.36324 973.832264 3860.94798 5898.307052 34821.31687
CH
4
41.3415047 12.0002967 54.62869649 121.756418 14.78709012 244.514006
SO
2
7.39965E-05 0.000517975 0.001415585 14.61491255 15.41316782 45.0901146 37.54858492 112.6687874
NO
x
1.666529139 0.955519603 0.04182409 9.736561947 25.65263064 80.7947733 13.92751967 132.7753584
CO 0.678837159 0.055658213 1.228984809 2.676579072 0.572120492 2.67049369 5.35361904 13.23629247
Dust (PM) 1.905395215 1.206334014 3.55977078 5.91608116 12.58758117
NH
3
0.013849779 0.027230834 0.041080614
HCl 0.410803727 0.410803727
N
2
O 0.100651379 0.35150984 0.452161219
As 1.23079E-05 1.23079E-05
Cd 3.5646E-06 0.000204704 0.000208268
Cr 2.1535E-05 2.1535E-05
Ni 0.000211081 0.000211081
C
6
H
6
0.000818588 0.000818588
PCDD, PCDF 1.08579E-10 1.08579E-10
NMVOC 0.420670255 7.105899064 7.526569319
PAH, unspec. 1.18569E-06 1.18569E-06
C
20
H
12
4.34316E-09 4.34316E-09
PAH - B(a)P 2.17158E-06 0.00022154 0.000223711
HC 1.2370357 4.438909 5.6759447
Hg 0.000464422 0.000464422
Pb 0.002543042 0.002543042
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 6.7562E-06 0.000115821 9.00827E-05

0.000212659
Al 1.8113E-05 2.79835E-05 2.32928E-05

6.93894E-05
Ca 0.000106169 0.000276682 0.000158288 0.000541139
Mg 2.31641E-05 6.49882E-05 1.55714E-05 0.000103724
K 1.54427E-05 3.79634E-05 6.69185E-06 6.0098E-05
Fe 1.12603E-05 4.34327E-05 1.99597E-05 7.46528E-05
Ba 1.52175E-06 9.39112E-06 2.254E-05 3.34528E-05
Ti 2.77326E-07 2.44574E-06 1.12475E-05 1.39705E-05
Sr 1.48958E-06 5.27627E-06 2.00498E-06 8.77083E-06
Pb 1.75339E-06 5.79425E-06 1.97024E-06 9.51788E-06
Nitrogen comp 3.0161E-08 3.0161E-08
AOX 3.35122E-11 3.35122E-11
BSB-5 6.70244E-10 6.70244E-10
CSB 2.21181E-08 2.21181E-08
COD 0.095876854 0.095876854
N total 0.388195148 0.388195148
Oil 0.812069148 0.812069148
PO4
3-
0.189984982 0.189984982
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 1.38341E-05 0.000160862 0.000387355 0.000562051
Cu 2.80865E-06 8.89245E-06 4.0904E-05 5.26051E-05
Mn 2.19737E-05 9.84475E-05 1.39885E-05 0.00013441
Zn 8.94392E-07 2.51845E-05 8.55785E-06 3.46368E-05
Cr 2.68543E-06 1.22512E-05 8.0817E-06 2.30184E-05
Ni 1.80809E-07 3.16448E-06 4.04986E-06

7.39514E-06
As 1.20325E-06 3.32341E-06 2.85948E-06

7.38613E-06
Pb 1.87243E-06 5.40174E-06 2.91675E-06

1.01909E-05
O
3
0.000196895 1.57645E-05 3.41027E-05

0.000246762
V 1.36089E-07 2.04069E-06 2.28488E-06

4.46167E-06
Co 2.20059E-07 9.68389E-07 5.99693E-07

1.78814E-06
Hg 2.58022E-08 1.06105E-07 4.87991E-08

1.80706E-07
98

Hard coal,
coke oven
coal, peat
1

0.0088 (TJ) 0.000176 (TJ) 0.009064 (TJ) 0.001188(TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.037664 0.00096096 0.03788752 0.00521532
Crude oil kg 22.704 0.084128 662.5784 1.49688
Lignite kg 17.16 7.2864 11.14872 0.31482
Limestone kg 19.448 0.33088 3.906584 0.2376
Natural gas m
3
16.7024 0.068992 54.909712 70.225056
Hard coal kg 1610.4 0.2464 13.50536 14.3748
Uranium ore kg 0.0011704 1.66672E-05 0.00076047 2.17404E-05
Water kg 94160 2376 174935.2 72230.4
Wood kg 11.616 0.00484 0.2592304 0.123552

Renewable
wastes
resources
(kg/ f.u.)or(m
3
/ f.u.)
1

0.2046 (TJ) 0.00858 (TJ) 0.206712 (TJ) 0.00088 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.462396 0.00380952 0.011947954 0.036432 0.596313274
Crude oil kg 50.3316 23.82666 15.4620576 0.5896 777.0733256
Lignite kg 48.6948 1.08108 13.5189648 0.20548 99.4102648
Limestone kg 33.3498 0.735306 135.39636 0.6644 194.06893
Natural gas m
3
84.909 2.4453 4.8784032 0.33264 234.4715032
Hard coal kg 257.796 2.51394 60.773328 1.3464 1960.956228
Uranium ore kg 1.60611 7.43028E-05 0.000928137 0.000014608 1.609096325
Water kg 517638 564.564 2418.5304 40.876 864363.5704
Wood kg 4.37844 1492.92 0.6098004 0.013816 1509.925679

(t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship Heavy oil 221831.86
0.216
47915.68176
Small ship Heavy oil 3999 0.432 1727.568

99

Appendix 7, LCI normalized data VOCs incineration method

7.1 Common normalized data for Case 1, 2 and 3

Table App 7. 1. Electricity production emissions in Sweden (VOCs incineration method)
1
- Case 1, 2 and 3
production
Lignite sub
Liquid fuels
(oil)
Natural gas
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.279 TJ)
2

0.00558 (TJ) 0.0001116 (TJ) 0.0057474 (TJ) 0.0007533(TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 9.9882E-06 1.03565E-06 9.08089E-05 2.16197E-07
CH
4
kg 5.59953 0.003514284 1.7644518 0.28150821
CO kg 0.315828 0.00503316 0.43191711 0.061748001
CO
2
kg 1539.14814 41.4012564 1318.338612 185.1844923
Cs-134 kBq 0.000216504 3.09132E-06 0.000140811 4.03016E-06
Hg kg 0.00018135 2.16504E-06 5.80487E-06 5.63468E-07
Kr-85 kBq 28067.4 400.644 18276.732 522.0369
N
2
O kg 0.0099882 0.00020088 0.031783122 0.00112995
NH
3
kg 0.00835326 0.00020088 0.001287418 4.52733E-05
NMVOC kg 0.189162 0.00140616 3.3794712 0.0467046
NO
x
kg 2.520486 0.0622728 2.90013804 0.307677852
PAH kg 1.96416E-05 3.99528E-07 3.06911E-05 1.62713E-05
Particles kg 1.7944722 0.028754856 0.556750638 0.012150729
Pb kg 0.000367722 3.25872E-06 0.000781646 3.05087E-06
Rn-222 kBq 40734 581.436 26552.988 76083.3
SO
x
kg 5.9263506 0.404385948 13.56041556 0.043909857
Sr-90 kBq 0.000299088 4.26312E-06 0.000194262 5.55935E-06
U-238 kBq 0.06798672 0.000560678 0.001821926 5.86067E-05
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.0065844 1.09368E-05 0.035289036 0.00060264
Cs-134 kBq 0.03843504 0.000548514 0.025052917 0.00067797
N total kg 0.00398412 1.09368E-05 0.04266295 0.000203391
Oil kg 0.014229 5.28984E-05 0.40116852 0.002229768
PO
4
3-
kg 0.09765 1.54008E-05 0.001109248 0.000896427
Sr-90 kBq 0.0362142 0.000516708 0.02356434 0.00067345
U-238 kBq 0.143406 0.00016182 0.010460268 0.000211677
1) Total electricity required for VOCs incineration in all cases = 0.279 TJ (See Appendix 4.4.8, 4.5.8 and 4.6.8)

100

Table App 7.1. (Continue) Electricity production emissions in Sweden (VOCs incineration method)
1
- Case 1, 2 and 3
production
Nuclear
energy
Renewable
wastes
Hydro energy Wind
Total emission
(kg/f.u.) or
(kBq/f.u.)
considering energy
source percentage
(Total=0.279 TJ)
2

0.129735(TJ) 0.0054405 (TJ) 0.1310742 (TJ) 0.000558 (TJ)
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

Cd kg 1.68656E-05 1.35468E-06 8.79508E-06 7.3656E-07 0.000129801
CH
4
kg 1.3310811 0.074480445 0.313267338 0.00852624 9.376359417
CO kg 0.77970735 1.022215545 0.758919618 0.01931238 3.394681164
CO
2
kg 467.694675 48.768642 136.972539 2.554524 3740.062881
Cs-134 kBq 0.2983905 1.38189E-05 0.000171707 2.71746E-06 0.29894318
Hg kg 2.95796E-05 6.96384E-05 5.25608E-06 1.2834E-07 0.000294486
Kr-85 kBq 38531295 1784.484 22282.614 351.54 38602980.45
N
2
O kg 0.103788 0.0739908 0.001966113 0.000042129 0.222889194
NH
3
kg 0.006616485 1.75184E-05 0.000734016 1.19747E-05 0.017266825
NMVOC kg 0.50985855 0.2491749 0.124127267 0.00588132 4.505785997
NO
x
kg 1.245326265 1.371006 0.418913143 0.00549351 8.83131361
PAH kg 5.83808E-05 1.61583E-06 1.30026E-05 4.73742E-07 0.000140476
Particles kg 0.9185238 0.1599507 0.273945078 0.00678528 3.751333281
Pb kg 0.000224442 5.10319E-05 0.000166464 1.49042E-05 0.00161252
Rn-222 kBq 56045520 2600.559 32375.3274 504.99 56224952.6
SO
x
kg 3.2563485 0.23230935 0.374872212 0.01062432 23.80921635
Sr-90 kBq 0.41125995 1.89873E-05 0.000237244 3.7386E-06 0.412023093
U-238 kBq 2.95484436 0.000183345 0.00231477 3.86136E-05 3.02780902
(
O
u
t
p
u
t
)

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

COD kg 0.01167615 0.003014037 0.003447251 0.00017019 0.060794641
Cs-134 kBq 52.8825807 0.002448225 0.030540289 0.00048267 52.98076632
N total kg 0.193434885 0.003280622 0.00249041 0.0000837 0.246151014
Oil kg 0.03269322 0.054405 0.009765028 0.00038223 0.514925664
PO
4
3-
kg 0.01660608 0.0003063 0.003801152 0.000083142 0.12046775
Sr-90 kBq 49.81824 0.002306772 0.028836324 0.00045477 49.91080656
U-238 kBq 14.141115 0.000723587 0.00904412 0.000142848 14.30526532

101

Table App 7. 2. Emission of RTO equipment transportation (VOCs incineration method) Case 1, 2 and 3

Truck with
semi-trailer
Large ship
Total Weight. Distance (t.km)
1
31980 140925.2
Emission to
air (g/t.km)
2

CO
2
52 15.4
NO
x
0.33 0.429
HC 0.047 0.02
PM 0.0057 0.0204
CO 0.046 0.0087
SO
2
0.013 0.262
Total
emission to
air (g/f.u.)
3

CO
2
1662960.00 2170248.08 3833208.08 CO
2

NO
x
10553.40 60456.91 71010.31 NO
x

HC 1503.06 2818.50 4321.56 HC
PM 182.29 2874.87 3057.16 PM
CO 1471.08 1226.05 2697.13 CO
SO
2
415.74 36922.40 37338.14 SO
2

1) See Appendix 4.4.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3
3) Total emission= Total Weight. Distance (t.km) * Emission to air (g/t.km)

Table App 7. 3. Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (VOCs incineration method) Case 1, 2 and 3
Hard coal,
coke oven
coal, peat
1

0.00558 (TJ) 0.0001116 (TJ) 0.0057474 (TJ) 0.0007533(TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.0238824 0.000609336 0.024024132 0.003306987
Crude oil kg 14.3964 0.0533448 420.13494 0.949158
Lignite kg 10.881 4.62024 7.069302 0.1996245
Limestone kg 12.3318 0.209808 2.4771294 0.15066
Natural gas m
3
10.59084 0.0437472 34.8177492 44.5290696
Hard coal kg 1021.14 0.15624 8.563626 9.11493
Uranium ore kg 0.00074214 1.05685E-05 0.000482207 1.37854E-05
Water kg 59706 1506.6 110924.82 45800.64
Wood kg 7.3656 0.003069 0.16437564 0.0783432

Table App 7.3. (Continue) Natural resource for electricity production in Sweden (VOCs incineration method) Case 1, 2 and 3
Renewable
wastes
resources
(kg/f.u.)or(m
3
/f.u.)
1

0.129735(TJ) 0.0054405 (TJ) 0.1310742 (TJ) 0.000558 (TJ)
(
I
n
p
u
t
)

G
r
o
u
n
d

d
e
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

2

Copper ore kg 0.2932011 0.002415582 0.007576089 0.0231012 0.378116826
Crude oil kg 31.91481 15.1082685 9.80435016 0.37386 492.7351315
Lignite kg 30.87693 0.685503 8.57225268 0.130293 63.03514518
Limestone kg 21.146805 0.46625085 85.853601 0.42129 123.0573443
Natural gas m
3
53.840025 1.5505425 3.09335112 0.210924 148.6762486
Hard coal kg 163.4661 1.5940665 38.5358148 0.85374 1243.424517
Uranium ore kg 1.01841975 4.71147E-05 0.000588523 9.2628E-06 1.020313351
Water kg 328229.55 357.9849 1533.56814 25.9191 548085.0821
Wood kg 2.776329 946.647 0.38666889 0.0087606 957.4301463

102

7.2 Case 1

Table App 7. 4. Emissions of natural gas extraction, treatment, combustion and transportation by pipeline (VOCs
incineration method) - Case 1

Natural gas
extraction (kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
3010.4671 3722.879 210729 55256.93692
CH
4
4750.645 1378.981 0.1519467 34589.05806
SO
2
0.0085031 0.0595217 15.60134 0.89630068
NO
x
191.5046 109.8009 243.2626 26.481611
CO 78.0067 6.39581 188.9167 778.151954
Emission
to water
Na 0.00077637 0.0133092 1.22001 0.057037316
Al 0.002081411 0.003215651 0.380791 0.01474822
Ca 0.0122001 0.0317942 2.506566 0.100222712
Mg 0.00266184 0.00746794 0.3061116 0.009859307
K 0.00177456 0.00436246 0.1208919 0.004237058
Fe 0.00129395 0.00499095 0.1992683 0.01263784
Ba 0.000174868 0.001079154 0.03678515 0.014271551
Ti 3.18681E-05 0.000281046 0.02159048 0.007121516
Sr 0.000171171 0.000606308 0.01541649 0.001269488
Pb 0.000201487 0.00066583 0.01741287 0.001247488
Emission
to soil
Ba 0.00158971 0.018485 1.046251 0.245260459
Cu 0.000322748 0.001021851 0.66546 0.025899016
Mn 0.002525051 0.01131282 0.195941 0.00885708
Zn 0.000102777 0.002894012 0.2133169 0.005418545
Cr 0.000308589 0.001407818 0.1086918 0.005117062
Ni 2.07771E-05 0.000363637 0.077637 0.002564235
As 0.000138268 0.0003819 0.0713521 0.001810527
Pb 0.000215165 0.000620726 0.0558247 0.001846787
O
3
0.02262564 0.00181153 0.595217 0.021592698
V 1.56383E-05 0.000234501 0.03386452 0.001446711
Co 2.52875E-05 0.00011128 0.00902068 0.000379706
Hg 2.96499E-06 1.21927E-05 0.000990796 3.08979E-05
1) All emission is for extraction, treatment, combustion and transportation of 104664 m
3
natural gas
2) Natural gas is extracted from Yamal field, north of Russia
3) Natural gas transportation distance by pipeline= 4960 km from Yamal field, Russia, to Gothenburg

Table App 7. 5. Emission of natural gas transportation by road (VOCs incineration method)
1
- Case 1
2
5023.9
Emission to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2
52
NO
x
0.33
HC 0.047
PM 0.0057
CO 0.046
SO
2
0.013
Total emission to
air (g/f.u.)
4

CO
2
261242.8000
NO
x
1657.8870
HC 236.1233
PM 28.6362
CO 231.0994
SO
2
65.3107
1) 104664 m
3
Natural gas
4)Total emission= Total Weight. Distance (t.km) * Emission to air (g/t.km)
103

Table App 7. 6. Total emission of VOCs incineration method (kg/f.u.) - Case 1
Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
combustion
Natural gas
pipeline
transportation
Natural gas
road
transportation
RTO
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
3010.4671 3722.879 210729 55256.93692 261.2428 3833.20808 3740.062881 280553.7968
CH
4
4750.645 1378.981 0.1519467 34589.05806 9.376359417 40728.21237
SO
2
0.0085031 0.0595217 15.60134 0.89630068 0.0653107 37.3381424 23.80921635 77.77833493
NO
x
191.5046 109.8009 243.2626 26.481611 1.657887 71.0103108 8.83131361 652.5492224
CO 78.0067 6.39581 188.9167 778.151954 0.2310994 2.69712924 3.394681164 1057.794074
Dust (PM) 0.02863623 3.05716008 3.751333281 6.837129591
NH
3
0.017266825 0.017266825
N
2
O 0.222889194 0.222889194
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801
NMVOC 4.505785997 4.505785997
PAH- B(a)P 0.000140476 0.000140476
HC 0.2361233 4.321564 4.5576873
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 0.00077637 0.0133092 1.22001 0.057037316 1.291132886
Al 0.002081411 0.003215651 0.380791 0.01474822 0.400836282
Ca 0.0122001 0.0317942 2.506566 0.100222712 2.650783012
Mg 0.00266184 0.00746794 0.3061116 0.009859307 0.326100687
K 0.00177456 0.00436246 0.1208919 0.004237058 0.131265978
Fe 0.00129395 0.00499095 0.1992683 0.01263784 0.21819104
Ba 0.000174868 0.001079154 0.03678515 0.014271551 0.052310724
Ti 3.18681E-05 0.000281046 0.02159048 0.007121516 0.02902491
Sr 0.000171171 0.000606308 0.01541649 0.001269488 0.017463457
Pb 0.000201487 0.00066583 0.01741287 0.001247488 0.019527674
COD 0.060794641 0.060794641
N total 0.246151014 0.246151014
Oil 0.514925664 0.514925664
PO4
3-
0.12046775 0.12046775
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 0.00158971 0.018485 1.046251 0.245260459 1.311586169
Cu 0.000322748 0.001021851 0.66546 0.025899016 0.692703614
Mn 0.002525051 0.01131282 0.195941 0.00885708 0.218635951
Zn 0.000102777 0.002894012 0.2133169 0.005418545 0.221732233
Cr 0.000308589 0.001407818 0.1086918 0.005117062 0.115525268
Ni 2.07771E-05 0.000363637 0.077637 0.002564235 0.080585649
As 0.000138268 0.0003819 0.0713521 0.001810527 0.073682795
Pb 0.000215165 0.000620726 0.0558247 0.001846787 0.058507379
O
3
0.02262564 0.00181153 0.595217 0.021592698 0.641246868
V 1.56383E-05 0.000234501 0.03386452 0.001446711 0.03556137
Co 2.52875E-05 0.00011128 0.00902068 0.000379706 0.009536953
Hg 2.96499E-06 1.21927E-05 0.000990796 3.08979E-05 0.001036852

Table App 7. 7. Total fossil energy for transportation of natural gas and RTO equipment (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1
Total Weight.
Distance (t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship Heavy oil 140925.2 0.216 30439.8432
Truck with semi-trailer Diesel
37003.9 0.72 26642.808

104

7.3 Case 2
incineration method) Case 2

Natural gas
(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
2119.769474 2621.40226 148381.26 38908.23723
CH
4
3345.0863 970.98614 0.106990698 24355.30002
SO
2
0.005987314 0.041911198 10.9854196 0.631114959
NO
x
134.844724 77.314446 171.289244 18.64657834
CO 54.927098 4.5035014 133.022498 547.9225328
Emission
to water
Na 0.000546668 0.009371448 0.8590494 0.040161861
Al 0.00146559 0.002264246 0.26812754 0.01038471
Ca 0.008590494 0.022387348 1.76495604 0.070570127
Mg 0.00187429 0.005258424 0.215543304 0.006942265
K 0.001249526 0.003071752 0.085123986 0.002983453
Fe 0.000911113 0.003514293 0.140311402 0.008898721
Ba 0.00012313 0.000759868 0.025901641 0.010049071
Ti 2.24394E-05 0.000197894 0.015202571 0.005014495
Sr 0.000120527 0.000426922 0.010855261 0.000893888
Pb 0.000141873 0.000468833 0.012260978 0.000878397
Emission
to soil
Ba 0.001119367 0.0130159 0.73669994 0.172696002
Cu 0.000227258 0.000719519 0.4685724 0.018236354
Mn 0.001777972 0.007965731 0.13796854 0.006236563
Zn 7.23684E-05 0.002037769 0.150203486 0.003815377
Cr 0.000217287 0.000991291 0.076533492 0.003603093
Ni 1.46299E-05 0.000256049 0.05466678 0.001805563
As 9.73589E-05 0.000268908 0.050241374 0.001274852
Pb 0.000151505 0.000437074 0.039308018 0.001300384
O
3
0.015931462 0.001275558 0.41911198 0.015204133
V 1.10115E-05 0.00016512 0.023845129 0.001018677
Co 1.78058E-05 7.83557E-05 0.006351759 0.000267363
Hg 2.08775E-06 8.58529E-06 0.000697652 2.17563E-05
3
natural gas

1
- Case 2
2

3537.41
Emission to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2
52
NO
x
0.33
HC 0.047
PM 0.0057
CO 0.046
SO
2
0.013
Total emission to
air (g/f.u.)
4

CO
2

183945.3200
NO
x

1167.3453
HC
166.2583
PM
20.1632
CO
162.7209
SO
2

45.9863
1) 73696 m
3
Natural gas
105

Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
combustion
Natural gas
pipeline
transportation
Natural gas
road
transportation
RTO
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
2119.769474 2621.40226 148381.26 38908.23723 183.94532 3833.20808 3740.062881 199787.8852
CH
4
3345.0863 970.98614 0.106990698 24355.30002 9.376359417 28680.85581
SO
2
0.005987314 0.041911198 10.9854196 0.631114959 0.04598633 37.3381424 23.80921635 72.85777815
NO
x
134.844724 77.314446 171.289244 18.64657834 1.1673453 71.0103108 8.83131361 483.1039621
CO 54.927098 4.5035014 133.022498 547.9225328 0.16272086 2.69712924 3.394681164 746.6301614
Dust (PM) 0.020163237 3.05716008 3.751333281 6.828656598
NH
3
0.017266825 0.017266825
N
2
O 0.222889194 0.222889194
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801
NMVOC 4.505785997 4.505785997
PAH- B(a)P 0.000140476 0.000140476
HC 0.16625827 4.321564 4.48782227
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 0.000546668 0.009371448 0.8590494 0.040161861 0.909129377
Al 0.00146559 0.002264246 0.26812754 0.01038471 0.282242086
Ca 0.008590494 0.022387348 1.76495604 0.070570127 1.866504009
Mg 0.00187429 0.005258424 0.215543304 0.006942265 0.229618282
K 0.001249526 0.003071752 0.085123986 0.002983453 0.092428717
Fe 0.000911113 0.003514293 0.140311402 0.008898721 0.153635529
Ba 0.00012313 0.000759868 0.025901641 0.010049071 0.036833711
Ti 2.24394E-05 0.000197894 0.015202571 0.005014495 0.0204374
Sr 0.000120527 0.000426922 0.010855261 0.000893888 0.012296598
Pb 0.000141873 0.000468833 0.012260978 0.000878397 0.013750081
COD 0.060794641 0.060794641
N total 0.246151014 0.246151014
Oil 0.514925664 0.514925664
PO4
3-
0.12046775 0.12046775
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 0.001119367 0.0130159 0.73669994 0.172696002 0.92353121
Cu 0.000227258 0.000719519 0.4685724 0.018236354 0.48775553
Mn 0.001777972 0.007965731 0.13796854 0.006236563 0.153948806
Zn 7.23684E-05 0.002037769 0.150203486 0.003815377 0.156129001
Cr 0.000217287 0.000991291 0.076533492 0.003603093 0.081345163
Ni 1.46299E-05 0.000256049 0.05466678 0.001805563 0.056743021
As 9.73589E-05 0.000268908 0.050241374 0.001274852 0.051882494
Pb 0.000151505 0.000437074 0.039308018 0.001300384 0.041196981
O
3
0.015931462 0.001275558 0.41911198 0.015204133 0.451523133
V 1.10115E-05 0.00016512 0.023845129 0.001018677 0.025039937
Co 1.78058E-05 7.83557E-05 0.006351759 0.000267363 0.006715284
Hg 2.08775E-06 8.58529E-06 0.000697652 2.17563E-05 0.000730082

Total Weight.
Distance (t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship
Heavy oil 140925.2 0.216 30439.8432
Diesel 35517.41 0.72 25572.5352
106

7.4 Case 3
incineration method) Case 3

Natural gas
(kg/f.u.)
(kg/f.u.)
Natural gas
O
u
t
p
u
t

Emission
to air
CO
2
1135.9485 1404.765 79515 20850.26427
CH
4
1792.575 520.335 0.0573345 13051.5921
SO
2
0.0032085 0.0224595 5.8869 0.3382038
NO
x
72.261 41.4315 91.791 9.992385
CO 29.4345 2.41335 71.2845 293.62239
Emission
to water
Na 0.00029295 0.005022 0.46035 0.02152206
Al 0.000785385 0.001213371 0.143685 0.00556499
Ca 0.0046035 0.011997 0.94581 0.037817334
Mg 0.0010044 0.0028179 0.115506 0.003720242
K 0.0006696 0.0016461 0.0456165 0.001598782
Fe 0.00048825 0.00188325 0.0751905 0.004768674
Ba 6.59835E-05 0.000407201 0.01388025 0.005385127
Ti 1.20249E-05 0.000106048 0.0081468 0.002687183
Sr 6.45885E-05 0.00022878 0.00581715 0.00047902
Pb 7.60275E-05 0.00025124 0.00657045 0.000470718
Emission
to soil
Ba 0.00059985 0.006975 0.394785 0.092544858
Cu 0.000121784 0.000385578 0.2511 0.009772553
Mn 0.000952785 0.0042687 0.073935 0.003342068
Zn 0.000038781 0.001092006 0.0804915 0.002044596
Cr 0.000116441 0.000531216 0.041013 0.001930836
Ni 7.8399E-06 0.000137212 0.029295 0.00096757
As 0.000052173 0.000144104 0.0269235 0.000683172
Pb 0.000081189 0.000234221 0.0210645 0.000696854
O
3
0.0085374 0.00068355 0.224595 0.008147637
V 5.90085E-06 8.84849E-05 0.0127782 0.000545892
Co 9.5418E-06 4.19895E-05 0.0034038 0.000143275
Hg 1.11879E-06 4.60071E-06 0.00037386 1.16588E-05
3
natural gas

1
- Case 3
2

1895.71
Emission to air
(g/t.km)
3

CO
2
52
NO
x
0.33
HC 0.047
PM 0.0057
CO 0.046
SO
2
0.013
Total emission to
air (g/f.u.)
4

CO
2

98576.9200
NO
x

625.5843
HC
89.0984
PM
10.8055
CO
87.2027
SO
2

24.6442
1) 39494 m
3
Natural gas
107

Emission
Natural gas
extraction
Natural gas
treatment
Natural gas
combustion
Natural gas
pipeline
transportation
Natural gas
road
transportation
RTO
transportation
Electricity
production
Total
Emission
(kg/f.u.)
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
)

CO
2
1135.9485 1404.765 79515 20850.26427 98.57692 3833.20808 3740.062881 110577.8257
CH
4
1792.575 520.335 0.0573345 13051.5921 9.376359417 15373.93579
SO
2
0.0032085 0.0224595 5.8869 0.3382038 0.02464423 37.3381424 23.80921635 67.42277478
NO
x
72.261 41.4315 91.791 9.992385 0.6255843 71.0103108 8.83131361 295.9430937
CO 29.4345 2.41335 71.2845 293.62239 0.08720266 2.69712924 3.394681164 402.9337531
Dust (PM) 0.010805547 3.05716008 3.751333281 6.819298908
NH
3
0.017266825 0.017266825
N
2
O 0.222889194 0.222889194
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801
NMVOC 4.505785997 4.505785997
PAH- B(a)P 0.000140476 0.000140476
HC 0.08909837 4.321564 4.41066237
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Na 0.00029295 0.005022 0.46035 0.02152206 0.48718701
Al 0.000785385 0.001213371 0.143685 0.00556499 0.151248746
Ca 0.0046035 0.011997 0.94581 0.037817334 1.000227834
Mg 0.0010044 0.0028179 0.115506 0.003720242 0.123048542
K 0.0006696 0.0016461 0.0456165 0.001598782 0.049530982
Fe 0.00048825 0.00188325 0.0751905 0.004768674 0.082330674
Ba 6.59835E-05 0.000407201 0.01388025 0.005385127 0.019738561
Ti 1.20249E-05 0.000106048 0.0081468 0.002687183 0.010952056
Sr 6.45885E-05 0.00022878 0.00581715 0.00047902 0.006589538
Pb 7.60275E-05 0.00025124 0.00657045 0.000470718 0.007368435
COD 0.060794641 0.060794641
N total 0.246151014 0.246151014
Oil 0.514925664 0.514925664
PO4
3-
0.12046775 0.12046775
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

(
k
g
/
f
.
u
.
)

Ba 0.00059985 0.006975 0.394785 0.092544858 0.494904708
Cu 0.000121784 0.000385578 0.2511 0.009772553 0.261379914
Mn 0.000952785 0.0042687 0.073935 0.003342068 0.082498553
Zn 0.000038781 0.001092006 0.0804915 0.002044596 0.083666883
Cr 0.000116441 0.000531216 0.041013 0.001930836 0.043591493
Ni 7.8399E-06 0.000137212 0.029295 0.00096757 0.030407622
As 0.000052173 0.000144104 0.0269235 0.000683172 0.027802948
Pb 0.000081189 0.000234221 0.0210645 0.000696854 0.022076763
O
3
0.0085374 0.00068355 0.224595 0.008147637 0.241963587
V 5.90085E-06 8.84849E-05 0.0127782 0.000545892 0.013418477
Co 9.5418E-06 4.19895E-05 0.0034038 0.000143275 0.003598607
Hg 1.11879E-06 4.60071E-06 0.00037386 1.16588E-05 0.000391238

Total Weight.
Distance (t.km)
1

Energy
(MJ/t.km)
2

Total fossil energy
(MJ/f.u.)
Large ship
Heavy oil 140925.2 0.216 30439.8432
Diesel 33875.71 0.72 24390.5112

108

Appendix 8, Life Cycle Impact Assessment

8.1 LCIA results- GAC adsorption method

Table App 8. 1. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (GAC adsorption method) - Case 1
Contributed substances in
depletion of abiotic resources
Total amount
1

Static reserve life (years)
DAR (kg Sb)
Depletion equiv. Unit
Fossil energy MJ 27580.84 0.000481 kg Sb
eqv
/MJ 13.26638442
Crude oil kg 301.2836 0.0201 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 6.055800079
Lignite kg 64.36889 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.431915252
Natural gas
2
m
3
167.8 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
3.13786
Hard coal
3
kg 1400 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 18.76
Uranium ore kg 0.62906 0.00287 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.001805403
Total Sb (kg) 41.65376516
1) See Table App 6.7 and 6.8
2)Total natural gas required for natural gas extraction, treatment, GAC and electricity production (See Appendix 4.1)
3)Total hard coal required for GAC and electricity production (See Appendix 4.1)

Total amount
1

DAR (kg Sb)
eqv
/MJ 19.53243492
eqv
/kg 10.57726502
Lignite kg 67.32688 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.451763346
Natural gas
2
m
3
693.83 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
12.974621
Hard coal
3
kg 5774.1 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 77.37294
eqv
/kg 0.003127717
Total Sb (kg) 120.912152

Total amount
1

DAR (kg Sb)
eqv
/MJ 32.48099097
eqv
/kg 15.61917384
Lignite kg 99.41026 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.667042877
Natural gas
2
m
3
1230.9 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
23.01783
Hard coal
3
kg 10241 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 137.2294
eqv
/kg 0.004618106
Total Sb (kg) 209.0190558

Table App 8. 4. Water consumption (GAC adsorption method)
Total Water (kg)
1
353858 653893 998669
1) Water required for GAC and electricity production and using part
2) To see amount of water required refer to Appendix 4.1,4.2 and 4.3

109

Table App 8. 5. Global Warming Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight(kg)
Case 1
1

Weight(kg)
Case 2
1

Weight(kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg CO
2eqv
/kg)
2

Total CO
2
(kg)
Case 1
3

Total CO
2

(kg) Case 2
3

Total CO
2
(kg)
Case 3
3

CO
2
6342.619178 19836.40528 34821.31687 1 6342.619178 19836.40528 34821.31687
CH
4
23.34865935 133.3682583 244.514006 6.5 151.7662858 866.8936792 1589.341039
N
2
O 0.132617593 0.292113442 0.452161219 170 22.54499081 49.65928522 76.86740726
Total CO
2
(kg) 6516.930455 20752.95825 36487.52532
1) See Table App 6.6, 6.14 and 6.22
2) Indicator based on data published by CML 2002 (GWP indicator for 500 years) [7]
3) Total CO
2
= Emission weight of each case Indicator

Table App 8. 6. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight(kg)
Case 1
1

Weight(kg)
Case 2
1

Weight(kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg Ethylene/kg)
2

Total
ethylene(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
ethylene(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
ethylene (kg)
Case 3
3

CH
4
23.34865935 133.3682583 244.514006 0.006 0.140091956 0.80020955 1.467084036
SO
2
41.75462513 68.03943782 112.6687874 0.048 2.004222006 3.265893015 5.408101797
CO 3.613356609 8.105322136 13.23629247 0.027 0.097560628 0.218843698 0.357379897
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 0.000439546 0.000818588 0.218 1.36425E-05 9.58211E-05 0.000178452
NMVOC 2.771917096 5.038513276 7.526569319 0.519 1.438624973 2.61498839 3.906289476
Total ethylene (kg) 3.680513206 6.900030474 11.13903366
2) Indicator based on data published by CML 2002 (High NO
x
POCPs) [7]
3) Total ethylene = Emission weight of each case Indicator

Table App 8. 7. Acidification Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight(g)
Case 1
1

Weight(g)
Case 2
1

Weight(g)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(g SO
2eqv
/g)
2

Total SO2 (g)
Case 1
3

Total SO2 (g)
Case 2
3

Total SO2 (g)
Case 3
3

SO
2
41754.62513 68039.43782 112668.7874 1 41754.62513 68039.43782 112668.7874
NO
x
48789.49896 77935.0489 132775.3584 0.7 34152.64927 54554.53423 92942.75087
NH
3
12.81489496 25.87943083 41.08061376 1.88 24.09200252 48.65332996 77.23155387
HCl 31.40564723 220.5837403 410.8037268 0.88 27.63696956 194.1136914 361.5072796
Total SO
2
(g) 75959.00337 122836.7391 206050.2772
2) Indicator based on data published by CML 2002 [7]
3) Total SO
2

Table App 8. 8. Eutrophication Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight(g)
Case 1
1

Weight(g)
Case 2
1

Weight(g)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(g PO
4
3-
eqv
/g)
2

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 1
3

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 2
3

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 3
3

NO
x
48789.49896 77935.0489 132775.3584 0.13 6342.634864 10131.55636 17260.79659
NH
3
12.81489496 25.87943083 41.08061376 0.35 4.485213235 9.057800791 14.37821482
COD 36.985668 64.93477812 95.8768536 0.022 0.813684696 1.428565119 2.109290779
N total 151.2065876 262.9139866 388.195148 0.42 63.50676679 110.4238744 163.0419622
PO
4
3-
74.2958438 128.6716469 189.984982 1 74.2958438 128.6716469 189.984982
Total PO
4
3-
(g) 6485.736373 10381.13824 17630.31104
3) Total PO
4
3-

110

Table App 8. 9. Human Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
SO
2
41.75462513 68.03943782 112.6687874 0.096 4.008444012 6.531786031 10.81620359
Dust 4.476683461 7.773941036 12.58758117 0.82 3.670880438 6.374631649 10.32181656
HCl 0.031405647 0.22058374 0.410803727 0.5 0.015702824 0.11029187 0.205401863
As 9.40931E-07 6.60882E-06 1.23079E-05 350000 0.329325952 2.313085593 4.30777074
Cd 8.57899E-05 0.000140554 0.000208268 150000 12.86848493 21.0831532 31.24026396
Cr 1.64633E-06 1.15633E-05 2.1535E-05 3400000 5.597527848 39.31533778 73.21884768
Ni 1.6137E-05 0.000113342 0.000211081 35000 0.564795938 3.966955356 7.38785208
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 0.000439546 0.000818588 1900 0.118902931 0.835138122 1.55531796
PAH 8.87778E-05 0.000151846 0.000224897 570000 50.60333621 86.55199567 128.1913584
Hg 0.000180759 0.00031454 0.000464422 6000 1.084554259 1.887242189 2.786532091
Pb 0.001002792 0.001722333 0.002543042 470 0.471312137 0.809496518 1.195229759
E.T.W Pb 7.27635E-07 5.11069E-06 9.51788E-06 12 8.73162E-06 6.13282E-05 0.000114215
E.T.S
Cu 4.02162E-06 2.82466E-05 5.26051E-05 94 0.000378032 0.002655183 0.004944875
Zn 2.64796E-06 1.85984E-05 3.46368E-05 64 0.000169469 0.001190301 0.002216754
Cr 1.75974E-06 1.23599E-05 2.30184E-05 8500 0.014957771 0.105058846 0.195656151
Ni 5.65353E-07 3.97087E-06 7.39514E-06 2700 0.001526454 0.010721349 0.019966885
As 5.64665E-07 3.96603E-06 7.38613E-06 32000 0.018069268 0.126913056 0.236356299
Pb 7.79089E-07 5.47208E-06 1.01909E-05 3300 0.002570992 0.018057871 0.033630043
V 3.41091E-07 2.39572E-06 4.46167E-06 19000 0.00648073 0.045518685 0.08477164
Co 1.36702E-07 9.60154E-07 1.78814E-06 2400 0.000328085 0.002304369 0.004291538
Hg 1.38148E-08 9.70312E-08 1.80706E-07 5900 8.15075E-05 0.000572484 0.001066164
Total 1,4- DCB (kg) 79.37783852 170.0921675 271.8096092
2) HT indicator based on data published by CML 2002 [7]
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case Indicator
4) E.T.A = Emission To Air, E.T.W= Emission To Water, E.T.S= Emission To Soil

Table App 8. 10. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

FAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
As 9.40931E-07 6.60882E-06 1.23079E-05 50 4.70466E-05 0.000330441 0.000615396
Cd 8.57899E-05 0.000140554 0.000208268 290 0.024879071 0.040760763 0.060397844
Cr 1.64633E-06 1.15633E-05 2.1535E-05 7.7 1.26768E-05 8.90377E-05 0.000165819
Ni 1.6137E-05 0.000113342 0.000211081 630 0.010166327 0.071405196 0.132981337
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 0.000439546 0.000818588 0.000084 5.25676E-09 3.69219E-08 6.87614E-08
PAH 8.87778E-05 0.000151846 0.000224897 170 0.015092223 0.025813753 0.03823251
Hg 0.000180759 0.00031454 0.000464422 320 0.057842894 0.100652917 0.148615045
Pb 0.001002792 0.001722333 0.002543042 2.4 0.0024067 0.004133599 0.006103301
E.T.W Pb 7.27635E-07 5.11069E-06 9.51788E-06 9.6 6.98529E-06 4.90626E-05 9.13716E-05
E.T.S
Cu 4.02162E-06 2.82466E-05 5.26051E-05 590 0.002372755 0.01666551 0.031036982
Zn 2.64796E-06 1.85984E-05 3.46368E-05 48 0.000127102 0.000892725 0.001662566
Cr 1.75974E-06 1.23599E-05 2.30184E-05 21 3.69545E-05 0.000259557 0.000483386
Ni 5.65353E-07 3.97087E-06 7.39514E-06 1700 0.000961101 0.006750479 0.012571742
As 5.64665E-07 3.96603E-06 7.38613E-06 130 7.34064E-05 0.000515584 0.000960197
Pb 7.79089E-07 5.47208E-06 1.01909E-05 6.5 5.06408E-06 3.55685E-05 6.6241E-05
V 3.41091E-07 2.39572E-06 4.46167E-06 4700 0.001603128 0.011259885 0.020969827
Co 1.36702E-07 9.60154E-07 1.78814E-06 1700 0.000232394 0.001632261 0.003039839
Hg 1.38148E-08 9.70312E-08 1.80706E-07 850 1.17426E-05 8.24765E-05 0.0001536
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 0.115877575 0.281328854 0.458147073
2) FAETP indicator based on data published by CML 2002 [7]
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case FAETP Indicator

111

Table App 8. 11. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

MAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
As 9.40931E-07 6.60882E-06 1.23079E-05 230000 0.216414197 1.520027675 2.830820772
Cd 8.57899E-05 0.000140554 0.000208268 1100000 94.36888947 154.6097901 229.095269
Cr 1.64633E-06 1.15633E-05 2.1535E-05 5400000 8.890191288 62.44200706 116.2887581
Ni 1.6137E-05 0.000113342 0.000211081 3800000 61.32070184 430.6980101 802.1096544
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 0.000439546 0.000818588 0.0028 1.75225E-07 1.23073E-06 2.29205E-06
PAH 8.87778E-05 0.000151846 0.000224897 4300 0.381744466 0.652936108 0.967057616
Hg 0.000180759 0.00031454 0.000464422 1200000 216.9108518 377.4484378 557.3064182
Pb 0.001002792 0.001722333 0.002543042 7000 7.01954246 12.05633113 17.80129428
E.T.W Pb 7.27635E-07 5.11069E-06 9.51788E-06 1100 0.000800398 0.005621754 0.010469664
E.T.S
Cu 4.02162E-06 2.82466E-05 5.26051E-05 120000 0.482594186 3.389595205 6.312606475
Zn 2.64796E-06 1.85984E-05 3.46368E-05 7200 0.019065289 0.133908808 0.249384825
Cr 1.75974E-06 1.23599E-05 2.30184E-05 2600 0.004575318 0.032135647 0.059847764
Ni 5.65353E-07 3.97087E-06 7.39514E-06 1200000 0.678423947 4.765044057 8.874171148
As 5.64665E-07 3.96603E-06 7.38613E-06 77000 0.043479175 0.305384541 0.568732346
Pb 7.79089E-07 5.47208E-06 1.01909E-05 750 0.000584316 0.004104062 0.007643192
V 3.41091E-07 2.39572E-06 4.46167E-06 4500000 1.534909831 10.78074115 20.07749372
Co 1.36702E-07 9.60154E-07 1.78814E-06 2200000 0.300744535 2.112338406 3.933909595
Hg 1.38148E-08 9.70312E-08 1.80706E-07 170000 0.002348521 0.016495298 0.030719987
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 392.1758613 1060.97291 1766.524253
2) MAETP indicator based on data published by CML 2002 [2]
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case MAETP Indicator

Table App 8. 12. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (GAC adsorption method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

TETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
As 9.40931E-07 6.60882E-06 1.23079E-05 1600 0.00150549 0.010574106 0.019692666
Cd 8.57899E-05 0.000140554 0.000208268 81 0.006948982 0.011384903 0.016869743
Cr 1.64633E-06 1.15633E-05 2.1535E-05 3000 0.004938995 0.034690004 0.064604866
Ni 1.6137E-05 0.000113342 0.000211081 120 0.001936443 0.01360099 0.025329779
C
6
H
6
6.25805E-05 0.000439546 0.000818588 0.000016 1.00129E-09 7.03274E-09 1.30974E-08
PAH 8.87778E-05 0.000151846 0.000224897 1 8.87778E-05 0.000151846 0.000224897
Hg 0.000180759 0.00031454 0.000464422 28000 5.06125321 8.807130216 13.00381643
Pb 0.001002792 0.001722333 0.002543042 16 0.016044668 0.027557328 0.040688673
E.T.W Pb 7.27635E-07 5.11069E-06 9.51788E-06 4.8E-22 3.49265E-28 2.45313E-27 4.56858E-27
E.T.S
Cu 4.02162E-06 2.82466E-05 5.26051E-05 14 5.63027E-05 0.000395453 0.000736471
Zn 2.64796E-06 1.85984E-05 3.46368E-05 25 6.61989E-05 0.000464961 0.00086592
Cr 1.75974E-06 1.23599E-05 2.30184E-05 6300 0.011086348 0.077867145 0.145015736
Ni 5.65353E-07 3.97087E-06 7.39514E-06 240 0.000135685 0.000953009 0.001774834
As 5.64665E-07 3.96603E-06 7.38613E-06 3300 0.001863393 0.013087909 0.024374243
Pb 7.79089E-07 5.47208E-06 1.01909E-05 33 2.57099E-05 0.000180579 0.0003363
V 3.41091E-07 2.39572E-06 4.46167E-06 1400 0.000477528 0.003354008 0.006246331
Co 1.36702E-07 9.60154E-07 1.78814E-06 220 3.00745E-05 0.000211234 0.000393391
Hg 1.38148E-08 9.70312E-08 1.80706E-07 56000 0.00077363 0.005433745 0.010119525
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 5.107231437 9.007037441 13.36108981
2) TETP indicator based on data published by CML 2002 [2]
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case TETP Indicator
112

8.2 LCIA results- VOCs incineration method

Table App 8. 13. Depletion of Abiotic Resources (VOCs incineration method) - Case 1
Total amount
1

DAR (kg Sb)
eqv
/MJ 27.45675523
Crude oil kg 492.7351315 0.0201 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 9.903976142
Lignite kg 63.03514518 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.422965824
Natural gas
2
m
3
114651.1 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
2143.97557
Hard coal kg 1243.424517 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 16.66188853
eqv
/kg 0.002928299
Total Sb (kg) 2198.424084

Total amount
1

DAR (kg Sb)
eqv
/MJ 26.94195401
Crude oil kg 492.7351315 0.0201 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 9.903976142
Lignite kg 63.03514518 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.422965824
Natural gas
2
m
3
80772.1 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
1510.43827
Hard coal kg 1243.424517 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 16.66188853
eqv
/kg 0.002928299
Total Sb (kg) 1564.371983

Total amount
1

DAR (kg Sb)
eqv
/MJ 26.37340047
Crude oil kg 492.7351315 0.0201 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 9.903976142
Lignite kg 63.03514518 0.00671 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 0.422965824
Natural gas
2
m
3
43355.17 0.0187 kg Sb
eqv
/m
3
810.741679
Hard coal kg 1243.424517 0.0134 kg Sb
eqv
/kg 16.66188853
eqv
/kg 0.002928299
Total Sb (kg) 864.1068383

Table App 8. 16. Water consumption (VOC incineration method)
Total Water (kg)
1
548085.0821 548085.0821 548085.0821
1) Water required for electricity production
2) To see amount of water required refer to Table App 7.3

113

Table App 8. 17. Global Warming Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg CO
2eqv
/kg)
2

Total CO
2
(kg)
Case 1
3

Total CO
2
(kg)
Case 2
3

Total CO
2
(kg)
Case 3
3

CO
2
280553.7968 199787.8852 110577.8257 1 280553.7968 199787.8852 110577.8257
CH
4
40728.21237 28680.85581 15373.93579 6.5 264733.3804 186425.5627 99930.58266
N
2
O 0.222889194 0.222889194 0.222889194 170 37.89116298 37.89116298 37.89116298
Total CO
2
(kg) 545325.0683 386251.3392 210546.2995
2) Indicator based on data published by CML 2002 (GWP indicator for 500 years) [7]
3) Total CO
2

Table App 8. 18. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg Ethylene/kg)
2

Total
ethylene (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
ethylene (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
ethylene (kg)
Case 3
3

CH
4
40728.21237 28680.85581 15373.93579 0.006 244.3692742 172.0851348 92.24361476
SO
2
77.77833493 72.85777815 67.42277478 0.048 3.733360076 3.497173351 3.236293189
CO 1057.794074 746.6301614 402.9337531 0.027 28.56043999 20.15901436 10.87921133
NMVOC 4.505785997 4.505785997 4.505785997 0.519 2.338502933 2.338502933 2.338502933
Total ethylene (kg) 279.0015772 198.0798255 108.6976222
x
POCPs) [7]

Table App 8. 19. Acidification Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (g)
Case 1
1

Weight (g)
Case 2
1

Weight (g)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(g SO
2eqv
/g)
2

Total SO
2
(g)
Case 1
3

Total SO
2
(g)
Case 2
3

Total SO
2
(g)
Case 3
3

SO
2
77778.33493 72857.77815 67422.77478 1 77778.33493 72857.77815 67422.77478
NO
x
652549.2224 483103.9621 295943.0937 0.7 456784.4557 338172.7734 207160.1656
NH
3
17.26682454 17.26682454 17.26682454 1.88 32.46163014 32.46163014 32.46163014
Total SO
2
(g) 534595.2522 411063.0132 274615.402
3) Total SO
2

Table App 8. 20. Eutrophication Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (g)
Case 1
1

Weight (g)
Case 2
1

Weight (g)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(g PO
4
3-
eqv
/g)
2

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 1
3

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 2
3

Total PO
4
3-
(g)
Case 3
3

NO
x
652549.2224 483103.9621 295943.0937 0.13 84831.39891 62803.51507 38472.60218
NH
3
17.26682454 17.26682454 17.26682454 0.35 6.043388589 6.043388589 6.043388589
COD 60.79464126 60.79464126 60.79464126 0.022 1.337482108 1.337482108 1.337482108
N total 246.1510143 246.1510143 246.1510143 0.42 103.383426 103.383426 103.383426
PO
4
3-
120.46775 120.46775 120.46775 1 120.46775 120.46775 120.46775
Total PO
4
3-
(g) 85062.63096 63034.74711 38703.83423
3) Total PO
4
3-

114

Table App 8. 21. Human Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
SO
2
77.77833493 72.85777815 67.42277478 0.096 7.466720153 6.994346702 6.472586379
Dust 6.837129591 6.828656598 6.819298908 0.82 5.606446265 5.59949841 5.591825105
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801 0.000129801 150000 19.47012576 19.47012576 19.47012576
PAH 0.000140476 0.000140476 0.000140476 570000 80.07155093 80.07155093 80.07155093
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486 0.000294486 6000 1.766914667 1.766914667 1.766914667
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252 0.00161252 470 0.757884324 0.757884324 0.757884324
E.T.W Pb 0.019527674 0.013750081 0.007368435 12 0.234332085 0.165000973 0.088421222
E.T.S
Cu 0.692703614 0.48775553 0.261379914 94 65.11413976 45.84901984 24.56971192
Zn 0.221732233 0.156129001 0.083666883 64 14.19086293 9.992256032 5.354680493
Cr 0.115525268 0.081345163 0.043591493 8500 981.9647802 691.433886 370.5276896
Ni 0.080585649 0.056743021 0.030407622 2700 217.5812518 153.2061572 82.10058055
As 0.073682795 0.051882494 0.027802948 32000 2357.849449 1660.239797 889.6943416
Pb 0.058507379 0.041196981 0.022076763 3300 193.0743491 135.9500363 72.85331809
V 0.03556137 0.025039937 0.013418477 19000 675.6660262 475.7588007 254.9510702
Co 0.009536953 0.006715284 0.003598607 2400 22.88868658 16.1166814 8.636656147
Hg 0.001036852 0.000730082 0.000391238 5900 6.11742461 4.307481038 2.308306013
Total 1,4- DCB (kg) 4649.820944 3307.679437 1825.215663

Table App 8. 22. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

FAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801 0.000129801 290 0.037642243 0.037642243 0.037642243
PAH 0.000140476 0.000140476 0.000140476 170 0.023880989 0.023880989 0.023880989
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486 0.000294486 320 0.094235449 0.094235449 0.094235449
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252 0.00161252 2.4 0.003870048 0.003870048 0.003870048
E.T.W Pb 0.019527674 0.013750081 0.007368435 9.6 0.187465668 0.132000779 0.070736978
E.T.S
Cu 0.692703614 0.48775553 0.261379914 590 408.6951325 287.7757628 154.2141493
Zn 0.221732233 0.156129001 0.083666883 48 10.64314719 7.494192024 4.01601037
Cr 0.115525268 0.081345163 0.043591493 21 2.426030633 1.708248424 0.915421351
Ni 0.080585649 0.056743021 0.030407622 1700 136.995603 96.46313601 51.69295812
As 0.073682795 0.051882494 0.027802948 130 9.578763386 6.744724174 3.614383263
Pb 0.058507379 0.041196981 0.022076763 6.5 0.38029796 0.267780374 0.14349896
V 0.03556137 0.025039937 0.013418477 4700 167.1384381 117.6877033 63.06684368
Co 0.009536953 0.006715284 0.003598607 1700 16.21281966 11.41598266 6.117631438
Hg 0.001036852 0.000730082 0.000391238 850 0.881323885 0.620569302 0.332552561
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 753.2986507 530.4697286 284.3438147
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case FAETP Indicator

115

Table App 8. 23. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

MAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801 0.000129801 1100000 142.7809223 142.7809223 142.7809223
PAH 0.000140476 0.000140476 0.000140476 4300 0.604048542 0.604048542 0.604048542
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486 0.000294486 1200000 353.3829334 353.3829334 353.3829334
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252 0.00161252 7000 11.28763887 11.28763887 11.28763887
E.T.W Pb 0.019527674 0.013750081 0.007368435 1100 21.48044116 15.12508921 8.105278718
E.T.S
Cu 0.692703614 0.48775553 0.261379914 120000 83124.43373 58530.66362 31365.58968
Zn 0.221732233 0.156129001 0.083666883 7200 1596.472079 1124.128804 602.4015554
Cr 0.115525268 0.081345163 0.043591493 2600 300.3656975 211.4974239 113.3378815
Ni 0.080585649 0.056743021 0.030407622 1200000 96702.77859 68091.62542 36489.14691
As 0.073682795 0.051882494 0.027802948 77000 5673.575236 3994.952011 2140.82701
Pb 0.058507379 0.041196981 0.022076763 750 43.88053388 30.89773551 16.55757229
V 0.03556137 0.025039937 0.013418477 4500000 160026.1641 112679.7159 60383.14821
Co 0.009536953 0.006715284 0.003598607 2200000 20981.29603 14773.62461 7916.934802
Hg 0.001036852 0.000730082 0.000391238 170000 176.2647769 124.1138604 66.51051225
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 369154.7668 260084.4001 139610.615
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case MAETP Indicator

Table App 8. 24. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (VOCs incineration method)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

TETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

E.T.A
Cd 0.000129801 0.000129801 0.000129801 81 0.010513868 0.010513868 0.010513868
PAH 0.000140476 0.000140476 0.000140476 1 0.000140476 0.000140476 0.000140476
Hg 0.000294486 0.000294486 0.000294486 28000 8.245601779 8.245601779 8.245601779
Pb 0.00161252 0.00161252 0.00161252 16 0.025800317 0.025800317 0.025800317
E.T.W Pb 0.019527674 0.013750081 0.007368435 4.8E-22 9.37328E-24 6.60004E-24 3.53685E-24
E.T.S
Cu 0.692703614 0.48775553 0.261379914 14 9.697850602 6.828577423 3.659318796
Zn 0.221732233 0.156129001 0.083666883 25 5.543305831 3.903225013 2.091672068
Cr 0.115525268 0.081345163 0.043591493 6300 727.80919 512.4745272 274.6264052
Ni 0.080585649 0.056743021 0.030407622 240 19.34055572 13.61832508 7.297829382
As 0.073682795 0.051882494 0.027802948 3300 243.1532244 171.212229 91.74972898
Pb 0.058507379 0.041196981 0.022076763 33 1.930743491 1.359500363 0.728533181
V 0.03556137 0.025039937 0.013418477 1400 49.78591772 35.05591163 18.78586833
Co 0.009536953 0.006715284 0.003598607 220 2.098129603 1.477362461 0.79169348
Hg 0.001036852 0.000730082 0.000391238 56000 58.06369122 40.88456578 21.90934521
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 1125.704665 795.0962805 429.9224511
3) Total 1,4-DCB= Emission weight of each case TETP Indicator

116

8.3 LCIA results- Non-treatment alternative

Table App 8. 25. Human Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment alternative)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

Toluene 1960 19600 39200 0.33 646.8 6468 12936
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 646.8 6468 12936
1) See Appendix 4.7

Table App 8. 26. Ecotoxicity Potential- Freshwater Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment alternative)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

FAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB(kg)
Case 3
3

Toluene 1960 19600 39200 7.00E-05 0.1372 1.372 2.744
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 0.1372 1.372 2.744
1) See Appendix 4.7

Table App 8. 27. Ecotoxicity Potential- Marine Aquatic Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment alternative)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

MAETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 3
3

Toluene 1960 19600 39200 7.00E-04 1.372 13.72 27.44
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 1.372 13.72 27.44
1) See Appendix 4.7

Table App 8. 28. Ecotoxicity Potential- Terrestrial Eco Toxicity Potential (Non-treatment alternative)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

TETP Indicator
(kg 1,4-DCB/kg)
2

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 2
3

Total
1,4-DCB (kg)
Case 3
3

Toluene 1960 19600 39200 1.60E-05 0.03136 0.3136 0.6272
Total 1,4-DCB (kg) 0.03136 0.3136 0.6272
1) See Appendix 4.7

Table App 8. 29. Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (Non-treatment alternative)
Emission
Weight (kg)
Case 1
1

Weight (kg)
Case 2
1

Weight (kg)
Case 3
1

Indicator
(kg Ethylene/kg)
2

Total
ethylene (kg)
Case 1
3

Total
ethylene(kg)
Case 2
3

Total
ethylene(kg)
Case 3
3

Toluene 1960 19600 39200 6.37E-01 1248.52 12485.2 24970.4
Total ethylene(kg) 1248.52 12485.2 24970.4
1) See Appendix 4.7
x
POCPs) [7]

117

Appendix 9, Weighting results

9.1 GAC adsorption method

Table App 9. 1. Weighting result of GAC adsorption method
Resource/ Emission type Case 1
1
Case 2
1
Case 3
1

Weighting index
2
Total
Case 1
3

Total
Case 2
3

Total
Case 3
3

Unit Index
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

Electricity (MJ) 172011.6 297615.6 440299.4 /MJ 2.45 421428.42 729158.22 1078733.53
Coal (kg)
4
633 4446 8280 /kg 4.38 2772.54 19473.48 36266.4
Gas (MJ)
5
2918.08 20491.65 56123.67 /MJ 0.804 2346.13632 16475.2866 45123.43068
Fossil energy (Oil) (MJ) 27580.8408 40607.9728 67528.04776 /MJ 1.34 36958.32667 54414.68355 90487.584
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

CO
2
6342619.178 19836405.28 34821316.87 /g 0.0111 70403.07288 220184.0986 386516.6173
CH
4
23348.65935 133368.2583 244514.006 /g 0.289 6747.762552 38543.42666 70664.54772
SO
2
41754.62513 68039.43782 112668.7874 /g 2.42 101046.1928 164655.4395 272658.4656
NO
x
48789.49896 77935.0489 132775.3584 /g 3.95 192718.5209 307843.4432 524462.6656
CO 3613.356609 8105.322136 13236.29247 /g 0.334 1206.861107 2707.177594 4420.921686
Dust 4476.683461 7773.941036 12587.58117 /g 0.0357 159.8175996 277.529695 449.3766477
NH
3
12.81489496 25.87943083 41.08061376 /g 10.5 134.556397 271.7340237 431.3464445
HCl 31.40564723 220.5837403 410.8037268 /g 2.12 66.57997213 467.6375294 870.9039008
N
2
O 132.617593 292.1134425 452.1612192 /g 3 397.852779 876.3403274 1356.483657
As 0.000940931 0.006608816 0.012307916 /g 144 0.135494106 0.951669501 1.772339962
Cd 0.0857899 0.140554355 0.208268426 /g 7280 624.5504685 1023.235702 1516.194144
Cr 0.001646332 0.011563335 0.021534955 /g 74.8 0.123145613 0.864937431 1.610814649
Ni 0.016137027 0.113341582 0.211081488 /g 144 2.323731859 16.32118775 30.39573427
C
6
H
6
0.06258049 0.43954638 0.8185884 /g 5.8 0.362966842 2.549369004 4.74781272
NMVOC 2771.917096 5038.513276 7526.569319 /g 4.66 12917.13367 23479.47186 35073.81303
PAH 0.088777783 0.151845606 0.22489712 /g 1970 174.8922322 299.1358447 443.0473262
C
20
H
12
3.32032E-07 2.33209E-06 4.34316E-06 /g 14.8 4.91407E-06 3.45149E-05 6.42788E-05
HC 2311.93062 3373.64157 5675.9447 /g 3.23 7467.535903 10896.86227 18333.30138
Hg 0.180759043 0.314540365 0.464422015 /g 47200 8531.826839 14846.30522 21920.71912
Pb 1.00279178 1.722333018 2.54304204 /g 57.1 57.25941064 98.34521533 145.2077005
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

Al 0.005304768 0.037259082 0.069389383 /g 5120 27.1604122 190.7664983 355.2736417
Ba 0.002557445 0.017962719 0.033452838 /g 5120 13.09411935 91.9691232 171.2785296
Pb 0.000727635 0.005110686 0.009517876 /g 374 0.272135386 1.911396419 3.55968565
COD 36.985668 64.93477812 95.8768536 /g 0.4 14.7942672 25.97391125 38.35074144
N total 151.2065876 262.9139866 388.195148 /g 7.18 1085.663299 1887.722424 2787.241163
Oil 307.738296 549.9922866 812.069148 /g 2.56 787.8100378 1407.980254 2078.897019
PO
4
3-
74.2958438 128.6716469 189.984982 /g 71.8 5334.441585 9238.624247 13640.92171
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

Ba 0.042968424 0.30179718 0.56205143 /g 1.91 0.08206969 0.576432613 1.073518231
Cu 0.004021618 0.028246627 0.052605054 /g 0.965 0.003880862 0.027257995 0.050763877
Zn 0.002647957 0.018598446 0.034636781 /g 0.236 0.000624918 0.004389233 0.00817428
Cr 0.001759738 0.012359864 0.023018371 /g 0.0906 0.000159432 0.001119804 0.002085464
Ni 0.000565353 0.00397087 0.007395143 /g 0.984 0.000556308 0.003907336 0.00727682
As 0.000564665 0.003966033 0.007386134 /g 0.63 0.000355739 0.002498601 0.004653265
Pb 0.000779089 0.005472082 0.010190922 /g 0.065 5.06408E-05 0.000355685 0.00066241
V 0.000341091 0.00239572 0.004461665 /g 1.91 0.000651484 0.004575826 0.008521781
Co 0.000136702 0.000960154 0.001788141 /g 0.0906 1.23852E-05 8.69899E-05 0.000162006
Hg 1.38148E-05 9.70312E-05 0.000180706 /g 68.9 0.000951842 0.006685447 0.01245063
Total 873426.109 1618858.116 2608989.774
1) See Table App 6.6, 6.14 and 6.22 (All Emissions in gram)
2) Weighting index based on Environmental themes method- Eriksson et al (1995) [7]
3) Total = Emission weight of each case Weighting index
4) Coal = Hard coal required for GAC production (See Appendix 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3)
5) Gas = Natural gas required for natural gas extraction, treatment and GAC production by considering 38.3 MJ/m
3
(See Appendix 4.1,4.2 and 4.3)

118

9.2 VOCs incineration method

Table App 9. 2. Weighting result of VOCs incineration method
Resource/ Emission type Case 1
1
Case 2
1
Case 3
1

Weighting index
2
Total
Case 1
3

Total
Case 2
3

Total
Case 3
3
Unit Index
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

Electricity (MJ) 278994.24 278994.24 278994.24 /MJ 2.45 683535.888 683535.888 683535.888
Gas (MJ)4 4385441.92 3087876.22 1654807.8 /MJ 0.804 3525895.304 2482652.481 1330465.471
Fossil energy (Oil) (MJ) 57082.6512 56012.3784 54830.3544 /MJ 1.34 76490.75261 75056.58706 73472.6749
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

a
i
r

CO
2
280553796.8 199787885.2 110577825.7 /g 0.0111 3114147.144 2217645.526 1227413.865
CH
4
40728212.37 28680855.81 15373935.79 /g 0.289 11770453.37 8288767.328 4443067.444
SO
2
77778.33493 72857.77815 67422.77478 /g 2.42 188223.5705 176315.8231 163163.115
NO
x
652549.2224 483103.9621 295943.0937 /g 3.95 2577569.429 1908260.65 1168975.22
CO 1057794.074 746630.1614 402933.7531 /g 0.334 353303.2207 249374.4739 134579.8735
Dust 6837.129591 6828.656598 6819.298908 /g 0.0357 244.0855264 243.7830405 243.448971
NH
3
17.26682454 17.26682454 17.26682454 /g 10.5 181.3016577 181.3016577 181.3016577
N
2
O 222.889194 222.889194 222.889194 /g 3 668.667582 668.667582 668.667582
Cd 0.129800838 0.129800838 0.129800838 /g 7280 944.9501037 944.9501037 944.9501037
NMVOC 4505.785997 4505.785997 4505.785997 /g 4.66 20996.96275 20996.96275 20996.96275
PAH 0.140476405 0.140476405 0.140476405 /g 1970 276.7385181 276.7385181 276.7385181
HC 4557.6873 4487.82227 4410.66237 /g 3.23 14721.32998 14495.66593 14246.43946
Hg 0.294485778 0.294485778 0.294485778 /g 47200 13899.72871 13899.72871 13899.72871
Pb 1.612519839 1.612519839 1.612519839 /g 57.1 92.07488281 92.07488281 92.07488281
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

Al 400.8362819 282.2420861 151.2487458 /g 5120 2052281.763 1445079.481 774393.5785
Ba 52.31072368 36.83371103 19.73856087 /g 5120 267830.9053 188588.6005 101061.4317
Pb 19.52767378 13.7500811 7.368435198 /g 374 7303.349995 5142.530333 2755.794764
COD 60.79464126 60.79464126 60.79464126 /g 0.4 24.3178565 24.3178565 24.3178565
N total 246.1510143 246.1510143 246.1510143 /g 7.18 1767.364283 1767.364283 1767.364283
Oil 514.9256643 514.9256643 514.9256643 /g 2.56 1318.209701 1318.209701 1318.209701
PO
4
3-
120.46775 120.46775 120.46775 /g 71.8 8649.584446 8649.584446 8649.584446
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

s
o
i
l

Ba 1311.586169 923.5312099 494.904708 /g 1.91 2505.129582 1763.944611 945.2679923
Cu 692.7036145 487.7555302 261.379914 /g 0.965 668.458988 470.6840866 252.231617
Zn 221.7322332 156.1290005 83.6668827 /g 0.236 52.32880704 36.84644412 19.74538432
Cr 115.5252683 81.34516305 43.59149289 /g 0.0906 10.4665893 7.369871773 3.949389256
Ni 80.58564882 56.74302118 30.40762243 /g 0.984 79.29627844 55.83513284 29.92110047
As 73.68279527 51.88249364 27.80294818 /g 0.63 46.42016102 32.685971 17.51585735
Pb 58.50737851 41.19698068 22.07676306 /g 0.065 3.802979603 2.677803744 1.434989599
V 35.5613698 25.03993688 13.41847738 /g 1.91 67.92221632 47.82627944 25.62929179
Co 9.536952741 6.715283916 3.598606728 /g 0.0906 0.864047918 0.608404723 0.32603377
Hg 1.036851629 0.730081532 0.391238307 /g 68.9 71.43907723 50.30261755 26.95631938
Total 24684326.15 17786447.5 10167517.12
1) See Table App 7.6, 7.10 and 7.14 (All Emissions in gram)
2) Weighting index based on Environmental themes method- Eriksson et al (1995) [7]
4) Gas= Natural gas required for natural gas extraction, treatment and GAC production by considering 38.3 MJ/m
3
(See Appendix 4.4,4.5 and 4.6)

9.3 Non-treatment alternative

Table App 9. 3. Weighting result of Non-treatment alternative
Emission Case 1
1
Case2
1
Case3
1
Weighting index (/g)
2
Total Case 1
3
Total Case 2
3
Total Case 3
3

Toluene 1960000 19600000 39200000 3.8 7448000 74480000 148960000
Total 7448000 74480000 148960000
1) See Appendix 4.7
2) Weighting index based on Environmental themes- Eriksson et al (1995) [7]

119

Appendix 10, Interpretation of result

10.1 GAC adsorption method- All cases

Diagram App 10. 1. Natural resource consumption-

Diagram App 10. 2. Energy consumption- GAC
adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 3. Depletion of Abiotic
Resources- GAC adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 4. Global Warming Potential-

Diagram App 10. 5. Photochemical Ozone Creation
Potential- GAC adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 6. Acidification Potential- GAC
adsorption method

120

Diagram App 10. 7. Eutrophication Potential- GAC
adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 8. Human Toxicity Potential-

Diagram App 10. 9. Ecotoxicity Potential
(FAETP)- GAC adsorption method

(MAETP) - GAC adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 11. Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP)
- GAC adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 12. Environmental impact
comparison- GAC adsorption method

Diagram App 10. 13. Weighted result- GAC
adsorption method

121

10.2 VOCs incineration method-All cases

Diagram App 10. 14. Natural resource
consumption- VOCs incineration method

Diagram App 10. 15. Energy consumption- VOCs
incineration method

Resources- VOCs incineration method

Diagram App 10. 17. Global Warming Potential-

Diagram App 10. 18. Photochemical Ozone
Creation Potential- VOCs incineration method

Diagram App 10. 19. Acidification Potential- VOCs
incineration method

122

Diagram App 10. 20. Eutrophication Potential-


(FAETP) - VOCs incineration method

(MAETP) - VOCs incineration method

- VOCs incineration method

comparison- VOCs incineration method

Diagram App 10. 26. Weighted result- VOCs
incineration method

123

10.3 Non-treatment alternative- All cases

Creation Potential- Non-treatment alternative

Non-treatment alternative

(FAETP) - Non-treatment alternative

(MAETP) - Non-treatment alternative

- Non-treatment alternative

comparison- Non-treatment alternative

Diagram App 10. 33. Weighted result- Non-
treatment alternative

124

10.4 Results interpretation of all methods (all cases)

consumption- Case 1

consumption- Case 2

consumption- Case 3

Diagram App 10. 37. Natural gas consumption

Diagram App 10. 38. Energy consumption

Resources

125

Diagram App 10. 40. Global Warming Potential

Creation Potential

Diagram App 10. 42. Acidification Potential

Diagram App 10. 43. Eutrophication Potential

Diagram App 10. 44. Human Toxicity Potential

Diagram App 10. 45. Eco Toxicity Potential-
(FAETP)

126

(MAETP)

(TETP)

Ads or Ption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ads or Ption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This thesis comprises 30 ECTS credits and is a compulsory part in the Master of Science with a Major in

You might also like