Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF WESTERN ONTARIO
Article
Environmental Comparison of Biochar and Activated Carbon for Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Kyle Andrew Thompson, Kyle Koyu Shimabuku, Joshua P. Kearns, Detlef R. U. Knappe, R. Scott Summers, and Sherri Michelle Cook Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 22 Sep 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on September 22, 2016
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
1
Environmental comparison of biochar and activated carbon for tertiary wastewater
2
treatment
3
Kyle A. Thompson,1 Kyle K. Shimabuku,1 Joshua P. Kearns,1,2 Detlef R. U. Knappe,2 R. Scott
4
Summers,1 and Sherri M. Cook*,1
5
*
6
7317, address: 4001 Discovery Drive, 607 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309
7
Corresponding author email:
[email protected], phone: 303-735-7288, fax: 303-492-
1
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado
8 9
Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309 2
Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State
10 11
University, Raleigh, NC 27695 Table of Content Art
12
13 14
1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
15
Abstract
16
Micropollutants in wastewater present environmental and human health challenges. Powdered
17
activated carbon (PAC) can effectively remove organic micropollutants, but PAC production is
18
energy intensive and expensive. Biochar adsorbents can cost less and sequester carbon; however,
19
net benefits depend on biochar production conditions and treatment capabilities. Here, life cycle
20
assessment was used to compare 10 environmental impacts from the production and use of wood
21
biochar, biosolids biochar, and coal-derived PAC to remove sulfamethoxazole from wastewater.
22
Moderate capacity wood biochar had environmental benefits in four categories (smog, global
23
warming, respiratory effects, non-carcinogenics) linked to energy recovery and carbon
24
sequestration, and environmental impacts worse than PAC in two categories (eutrophication,
25
carcinogenics). Low capacity wood biochar had even larger benefits for global warming,
26
respiratory effects, and non-carcinogenics, but exhibited worse impacts than PAC in five
27
categories due to larger biochar dose requirements to reach the treatment objective. Biosolids
28
biochar had the worst relative environmental performance due to energy use for biosolids drying
29
and the need for supplemental adsorbent. Overall, moderate capacity wood biochar is an
30
environmentally superior alternative to coal-based PAC for micropollutant removal from
31
wastewater, and its use can offset a wastewater facility’s carbon footprint.
2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 26
Page 3 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
32
Introduction
33
Wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) seek to reduce the negative impacts of organic
34
micropollutants (e.g., antibiotics and endocrine disrupting compounds) on aquatic life and
35
downstream drinking water quality by removing these compounds during treatment.1,2,3
36
Adsorption with powdered activated carbon (PAC) is an effective treatment option4 for tertiary
37
wastewater treatment that has shown lower environmental impacts than other options (e.g.,
38
reverse osmosis, ozone/ultraviolet-light oxidation).5 However, PAC also has negative
39
environmental impacts, especially because it is commonly generated from non-renewable coal
40
and requires energy-intensive thermal activation to develop adsorption properties.6 A potentially
41
lower cost and environmentally friendlier alternative is biochar, which is carbonized biomass not
42
subjected to further physical or chemical activation.
43
Biochar adsorbents have demonstrated sorption capacity for agrichemicals,7,8 pharmaceuticals
44
and personal care products,9,10 and endocrine disrupting compounds.11 Biochar ($350-$1,200 per
45
tonne12) costs less than PAC ($1,100-$1,700 per tonne13), on a mass basis, and can have
46
environmental benefits including energy co-production,14-16 carbon sequestration,14-20 and bio-
47
waste valorization (e.g., by using yard,15,17 food,16,21 and agricultural wastes22 and biosolids16,23
48
as feedstocks). The adsorption capacity of biochars for organic micropollutants, though, ranges
49
from negligible to similar to that of PAC depending on solution characteristics, precursor
50
material, and biochar production conditions.23-26 Since adsorption capacity determines the mass
51
of adsorbent needed for treatment, it also influences cost and environmental impacts. To date, the
52
relationships between biochar adsorption capacity, cost, and environmental impacts, as well as
53
the comparison with prevalent adsorbents such as PAC have not been quantified.
3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
54
Previous life cycle assessments (LCAs) have identified important biochar properties that affect
55
environmental performance. The feedstock moisture content, energy content, and alternative uses
56
and production conditions have been found to influence overall environmental performance.16
57
Many studies quantified only global warming impact or net energy production,15-18,20,27 so
58
analysis using a broader set of environmental impacts will help to further identify influential
59
properties and environmental trade-offs. In addition, most biochar LCAs have focused on the
60
application of biochar as an agricultural soil amendment and energy generation co-product,14-
61
20,27-29
62
engineered wastewater treatment applications.
but no studies to-date have assessed comparative life cycle impacts of using biochar in
63
Future requirements for micropollutant removal from wastewater effluents are expected in
64
coming years,3,30 and the implementation of new treatment capabilities must be balanced against
65
overall environmental protection (e.g., minimizing energy requirements and associated air
66
pollution of new treatment technologies). The objective of this study was to quantify relative
67
environmental impacts of using biochar adsorbents for tertiary wastewater treatment made from
68
wood and biosolids compared to coal-derived PAC. LCA methodology was used to assess
69
impacts associated with adsorbent generation, use, and disposal for removal of sulfamethoxazole
70
(SMX), a prevalent human and livestock antibiotic, from wastewater effluent. Uncertainty and
71
sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the results’ sensitivity to modeling
72
assumptions. This study aims to elucidate the most effective ways to reduce environmental
73
impacts of and to identify environmental tradeoffs between adsorbents used for micropollutant
74
control in tertiary wastewater treatment. In addition, this study aims to assist in the selection of
75
environmentally preferred adsorbents from the perspective of feedstock selection and production
76
conditions. 4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 26
Page 5 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
77 78
Methods
79
The production and use of PAC, wood biochar, and biosolids biochar for tertiary wastewater
80
treatment was evaluated using a comparative LCA methodology following the ISO 14040
81
framework.31 The main processes in each scenario and the LCA system boundary are
82
summarized in Figure 1. The functional unit was 75% removal of sulfamethoxazole (SMX) from
83
47,300 m3/day (12.5 MGD) of secondary wastewater effluent over 40 years. The 75% SMX
84
removal target was chosen as a representative goal because: (i) SMX has a common occurrence
85
in wastewater and in surface water at concentrations shown to endanger aquatic ecosystems.32-34
86
(ii) For the sorbent doses used in this study, 75% SMX removal is expected for any SMX
87
concentration typically found in wastewater effluent.23 (iii) Emerging regulations on
88
micropollutants are considering 80% as a general target,3 and SMX has a relatively low tendency
89
for adsorption compared to other organic micropollutants present in wastewater effluent;35,36
90
therefore, 75% SMX removal is expected to result in greater than 75% removal of other
91
micropollutants, which is representative of proposed removal targets. The Boulder, Colorado
92
WWTF provided data on biosolids quantity, composition, and fate,37 and its location was used
93
for hauling distances.
5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
94 95 96
Figure 1. Process flow diagram of the main processes in each of the PAC, wood biochar, and biosolids biochar scenarios for tertiary wastewater treatment.
97
The adsorbent dose necessary to achieve 75% SMX uptake (dose75) from wastewater effluent
98
over a 60-minute contact time was experimentally determined in previous bench-scale work.23 In
99
that previous study, SMX adsorption was quantified at initial concentrations ranging from 50
100
ng/L to 1 mg/L, and SMX proportional removal was independent of concentration at or below 10
101
ug/L.23 Typical SMX concentrations in wastewater effluent are ≤0.178 µg/L in China,38 ≤2.00
102
µg/L in Germany,39 and ≤3.25 µg/L in the USA.40 The dose75 for the commercial bituminous
103
coal-based PAC was 70 mg/L.23 Using wood and biosolids as feedstocks, biochars were
104
generated using different pyrolysis conditions and classified based on their experimentally
105
determined adsorption capacities (i.e., dose75) relative to PAC: low capacity (600 mg/L23), and
106
moderate capacity (150 mg/L23). While these biochars had adsorption capacities lower than PAC,
107
they have high adsorption capacities compared to many other biochars.23 The low capacity wood 6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 26
Page 7 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
108
biochar was generated in a full-scale pyrolysis facility where pine wood chips were exposed to a
109
temperature gradient from 400 to 1200˚C.41 The moderate capacity wood biochar was produced
110
from pine wood pellets in a 1-gallon top-lit updraft gasifier under high draft (850˚C)
111
conditions.23 The properties of the moderate capacity biosolids biochar were estimated using data
112
from biosolids and wood biochars. Pyrolysis mass yield and elemental composition of each
113
biochar were based on measurements from a previous study23 (see Table S2). Bench-scale batch
114
reactors were used to experimentally determine the aluminum sulfate (alum) dose required to
115
remove an adsorbent from solution and achieve a final turbidity less than 1 NTU (ASTM
116
D2035).42 A 10 mg/L alum dose was sufficient for all adsorbents. The apparent density of each
117
adsorbent was determined using a tapped apparent density standard method.43 Table S2 describes
118
each adsorbents’ properties.
119
Adsorbent Scenarios. Six main scenarios are described below: low-impact PAC, high-impact
120
PAC, moderate capacity wood biochar, low capacity wood biochar, moderate capacity biosolids
121
biochar supplemented with low-impact PAC, and moderate capacity biosolids biochar
122
supplemented with moderate capacity wood biochar. Early in the analysis it was found that the
123
mass of biochar generated from biosolids would be insufficient to meet the 75% SMX removal
124
objective and therefore biosolids biochar would need to be supplemented with other adsorbents.
125
The comparative LCA system boundary (Figure 1) does not include activities and processes
126
common to all scenarios (e.g., the production of secondary wastewater effluent and dewatered
127
biosolids). Life cycle stages included raw material acquisition, production, use, and hauling, but
128
not end-of-life impacts (e.g., emissions from a landfill). For each scenario, the amounts and types
129
of materials and energy required to achieve the functional unit were quantified and used to
130
estimate life cycle emissions with data from the US-EI v.2.244 and Agri-footprint45 life cycle 7
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
131
inventory (LCI) databases. All emissions were translated into ten environmental impact
132
categories using the EPA’s Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
133
Environmental Impacts (TRACI).46
134
depletion (kg CFC-11 equivalent), global warming (kg CO2 equivalent), smog (kg O3
135
equivalent), acidification (kg SO2 equivalent), eutrophication (kg N equivalent), carcinogenics
136
(comparative toxic units, CTU), non carcinogenics (CTU), respiratory effects (kg PM2.5
137
equivalent), ecotoxicity (CTU), and fossil fuel depletion (MJ surplus).
The 10 TRACI midpoint impact categories are: ozone
138
PAC Scenarios. Life cycle impacts of PAC were estimated for the generation, hauling, and
139
storage of PAC before dosing and the removal and landfilling of spent PAC. Emissions due to
140
coal-derived PAC generation were estimated using Agri-footprint,45 which accounted for coal
141
extraction and hauling, water and energy production, and direct emissions of carbon dioxide and
142
water vapor.45 PAC production at four locations (California, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and
143
Texas47) was considered. For each, state-specific electricity production mixes and semi-trailer
144
truck hauling distances to the Boulder WWTF were used. Of the four locations, Kentucky
145
resulted in the highest impacts overall, so this location was used for the “high-impact” PAC
146
scenario. California had the lowest impacts and was used for the “low-impact” PAC scenario.
147
The number of silos needed for adsorbent storage and associated mass of galvanized sheet steel
148
were based on typical PAC silo dimensions.48,49 Each silo had a continuously operating air
149
fluidizer system to keep the PAC dry and friable.48 Electricity requirements for air fluidizers
150
were estimated from commercially available systems.50 After PAC was dosed and SMX uptake
151
was achieved, the spent PAC was removed from the effluent using alum coagulation and settling.
152
The infrastructure and energy requirements of dosing, coagulation, and settling of all adsorbents
153
were assumed to be the same (e.g., all required the same alum dose). The settled adsorbent was 8
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 26
Page 9 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
154
dewatered using a stainless steel belt filter press, and commercially available units51 were used to
155
estimate energy and infrastructure requirements. Truck emissions from hauling spent adsorbent
156
to a landfill were based on mass and a distance (19.6 km between Boulder WWTF and nearest
157
landfill).
158
Wood Biochar Scenarios. Life cycle impacts of wood biochar were estimated for the
159
generation, hauling, and storage of wood biochar before dosing and the removal and landfilling
160
of spent wood biochar. Biochar generation (wood chip generation, drying, and pyrolysis) had the
161
same system boundary as PAC generation. Wood chip generation LCI data accounted for forest
162
harvesting, hauling, and chipping.44 The electrical energy requirements for wood chip pyrolysis,
163
based on a full-scale facility in Kremmling, CO (Biochar Solutions, Inc.) that co-produces
164
biochar for land application and dried wood pellets for heating, was 0.54 MJ electricity per
165
kilogram of non-ground biochar.41 Net thermal energy requirements, which are specific to the
166
low capacity wood biochar produced at the full-scale facility (because energy production is
167
dependent on pyrolysis conditions) was -24 MJ thermal energy per kilogram non-ground biochar
168
due heat recovery from pyrolysis gas combustion beyond drying energy requirements.41 Energy
169
production from the moderate capacity biochar was estimated as the difference between the
170
feedstock (wood52) and biochar (calculated from elemental composition53) thermal energies,
171
multiplied by the efficiency factor estimated from full-scale data. Energy recovered from
172
pyrolysis gas offsets energy generated from wood chip combustion at the full-scale facility,41 and
173
the model used this same energy offset. Direct air emissions of treated pyrolysis gas were
174
estimated using modeling14 and measured data for wood biochar pyrolysis.29,54,55 The modeling
175
data was most representative of the Colorado full-scale facility since it was for a large-scale
176
wood biochar facility that had air emission regulations and treatment by thermal oxidation and 9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 10 of 26
177
cyclones. The measured data were from various small-scale, low-cost technologies that only
178
captured and combusted a proportion of the pyrolysis gas and did not treat the exhaust with
179
cyclones, so these data were used in the uncertainty assessment to evaluate worst-case air
180
emissions scenarios (see Tables S4 an S5). The energy requirements of grinding wood biochar to
181
a size fraction comparable to PAC (45 µm) were based on commercially available activated
182
carbon grinders.56 The ground wood biochar was hauled 185 km from the full-scale facility to the
183
Boulder WWTF by truck. The same assumptions and methods as the PAC scenarios were used to
184
calculate adsorbent storage, dosing, coagulation, dewatering, and disposal hauling.
185
Biosolids Biochar Scenarios. Life cycle impacts of biosolids biochar were estimated for the
186
generation, hauling, and storage of biosolids biochar and any supplemental adsorbent; the
187
removal and landfilling of spent adsorbent; and fertilizer production due to biosolids diversion
188
from land application. Biosolids biochar generation was assumed to be at the WWTF and
189
included biosolids drying (from 77.4% to 8% moisture content), pyrolysis, and grinding.
190
Electricity requirements of pyrolysis were based on data from the full-scale wood facility (0.54
191
MJ/kg non-ground biochar).41 Thermal energy requirements were based on data for biosolids
192
drying in the Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model57 and were met using energy recovered
193
from pyrolysis gas and then by natural gas (if needed). Energy recovery was estimated using the
194
same methods as moderate capacity wood biochar with values for typical biosolids58 and
195
biosolids biochar (calculated from elemental composition53) thermal energies. Additional energy
196
required was assumed to be supplied by natural gas. Direct pyrolysis emissions were based on a
197
full-scale biosolids pyrolysis facility’s emissions of treated and combusted pyrolysis gas.58
198
Biosolids biochar grinding, storage, dosing, coagulation, dewatering, and disposal hauling were
199
calculated using the same assumptions and methods as the wood biochar scenarios. 10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
200
The diversion of biosolids from land application (fertilizer) to biochar in these scenarios
201
required the production of substitute fertilizers. Fertilizer quantities were based on biosolids
202
content of plant available nitrogen and phosphorus.37,59 The mass of supplemental adsorbent was
203
based on the biosolids biochar mass and each adsorbents’ dose. The impacts of supplemental
204
adsorbents were based on this mass and the calculations described for each type (i.e., PAC or
205
wood biochar scenarios). For storage, biosolids and wood biochars were stored together, whereas
206
biosolids biochar and PAC were stored separately because of their different adsorption
207
capacities.
208
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis. The aggregate impact of uncertainty in assumed values
209
on the ten TRACI categories was estimated using a Monte Carlo analysis with the software
210
Crystal BallTM. There were 24 uncertainty parameters (Tables S3 and S5) that represent main
211
assumptions about storage systems, and biochar properties, and pyrolysis conditions, and
212
pyrolysis gas air emissions. Each uncertainty parameter was assigned plausible maximum and
213
minimum values based on literature values or typical WWTF operations and was characterized
214
with a uniform probability distribution due to the lack of data to justify assigning any other
215
distribution. The impact categories’ uncertainty ranges represent the 25th and 75th percentiles of
216
100,000 Monte Carlo simulations. If a correlation coefficient’s magnitude was greater than 0.8
217
(|ρ|>0.8)), then that impact category was defined as sensitive to that uncertainty parameter.
218
Results and Discussion
219
Wood Biochar to PAC Comparison. Environmental impacts of PAC and wood biochar are
220
compared in Figure 2 for the 10 TRACI impact categories. Each category represents the
221
magnitude and type of environmental or human health impacts that are based on the types and
222
quantities of chemicals released into the environment as a result of the processes, materials, and 11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 12 of 26
223
energy used throughout each adsorbent’s life cycle. The results show that the production and use
224
of moderate capacity wood biochar for SMX removal results in environmental impacts that are
225
higher than low-impact PAC but lower than high-impact PAC in two categories (eutrophication,
226
carcinogenics); environmental impacts that are lower than low-impact PAC in four categories
227
(ecotoxicity, acidification, ozone depletion, fossil fuel depletion); and environmental net benefits
228
in four categories (smog, global warming, respiratory effects, and non carcinogenics) that were
229
not realized with low-impact PAC. Low capacity wood biochar had larger environmental
230
impacts than both PAC scenarios in five categories (eutrophication, carcinogenics, ecotoxicity,
231
acidification, ozone depletion) and lower impacts in the other half of the categories (fossil fuel
232
depletion, smog, global warming, respiratory effects, and non carcinogenics). For low capacity
233
wood biochar, three categories exhibited environmental benefits (global warming, respiratory
234
effects, and non carcinogenics). The wood biochars had similar trends in each impact category,
235
and the magnitude of environmental impacts or benefits scaled with adsorbent quantity (i.e.,
236
adsorption capacity) (Figure 2). Moderate capacity wood biochar had the lowest overall
237
environmental impacts. It exhibited lower environmental impacts than high-impact PAC in all
238
ten categories, and eight out of ten categories compared with low-impact PAC.
239 12
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 26
240 241 242 243
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 2. Relative environmental impacts for four scenarios: low-impact PAC, high-impact PAC, moderate capacity wood biochar, and low capacity wood biochar. All emission factors (i.e., impacts) are normalized to low-impact PAC. Negative emission factors represent an environmental benefit; positive emission factors represent a negative environmental impact.
244 245
Wood Biochar. The wood biochars had environmental benefits and lower environmental
246
impacts than PAC primarily due to carbon sequestration and energy production during pyrolysis
247
(Figure 3). The estimated net amount of carbon sequestration for moderate capacity wood
248
biochar was 0.57 kg CO2 equivalent (eq.) per kg dry feedstock and for low capacity wood
249
biochar was 0.67 kg CO2 eq./kg dry feedstock. Both values are comparable to values reported by
250
other studies on the production and use of biochar for land application, which reported a range of
251
0.07 to 1.25 kg CO2 eq./kg dry feedstock.14,16,17,19,20,60 Low capacity wood biochar resulted in
252
greater carbon sequestration than moderate capacity wood biochar primarily because a larger
253
mass of feedstock was converted to biochar to satisfy the larger dose75 requirement.
254
The estimated energy recovered during the production of moderate capacity wood biochar was
255
8.6 MJ heat/kg dry feedstock and 7.5 MJ heat/kg dry feedstock for low capacity wood biochar.
256
The energy produced as a percent of feedstock heat content was 44% and 38% for moderate and
257
low capacity wood biochars, respectively, which is similar to another study’s value of 37%.17 In
258
this LCA, the environmental benefit of the energy produced during pyrolysis is due to the offset
259
of energy produced from wood chip combustion, which was the protocol used at the full-scale
260
wood biochar and wood pellet co-production facility before the installation of pyrolysis energy
261
recovery infrastructure. This energy replacement resulted in a net environmental benefit for
262
moderate capacity wood biochar in three impact categories (smog, respiratory effects, and non-
263
carcinogenics) and contributed to net environmental benefits in the global warming category.
13
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 14 of 26
264
When considering replacing heat from natural gas instead of wood chips, moderate capacity
265
wood biochar still had lower environmental impacts compared to PAC (see Figure S12).
266
In addition to energy production and carbon sequestration, there were several activities in the
267
wood biochar scenarios that resulted in harmful environmental impacts. Figure 3 shows the
268
contribution of different life cycle processes’ impacts to the overall smog impact. The smog
269
category was selected for display since it had trends similar to and was representative of the
270
other nine impact categories (see Figures S2 to S11). For moderate capacity wood biochar, the
271
largest contributor to negative smog impacts was wood biochar generation, mostly due to direct
272
air emissions from pyrolysis gas combustion, wood chip generation, and electricity use. The
273
second largest contributor to smog was silo storage of wood biochar at the WWTP, due mostly to
274
electricity consumption for air fluidization. The impact from this electricity consumption was
275
greatest in the eutrophication and carcinogenics categories (Figures S2 and S3). Since moderate
276
capacity wood biochar required over twice as much adsorbent mass as PAC, wood biochar had
277
larger storage and disposal impacts than PAC for all impact categories. Also, the larger doses for
278
lower adsorption capacity biochars can increase costs and make materials handling more
279
burdensome. The third largest contributor to the smog impact was hauling adsorbent from the
280
generation site to the WWTF. The impact of hauling to the WWTF is four times smaller for
281
moderate capacity wood biochar than for PAC because the shorter hauling distance (185 km
282
from the biochar production facility compared to 1664 km from the PAC manufacturer). Overall,
283
for the smog impact category, moderate capacity wood biochar exhibits a net environmental
284
benefit due to energy recovery.
285
14
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 26
286 287 288 289 290 291
Environmental Science & Technology
Figure 3. Contribution of life cycle processes to the smog impact category for 5 scenarios: highimpact PAC, low-impact PAC, moderate capacity wood biochar, moderate capacity biosolids and wood biochars (MCBB+MCWB), and moderate capacity biosolids biochar supplemented with low-impact PAC (MCBB+low-impact PAC). Adsorbent disposal includes dewatering and landfill hauling. All values are normalized to low-impact PAC.
292 293
PAC. Results for the two PAC scenarios are summarized in Figure 3. PAC generation and
294
hauling to the WWTF were the two largest contributors to negative impacts. Low-impact PAC
295
had a lower smog impact because of the lower emissions from electricity consumption during
296
PAC generation (i.e., electricity production was cleaner in California than in Kentucky) and the
297
shorter hauling distance to Colorado from California (1664 km) than from Kentucky (2118 km).
298
The third and fourth largest contributors to smog were adsorbent storage and disposal. Both PAC
299
scenarios required the same dose of PAC, so each has the same environmental impacts from
300
storage and disposal. Overall, the PAC scenarios exhibited negative environmental impacts in all
301
categories. The most effective ways found to reduce environmental impacts from these results
302
were to decrease net energy use during PAC generation and to reduce hauling. In addition, future 15
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 16 of 26
303
research could focus on a diversity of PACs (e.g., in terms of feedstock and activation method)
304
to identify additional approaches for improving environmental performance. For example, while
305
coal-based PACs are the most common,61 biomass-based activated carbons (e.g., wood-based or
306
coconut-based PACs) might exhibit some similar benefits to wood-biochar (e.g., carbon
307
sequestration). However, the systematic comparison of these sorbents requires further research to
308
determine adsorption capacity and production factors. In this study, coal-based PAC exhibited
309
worse overall environmental performance compared to moderate capacity wood biochar.
310
However, PAC alone was found to be a better environmental option than a scenario employing
311
biosolids biochar supplemented with PAC, as described below (Figures 3 and S1).
312
Biosolids Biochar. Hybrid scenarios (i.e., supplementing biosolids biochar with PAC or wood
313
biochar) were evaluated because of biosolids feedstock limitations. The quantity of biosolids
314
produced at the Boulder WWTF would generate enough biochar to treat up to one-sixth of
315
effluent for 75% SMX removal. Overall, hybrid scenarios involving moderate capacity biosolids
316
biochar resulted in larger environmental impacts than the low-impact PAC or moderate capacity
317
wood biochar scenarios (see Figures 3 and S1). This trend was mostly due to biosolids biochar
318
generation (especially the energy required for drying) and the artificial fertilizer production
319
needed to replace land applied biosolids (Figure 3).
320
Biosolids drying required 14.9 MJ heat/kg dry biosolids to get from 77% to 8% moisture
321
content by mass. Comparatively, wood chip drying required 0.39 MJ heat/kg dry wood chips to
322
get to 8% moisture content, based on full-scale data. Large energy requirements due to the high
323
moisture content of biosolids feedstock has also been noted by other researchers.16 There is no
324
environmental benefit for net energy recovery in the biosolids biochar and PAC hybrid scenario
325
because all of the energy produced during pyrolysis (12.2 MJ heat/kg dry biosolids) was needed 16
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
326
for biosolids drying. For biosolids biochar, the energy produced as a percent of feedstock heat
327
content was 65%, which is similar to another study’s range of 60% to 80%.62 There is an energy
328
recovery benefit for the wood and biosolids biochar hybrid scenario because pyrolysis heat
329
energy in excess of needs for wood chip drying offset wood chip combustion. This extra energy
330
could not be used for biosolids drying since wood-based and biosolids-based biochars would be
331
generated at different locations.
332
Artificial fertilizer production resulted in negative environmental impacts. Although not
333
included in this model’s scope, it is important to note that biosolids and artificial fertilizers could
334
have different impacts after application. For example, nutrient runoff might be higher from
335
artificial fertilizer,63 and biosolids land application can imply the risk of contaminating soil and
336
adjacent waterways with heavy metals and persistent organic micropollutants.64-68
17
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
Page 18 of 26
Figure 4. Effect of uncertainty in input parameters on environmental impact categories for the low-impact PAC and moderate capacity wood biochar scenarios: Plot (a) shows the results from the Monte Carlo simulations, which included 24 uncertainty parameters (Tables S3 and S5); columns represent the uncertainty results’ mean values with error bars representing the 25th and 75th percentiles. Plots (b) and (c) show the comparison of the Monte Carlo results to results from 4 wood biochar pyrolysis gas air emissions scenarios, for the impact categories most impacted by air emissions uncertainty: smog (b) and respiratory effects (c). *Moderate capacity wood biochar scenario descriptions: uncertainty (Monte Carlo results, from a), 1) representative modeling data (large-scale facility with air emissions treatment),14 2) flame curtain kiln,54 3) Adam retort kiln,55 and 4) TLUD.29
348 349
Uncertainty. To evaluate the impact of major model assumptions on results, a Monte Carlo
350
analysis was used to quantify the uncertainty ranges for each result based on input parameter
351
uncertainty (Tables S3 and S5). Uncertainty ranges (25th to 75th percentiles of the Monte Carlo
352
analysis) for low-impact PAC and moderate capacity wood biochar are shown in Figure 4 (a). 18
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
353
Since this assessment showed that the smog and respiratory effects conclusions were sensitive to
354
the air emissions data for wood biochar pyrolysis gas, the Monte Carlo uncertainty parameter
355
data was disaggregated back into the separated modeling and measured data as scenarios and
356
evaluated (Figure 4, b and c). In addition, new adsorbent scenarios were created to evaluate the
357
impacts of the WWTF location and treatment goal (see SI sections S9 and S10).
358
Uncertainty ranges for low-impact PAC were generally smaller because it had only three
359
associated uncertainty parameters, while the moderate capacity wood biochar scenario had
360
eighteen. Wood biochar results in the non-carcinogenics category had a strong correlation
361
(ρ>0.8) with pyrolysis mass yield since decreasing yield increased energy production because
362
more feedstock was pyrolyzed. This yield is impacted by pyrolysis temperature. Increasing
363
pyrolysis temperature decreases pyrolysis yield,24 which has three main effects: (i) increasing
364
pyrolysis gas (energy) production, (ii) decreasing carbon sequestration, and (iii) increasing
365
adsorption capacity,23,69 which decreases impacts from hauling and storage. Therefore, for an
366
adsorption application, higher pyrolysis temperatures should be used to have the operational (i.e.,
367
less infrastructure and materials handling) and environmental benefits (due to energy recovery)
368
of higher adsorption capacity biochars.
369
Also, wood biochar results in the smog, respiratory effects, acidification, and global warming,
370
categories were sensitive to the pyrolysis gas air emissions uncertainty. In particular, the smog
371
results are overlapping due to the large wood biochar uncertainty range, and the respiratory
372
effect uncertainty range for wood biochar shows that there could be an environmental benefit or
373
burden (Figure 4a). Figure 4b shows that wood biochar is expected to have lower smog impacts
374
than PAC, but there is one scenario that results in a significantly larger impact (Scenario 4, see
375
Table S5). To have a lower smog impact, wood biochar processes need to capture and combust 19
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
376
pyrolysis gas to minimize volatile organic carbon emissions. Figure 4c shows that the
377
environmental benefit of wood biochar energy recovery can be lost if particulate matter is not
378
removed from the pyrolysis gas (moderate capacity wood biochar Scenario 2). Therefore, air
379
emission control measures, such as thermal oxidation and cyclones, are important to decrease the
380
negative environmental impacts and highlight the benefits of wood biochar.
Page 20 of 26
381
The impact of the WWTF location relative to the PAC production site was evaluated by setting
382
all electricity consumption mixes to US average and delivery distance for moderate capacity
383
wood biochar and PAC were set to 20, 200, and 2000 kilometers. In these scenarios, wood
384
biochar had lower impacts than PAC in all categories for the distances of 20 and 200 km and
385
lower impacts in eight out of ten categories for the 2000 km distance (see Figures S13-15).
386
However, another scenario was considered in which the WWTF was located in California near
387
the PAC production site (California WWTF scenario). For this scenario, PAC was produced with
388
California electricity and delivered to a nearby WWTF (185 km), and moderate capacity wood
389
biochar was produced with Colorado electricity, which uses more coal and fewer renewable
390
energy sources, and delivered to California (1664 km). In this scenario, moderate capacity wood
391
biochar had higher impacts in six out of ten categories than PAC (see Figure S16), although
392
moderate capacity biochar would still be environmentally beneficial in three categories. Overall,
393
for similar electricity production mixes and delivery distances, wood biochar is more
394
environmentally favorable. This analysis shows that differences in electricity production mixes
395
and delivery distances could make PAC environmentally competitive. However, there are
396
substantial environmental benefits to generating and using an adsorbent from renewable
397
materials near the point-of-use as compared to using coal-based PAC delivered from far away.
20
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 26
Environmental Science & Technology
398
The impact of adsorbent dose was evaluated by relaxing the treatment objective to the point at
399
which biosolids biochar alone could treat the entire WWTF effluent flow (i.e., a biochar dose of
400
25 mg/L and PAC dose of 12 mg/L); and this dose would target other more strongly adsorbing
401
micropollutants. Also, the fate of biosolids at the WWTF was changed to landfilling (instead of
402
land application) so that no scenario required artificial fertilizer production. Under these scenario
403
conditions, moderate capacity wood biochar was still the preferred adsorbent (Figure S17). The
404
environmental performance of biosolids biochar did improve given these conditions, to the point
405
of similarity with high-impact PAC. In this study, using PAC or wood biochar was found to be
406
environmentally preferable to biosolids biochar. This was particularly the case when biosolids
407
were diverted from land application, necessitating the production of artificial fertilizers. Previous
408
studies have found tradeoffs between biosolids fates in land application, energy generation, and
409
incineration,64 so future research that compares multiple biosolids fates that include multiple
410
biochar applications could also inform WWTF operation.
411
With future requirements to remove micropollutants at WWTFs expected,30 sustainable tertiary
412
treatment options are needed. PAC adsorption was previously found to be an environmentally
413
preferred tertiary wastewater treatment option.5 This study suggests that environmental
414
performance can be further improved through the use of wood biochar adsorbent. In particular,
415
wood biochar has significant environmental benefits for climate change mitigation. The
416
moderate capacity wood biochar scenario sequestered enough carbon (about 6.5 gigagrams CO2
417
eq./yr) to offset all of a WWTF’s carbon emissions from energy and chemical use (about 5.0
418
gigagrams CO2 eq./yr. for a 12.5 MGD facility, assuming 0.29 kg CO2 eq./m3 for a WWTF that
419
has organics and nutrient removal,70 SI Section S8.5) and to result in additional carbon
420
sequestration; in other words, 130% of the carbon emissions could be offset. The results of this 21
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
421
study present adsorption with wood biochar as a novel, environmentally sustainable way for
422
WWTFs to remove trace organic micropollutants. Further innovation should be undertaken to
423
develop low cost carbonaceous adsorbents that have high micropollutant adsorption capacities
424
and are made from renewable resources located in close proximity to treatment facilities and
425
disposal sites.
Page 22 of 26
426
Supporting Information. The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS
427
Publications website at DOI: X. It includes a more detailed description of the LCA methods,
428
uncertainty assessment, adsorbent characteristics, and LCI data; additional figures for unit
429
process contributions to each impact category; and results from the alternative functional unit
430
assessment. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.
431
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
432 433
Acknowledgements
434
We thank Jonah Levine of Biochar Solutions Inc. and Cole Sigmon of the City of Boulder for
435
full-scale and reference data. The first author was funded by a National Science Foundation
436
Graduate Research Fellowship and second author by a United States Environmental Protection
437
Agency STAR Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
438
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any
439
other organization.
440 441 442 443 444
References (1)
(2)
Michael, I.; Rizzo, L.; McArdell, C. S.; Manaia, C. M.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of antibiotics in the environment: A review. Water Research 2013, 47 (3), 957–995. Rizzo, L.; Manaia, C.; Merlin, C.; Schwartz, T.; Dagot, C.; Ploy, M. C.; Michael, I.; 22
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 23 of 26
445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
Environmental Science & Technology
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13) (14)
(15)
(16)
Fatta-Kassinos, D. Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: A review. Science of the Total Environment, The 2013, 447 (C), 345–360. Kovalova, L.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Lehnberg, K.; Kazner, C.; Hollender, J. Removal of highly polar micropollutants from wastewater by powdered activated carbon. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2013, 20 (6), 3607–3615. Mailler, R.; Gasperi, J.; Coquet, Y.; Deshayes, S.; Zedek, S.; Cren-Olivé, C.; Cartiser, N.; Eudes, V.; Bressy, A.; Caupos, E.; et al. Study of a large scale powdered activated carbon pilot: Removals of a wide range of emerging and priority micropollutants from wastewater treatment plant effluents. Water Research 2015, 72 (C), 315–330. Plakas, K. V.; Georgiadis, A. A.; Karabelas, A. J. Sustainability assessment of tertiary wastewater treatment technologies: a multi-criteria analysis. Water Science & Technology 2016, 73 (7), 1532–1540. Bayer, P.; Heuer, E.; Karl, U.; Finkel, M. Economical and ecological comparison of granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber refill strategies. Water Research 2005, 39 (9), 1719–1728. Jin, J.; Kang, M.; Sun, K.; Pan, Z.; Wu, F.; Xing, B. Properties of biochar-amended soils and their sorption of imidacloprid, isoproturon, and atrazine. Science of the Total Environment, The 2016, 550 (C), 504–513. Mayakaduwa, S. S.; Kumarathilaka, P.; Herath, I.; Ahmad, M.; Al-Wabel, M.; Ok, Y. S.; Usman, A.; Abduljabbar, A.; Vithanage, M. Equilibrium and kinetic mechanisms of woody biochar on aqueous glyphosate removal. Chemosphere 2016, 144 (C), 2516– 2521. Shan, D.; Deng, S.; Zhao, T.; Bin Wang; Wang, Y.; Huang, J.; Yu, G.; Winglee, J.; Wiesner, M. R. Preparation of ultrafine magnetic biochar and activated carbon for pharmaceutical adsorption and subsequent degradation by ball milling. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2015, 305 (2016), 156–163. Ahmed, M. B.; Zhou, J. L.; Ngo, H. H.; Guo, W. Adsorptive removal of antibiotics from water and wastewater: Progress and challenges. Science of the Total Environment, The 2015, 532 (C), 112–126. Sun, K.; Ro, K.; Guo, M.; Novak, J.; Mashayekhi, H.; Xing, B. Sorption of bisphenol A, 17α-ethinyl estradiol and phenanthrene on thermally and hydrothermally produced biochars. Bioresource Technology 2011, 102 (10), 5757–5763. Shackley, S.; Clare, A.; Joseph, S.; McCarl, B. A.; Schmidt, H.-P. Economic evaluation of biochar systems. In Biochar for Environmental Management; Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., Eds.; current evidence and challenges; New York, 2015; pp 812–851. Alibaba.com. 325 Mesh Powdered Activated Carbon Factory Price. Shanghai February 12, 2016. Peters, J. F.; Iribarren, D.; Dufour, J. Biomass Pyrolysis for Biochar or Energy Applications? A Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (8), 5195– 5202. Miller-Robbie, L.; Ulrich, B. A.; Ramey, D. F.; Spencer, K. S.; Herzog, S. P.; Cath, T. Y.; Stokes, J. R.; Higgins, C. P. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas assessment of the co-production of biosolids and biochar for land application. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 91 (C), 118–127. Ibarrola, R.; Shackley, S.; Hammond, J. Pyrolysis biochar systems for recovering 23
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30) (31)
biodegradable materials: A life cycle carbon assessment. Waste Management 2012, 32 (5), 859–868. Roberts, K. G.; Gloy, B. A.; Joseph, S.; Scott, N. R.; Lehmann, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Biochar Systems: Estimating the Energetic, Economic, and Climate Change Potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (2), 827–833. Liu, Q.; Liu, B.; Ambus, P.; Zhang, Y.; Hansen, V.; Lin, Z.; Shen, D.; Liu, G.; Bei, Q.; Zhu, J.; et al. Carbon footprint of rice production under biochar amendment - a case study in a Chinese rice cropping system. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 8 (1), 148–159. Homagain, K.; Shahi, C.; Luckai, N.; Sharma, M. Life cycle environmental impact assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and utilization in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Forestry Research 2015, 26 (4), 799–809. Clare, A.; Shackley, S.; Joseph, S.; Hammond, J.; Pan, G.; Bloom, A. Competing uses for China's straw: the economic and carbon abatement potential of biochar. GCB Bioenergy 2014, 7 (6), 1272–1282. Berge, N. D.; Li, L.; Flora, J. R. V.; Ro, K. S. Assessing the environmental impact of energy production from hydrochar generated via hydrothermal carbonization of food wastes. Waste Management 2015, 43 (C), 203–217. Ouyang, W.; Zhao, X.; Tysklind, M.; Hao, F. Typical agricultural diffuse herbicide sorption with agricultural waste-derived biochars amended soil of high organic matter content. Water Research 2016, 92 (C), 156–163. Shimabuku, K. K.; Kearns, J. P.; martinez, J. E.; Mahoney, R. B.; Moreno-Vasquez, L.; Summers, R. S. Biochar sorbents for sulfamethoxazole removal from surface water, stormwater, and wastewater effluent. Water Research 2016, 96 (C), S60–S65. Kearns, J. P.; Shimabuku, K. K.; Mahoney, R. B.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Scott Summers, R. Meeting multiple water quality objectives through treatment using locally generated char: improving organoleptic properties and removing synthetic organic contaminants and disinfection by-products. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 2015, 5 (3), 359–15. Chen, B.; Zhou, D.; Zhu, L. Transitional adsorption and partition of nonpolar and polar aromatic contaminants by biochars of pine needles with different pyrolytic temperatures. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (14), 5137–5143. Ahmad, M.; Lee, S. S.; Dou, X.; Mohan, D.; Sung, J.-K.; Yang, J. E.; Ok, Y. S. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover- and peanut shell-derived biochar properties and TCE adsorption in water. Bioresource Technology 2012, 118 (C), 536–544. Mattila, T.; Grönroos, J.; Judl, J.; Korhonen, M.-R. Is biochar or straw-bale construction a better carbon storage from a life cycle perspective? Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2012, 90 (6), 452–458. Sparrevik, M.; Lindhjem, H.; Andria, V.; Fet, A. M.; Cornelissen, G. Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of Utilizing Waste for Biochar in Rural Areas in Indonesia–A Systems Perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (9), 4664–4671. Sparrevik, M.; Field, J. L.; Martinsen, V.; Breedveld, G. D.; Cornelissen, G. Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Environmental Impact of Biochar Implementation in Conservation Agriculture in Zambia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (3), 1206–1215. Wepf, M. 100 Water Treatment Plants must be Upgraded, 2015, 1–3. International Organization for Standardization. International Standard ISO 14040. 2006, 1–28. 24
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 24 of 26
Page 25 of 26
537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582
Environmental Science & Technology
(32)
(33) (34)
(35)
(36) (37) (38)
(39) (40)
(41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52) (53) (54)
Kolpin, D. W.; Furlong, E. T.; Meyer, M. T.; Thurman, E. M.; Zaugg, S. D.; Barber, L. B.; Buxton, H. T. Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999−2000: A National Reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36 (6), 1202–1211. Chen, K.; Zhou, J. L. Occurrence and behavior of antibiotics in water and sediments from the Huangpu River, Shanghai, China. Chemosphere 2014, 95 (C), 604–612. García-Galán, M. J.; Blanco, S. G.; Roldán, R. L.; Díaz-Cruz, S.; Barceló, D. Ecotoxicity evaluation and removal of sulfonamides and their acetylated metabolites during conventional wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment, The 2012, 437 (C), 403–412. Westerhoff, P.; Yoon, Y.; Snyder, S.; Wert, E. Fate of Endocrine-Disruptor, Pharmaceutical, and Personal Care Product Chemicals during Simulated Drinking Water Treatment Processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (17), 6649–6663. Corwin, C.; Summers, R. S. Controlling trace organic contaminants with GAC adsorption. jawwa 2012, 104 (1), E36–E47. Boulder Wastewater Treatment Facility. 2011 Annual Report; Boulder, CO, 2012; pp 1– 27. Gao, P.; Ding, Y.; Li, H.; Xagoraraki, I. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals in a municipal wastewater treatment plant: Mass balance and removal processes. Chemosphere 2012, 88 (1), 17–24. Hirsch, R.; Ternes, T.; Haberer, K.; Kratz, K.-L. Occurrence of antibiotics in the aquatic environment. Science of The Total Environment 1999, 225 (1-2), 109–118. Bhandari, A.; Close, L. I.; Kim, W.; Hunter, R. P.; Koch, D. E.; Surampalli, R. Y. Occurrence of Ciprofloxacin, Sulfamethoxazole, and Azithromycin in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manage. 2008, 12 (4), 275–281. Levine, J. Personal Communication with Jonah Levine. Kremmling, CO June 16, 2015. ASTM International. Standard Practice for Coagulation-Flocculation Jar Test of Water; D 2305; West Conshohocken, PA, 2010; pp 1–4. AWWA. AWWA B600-10 Powdered Activated Carbon. AWWA 2010. EarthShift. US-EI Database. Huntington, VT 2014. Blonk Consultants. Agri-footprint. Gouda, The Netherlands November 10, 2015. Bare, J. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 2011, 13 (5), 687–696. Google Maps. Calgon Carbon. USA March 11, 2016. Chowdhury, Z. K.; Summers, R. S.; Westerhoff, G. P.; Leto, B.; Nowack, K.; Corwin, C. J.; Passantino, L. Activated Carbon; American Water Works Association, 2013. Norit Americas Inc. Standard Activated Carbon Injection System Specification; Marshall, TX, 2007; pp 1–23. Solimar. Silo Fluidizer, 2014, 1–2. FRC Systems International, LLC. Sludge Dewatering Belt Pres, 2015, 1–2. Sannigrahi, P.; Ragauskas, A. J.; Tuskan, G. A. Poplar as a feedstock for biofuels: A review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 2010, 4 (2), 209–226. Demirbas, A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2004, 30 (2), 219–230. Cornelissen, G.; Pandit, N. R.; Taylor, P.; Pandit, B. H.; Sparrevik, M.; Schmidt, H.-P. 25
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628
(55)
(56) (57) (58) (59) (60)
(61) (62)
(63)
(64)
(65)
(66)
(67)
(68)
(69)
(70)
Emissions and Char Quality of Flame-Curtain “Kon Tiki” Kilns for Farmer-Scale Charcoal/Biochar Production. PLoS ONE 2016, 11 (5), e0154617–16. Sparrevik, M.; Adam, C.; Martinsen, V.; Jubaedah; Cornelissen, G. Emissions of gases and particles from charcoal/biochar production in rural areas using medium-sized traditional and improved “retort” kilns. Biomass and Bioenergy 2015, 72 (c), 65–73. Shanghai Clirik Manufacturing. Activated carbon crushing plant/grinding plant. 2013. Sylvis. Biosolids Emission Assessment Model (BEAM) 1.1. 1st ed. 2011. US EPA, O. O. R. A. D. N. E. T. V. P. Technology Assessment Report Aqueous Sludge Gasification Technologies; 2012; pp 1–58. Sullivan, D.; Cogger, C.; Bary, A. Fertilizing with Biosolids; PNW 508-E; Pacific Northwest Extension, 2007; pp 1–18. Wang, H.; Wang, L.; Shahbazi, A. Life cycle assessment of fast pyrolysis of municipal solid waste in North Carolina of USA. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 87 (C), 511–519. Demirbas, A. Agricultural based activated carbons for the removal of dyes from aqueous solutions: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009, 167 (1-3), 1–9. Nipattummakul, N.; Ahmed, I. I.; Kerdsuwan, S.; Gupta, A. K. Hydrogen and syngas production from sewage sludge via steam gasification. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2010, 35 (21), 11738–11745. Hanief, A.; Matiichine, D.; Laursen, A. E.; Bostan, I. V.; McCarthy, L. H. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loss Potential from Biosolids-Amended Soils and Biotic Response in the Receiving Water. Journal of Environment Quality 2015, 44 (4), 1293–12. Hospido, A.; Moreira, T.; Martín, M.; Rigola, M.; Feijoo, G. Environmental Evaluation of Different Treatment Processes for Sludge from Urban Wastewater Treatments: Anaerobic Digestion versus Thermal Processes (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assessment 2005, 10 (5), 336–345. McClellan, K.; Halden, R. U. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in archived U.S. biosolids from the 2001 EPA national sewage sludge survey. Water Research 2010, 44 (2), 658–668. Venkatesan, A. K.; Halden, R. U. National inventory of perfluoroalkyl substances in archived U.S. biosolids from the 2001 EPA National Sewage Sludge Survey. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2013, 252-253, 413–418. Venkatesan, A. K.; Halden, R. U. Brominated flame retardants in U.S. biosolids from the EPA national sewage sludge survey and chemical persistence in outdoor soil mesocosms. Water Research 2014, 55 (C), 133–142. Hospido, A.; Carballa, M.; Moreira, M.; Omil, F.; Lema, J. M.; Feijoo, G. Environmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture: Potential impacts of emerging micropollutants. Water Research 2010, 44 (10), 3225– 3233. Hale, S. E.; Arp, H. P. H.; Kupryianchyk, D.; Cornelissen, G. A synthesis of parameters related to the binding of neutral organic compounds to charcoal. Chemosphere 2016, 144 (C), 65–74. Rodriguez-Garcia, G.; Molinos-Senante, M.; Hospido, A.; Hernández-Sancho, F.; Moreira, M. T.; Feijoo, G. Environmental and economic profile of six typologies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Research 2011, 45 (18), 5997–6010. 26
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 26 of 26