Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of environmental impact of activated carbon production from wood waste

  • Kim, Mi Hyung (BKT United) ;
  • Jeong, In Tae (R&D Office, Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute) ;
  • Park, Sang Bum (National Institute of Forest Science) ;
  • Kim, Jung Wk (Department of Environmental Planning, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.03.19
  • Accepted : 2018.06.23
  • Published : 2019.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Activated carbon is carbon produced from carbonaceous source materials, such as coconut shells, coals, and woods. In this study, an activated carbon production system was analyzed by carbonization and activation in terms of environmental impact and human health. The feedstock of wood wastes for the system reduced fossil fuel consumption and disposal costs. Life cycle assessment methodology was used to analyze the environmental impacts of the system, and the functional unit was one tonne of wood wastes. The boundary expansion method was applied to analyze the wood waste recycling process for activated carbon production. An environmental credit was quantified by avoided impact analysis. Specifically, greenhouse gases discharged from 1 kg of activated carbon production system by feeding wood wastes were evaluated. We found that this system reduced global warming potential of approximately $9.69E+00kg\;CO_2-eq$. compared to the process using coals. The environmental benefits for activated carbon production from wood wastes were analyzed in contrast to other disposal methods. The results showed that the activated carbon system using one tonne of wood wastes has an environmental benefit of $163kg\;CO_2-eq$. for reducing global warming potential in comparison with the same amount of wood wastes disposal by landfilling.

Keywords

References

  1. Hwang I, Kobayashi J, Kawamoto K. Characterization of products obtained from pyrolysis and steam gasification of wood waste, RDF, and RPF. Waste Manage. 2014;34:402-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.009
  2. Bansal RC, Goyal M. Activated carbon adsorption. CRC Press: Taylor & Francis; 2005. p. 46-51.
  3. Kadirvelu K, Thamaraiselvi K, Namasivayam C. Removal of heavy metals from industrial wastewaters by adsorption onto activated carbon prepared from an agricultural solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2001;76:63-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00072-9
  4. Olufemi BA, Otolorin F. Comparative adsorption of crude oil using mango (Mangnifera indica) shell and mango shell activated carbon. Environ. Eng. Res. 2017;22:384-392. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2017.011
  5. Yahya MA, Al-Qodah Z, Ngah CWZ. Agricultural bio-waste materials as potential sustainable precursors used for activated carbon production: A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2015a;46:218-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.051
  6. Malik R, Ramteke DS, Wate SR. Physico-chemical and surface characterization of adsorbent prepared from groundnut shell by ZnCl2 activation and its ability to adsorb colour. Indian J. Chem. Technol. 2006;13:319-328.
  7. McDougall GJ. The physical nature and manufacture of activated carbon. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 1991;91:109-120.
  8. Hjaila K, Baccar R, Sarra M, Gasol CM, Blanquez P. Environmental impact associated with activated carbon preparation from olive-waste cake via life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 2013;130:242-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.08.061
  9. Chen R, Li L, Liu Z, et al. Preparation and characterization of activated carbon from tobacco stem by chemical activation. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2017;67:713-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1280560
  10. Yahya MA, Al-Qodah Z, Ngah CWZ, Hashim MA. Preparation and characterization of activated carbon from desiccated coconut residue by potassium hydroxide. Asian J. Chem. 2015b;27:2331-2336. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2015.18804
  11. Ioannidou O, Zabaniotou A. Agricultural residues as precursors for activated carbon production - A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2007;11:1966-2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.03.013
  12. Chung CK. Utilization of discarded tree debris for commercial production of activated carbon. Sejongsi: Ministry of Agriculture. Food and Rural Affairs; 2000. p. 174-185 (in Korean).
  13. Kim J, Chung C, Min B. A study on development of activated carbons from waste timbers. J. Korean Inst. Resour. Recycl. 2008;17:68-78 (in Korean).
  14. Seppala J, Hamalainen RP. On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001;6:211-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979376
  15. Finnveden G. Valuation methods within LCA - Where are the values? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1997;2:163-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978812
  16. Powell JC, Pearce DW, Craighill AL. Approaches to valuation in LCA impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1997;2:11-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978709
  17. Park PJ, Tahara K, Jeong IT, Lee KM. Comparison of four methods for integrating environmental and economic aspects in the end-of-life stage of a washing machine. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006;48:71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.01.001
  18. Kim H, Kim K, Park H. Life cycle assessment of the environmental infrastructures in operation phase: Case of an industrial waste incineration plant. Environ. Eng. Res. 2017;22:266-276. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2016.105
  19. Piao W, Kim Y. Evaluation of monthly environmental loads from municipal wastewater treatment plants operation using life cycle assessment. Environ. Eng. Res. 2016;21:284-290. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2015.124
  20. Fei F, Wen Z, Huang S, Clercq DD. Mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste: Energy efficiency, environmental impact and economic feasibility analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;178:731-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.060
  21. Merrild H, Damgaard A, Christensen TH. Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008;52:1391-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.08.004
  22. M'hamdi AI, Gusca J, Blumberga D, Zerouale A, Kandri NI. Comparative analysis of processed wood waste reuse possibilities after chemical delignification treatment. Energy Procedia 2017;113:289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.04.068
  23. Nuss P, Gardner KH, Jambeck JR. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of construction and demolition (C&D) derived biomass and U.S. Northeast forest residuals gasification for electricity production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013;47:3463-3471. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304312f
  24. Ripa M, Fiorentino G, Vacca V, Ulgiati S. The relevance of site-specific data in life cycle assessment (LCA). The case of the municipal solid waste management in the metropolitan city of Naples (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 2017;142:445-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.149
  25. Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, et al. Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in Brazilian conditions: A meta-analysis. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2014;37:435-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.036
  26. Alhashimi HA, Aktas CB. Life cycle environmental and economic performance of biochar compared with activated carbon: A meta-analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017;118:13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.016
  27. Bayer P, Heuer E, Karl U, Finkel M. Economical and ecological comparison of granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber refill strategies. Water Res. 2005;39:1719-1728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.02.005
  28. Kim MH, Song HB, Song Y, Jeong IT, Kim JW. Evaluation of food waste disposal options in terms of global warming and energy recovery: Korea. Int. J. Energ. Environ. Eng. 2013;4:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2251-6832-4-1
  29. Zeng L, Zhu H, Ma Y, Huang J, Li G. Greenhouse gases emissions from solid waste: An analysis of Expo 2010 Shanghai, China. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 2014;16:616-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0280-8
  30. IPCC. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Meteorological Office, Bracknell. 1997.
  31. ISO. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E). International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 2006.
  32. ISO. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirement and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006(E) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 2006.
  33. ISO. International Organization for Standardization/TR: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. ISO/TR 14049:2000(E). Geneva. 2000.
  34. Schmidt JH, Holm P, Merrild A, Christensen P. Life cycle assessment of the waste hierarchy - A Danish case study on waste paper. Waste Manage. 2007;27:1519-1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.09.004
  35. Lee KM. A weighting method for the Korean Eco-Indicator. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1999;4:161-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979451
  36. Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, et al. Nordic guidelines on life cycle assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nord 1995:20, Copenhagen. 1995.
  37. Seo S, Asce M, Aramaki T, Hwang Y, Hanaki K. Environmental impact of solid waste treatment methods in Korea. J. Environ. Eng. 2004;130:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:1(1)
  38. Lopes E, Dias A, Arroja L, Capela I. Pereira F. Application of life cycle assessment to the Portuguese pulp and paper industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2003;11:51-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00005-7
  39. Ekvall T, Finnveden G. Allocation in ISO 14041 - A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2001;9:197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4
  40. ISO. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. ISO 14041:1998(E) International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 1998.
  41. Gabarrell X, Font M, Vicent T, Caminal G, Sarra M, Blanquez P. A comparative life cycle assessment of two treatment technologies for the Grey Lanaset G textile dye: Biodegradation by Trametes versicolor and granular activated carbon adsorption. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012;17:613-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0385-z
  42. Lee KM, Park PJ. Estimation of the environmental credit for the recycling of granulated blast furnace slag based on LCA. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2005;44:139-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.11.004
  43. EPA. Guidance on data quality assessment for life cycle inventory data. EPA/600/R-16/096. Washington D.C.; 2016.
  44. Lee DW, Lee JK, Rhee BS, Ryu SK. Increase of specific surface area of carbon fiber. Korean Chem. Eng. Res. 1989;27:777-783 (in Korean).
  45. KFS. Korean forest service. Statistical yearbook of forestry. Daejeon; 2017. 47.
  46. Rigamonti L, Grosso M, Giugliano M. Life cycle assessment of sub-units composing a MSW management system. J. Clean. Prod. 2010;18:1652-1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.029
  47. De Marco I, Iannone R. Production, packaging and preservation of semi-finished apricots: A comparative life cycle assessment study. J. Food Eng. 2017;206:106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.03.009
  48. Ingwersen WI, Gausman M, Weisbrod A, et al. Detailed life cycle assessment of $Bounty^{(R)}$ paper towel operations in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2016;131:509-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.149
  49. Coelho LMG, Lange LC. Applying life cycle assessment to support environmentally sustainable waste management strategies in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018;128:438-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.026
  50. Guinee JB, Heijungs R. A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1995;14:917-925. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620140525
  51. Ecoinvent. The Swiss Centre for Life cycle inventories. Ecoinvent (v3.2), Zurich, Switzerland; 2015.

Cited by

  1. Synthesis of carbon nanostructures from corn stalk using mechano-thermal method vol.1199, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.126976
  2. Generating Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data of Activated Carbon Production Using Machine Learning and Kinetic Based Process Simulation vol.8, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06522
  3. Sustainability assessment of activated carbon from residual biomass used for micropollutant removal at a full-scale wastewater treatment plant vol.15, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8330
  4. A Review of Intermediate Pyrolysis as a Technology of Biomass Conversion for Coproduction of Biooil and Adsorption Biochar vol.2021, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5533780
  5. Numerical and experimental investigation on the thermochemical gasification potential of Cocoa pod husk (Theobroma Cacoa) in an open-core gasifier vol.23, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02051-w
  6. Route‐Optimized Synthesis of Bagasse‐Derived Hierarchical Activated Carbon for Maximizing Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Adsorption Capture Properties vol.6, pp.38, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202101295
  7. Biomimetic Wood‐Inspired Batteries: Fabrication, Electrochemical Performance, and Sustainability within a Circular Perspective vol.5, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.202100236
  8. Sustainable Development of Magnetic Chitosan Core-Shell Network for the Removal of Organic Dyes from Aqueous Solutions vol.14, pp.24, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247701
  9. Can the addition of biochar improve the performance of biogas digesters operated at 45°C? vol.27, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2020.648