Life Cycle Assessment for Neutralization process in Textile Wastewater Treatment Plant

Year 2020, Volume: 36 Issue: 3, 504 - 510, 31.12.2020

Fatma Şener Fidan Emel Kızılkaya Aydogan Niğmet Uzal

Abstract

Wastewater treatment plants are one of the most important environmentally processes due to the intensive use of dyes and chemicals in the textile industry. As a result, although wastewater treatment plants have become an important part of the facilities in order to reduce environmental pollution, they produce sludge and various emissions, which have a negative impact on the environment while consuming energy and chemicals. One of the processes with enormous chemical consumption is the Neutralization process, which aims to adjust the pH. In this case, the neutralization system needs to be analyzed in order to determine its overall environmental impacts and then identify the most environmentally appropriate options. The aim of this study is to compare the environmental impacts of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid as two alternative chemicals used in the neutralization process in the wastewater treatment plant of a textile factory with the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. The environmental effects resulting from the use of these two chemicals proposed according to the BREF report were revealed by the CML-IA method and the gate-to-gate method. According to the results, by using Carbon Dioxide instead of sulfuric acid, the best improvement is in the Abiotic Depletion category with 93%, while the least improvement is in the Examination of the Ozone Layer with 44%. Using Carbon Dioxide in the Neutralization process, no improvement was observed in the Global warming potential and human toxicity categories.

Keywords

Wastewater treatment, Life Cycle Assessment, Sustainability, textile industry, Neutralization

Tekstil Atıksu Arıtma Tesisinde Nötralizasyon Prosesi için Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Atık su arıtma tesisleri, tekstil endüstrisinde boya ve kimyasalların yoğun kullanımı nedeniyle çevresel açıdan en önemli süreçlerden biridir. Sonuç olarak, atık su arıtma tesisleri çevre kirliliğini azaltmak için tesislerin önemli bir parçası haline gelmiş olmakla birlikte, enerji ve kimyasalları tüketirken çevreye olumsuz etkisi olan çamur ve çeşitli emisyonlar üretmektedir. Muazzam kimyasal tüketimi olan süreçlerden biri, pH'ı ayarlamayı amaçlayan Nötralizasyon işlemidir. Bu durumda, genel çevresel etkilerini belirlemek ve daha sonra çevreye en uygun seçenekleri ortaya koymak için nötralizasyon sisteminin analiz edilmesi gerekir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir tekstil fabrikasının atık su arıtma tesisinde nötralizasyon işleminde kullanılan iki alternatif kimyasal olarak karbon dioksit ve sülfürik asidin çevresel etkilerini Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi (LCA) yöntemiyle karşılaştırmaktır. BREF raporuna göre önerilen bu iki kimyasalın kullanımından kaynaklanan çevresel etkiler, CML-IA yöntemi ve kapıdan kapıya yöntemi ile ortaya konulmuştur. Sonuçlara göre sülfürik asit yerine Karbondioksit kullanılarak en iyi gelişme %93 ile Abiyotik Tükenme kategorisinde olurken, en az gelişme%44 ile Ozon Tabakasının İncelenmesidir. Nötralizasyon sürecinde Karbondioksit kullanıldığında, Küresel ısınma potansiyeli ve insan toksisitesi kategorilerinde herhangi bir gelişme gözlenmedi.

Keywords

Atık su arıtma, Yaşam döngü Analizi, Sürdürülebilirlik, Tekstil endüstrisi, Nötralizasyon

References

• [1] WCED, 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
• [2] European Commission. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste Treatment, 2018, http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/ (date of Access: 06.06.2019)
• [3] Baumann, H., Tillman, A.M., 2004. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA: an Orientation in Life. Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
• [4] ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 Environmental management, Life cycle assessment, Principles and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• [5] ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044: Environmental management, Life cycle assessment, Requirements and guidelines, International Organization for Standardization Internatio, Geneva.
• [6] Raghuvanshi, S., Bhakar, V., Sowmya, C., Sangwan, K.S., 2017. Wastewater treatment plant life cycle assessment: treatment process to reuse of water. The 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Procedia CIRP 61(2017), 761 – 766.
• [7] Yildirim, M., Topkaya, B., 2012. Assessing environmental impacts of wastewater treatment alternatives for small-scale communities. CLEAN e Soil, Air, Water 40 (2012), 171-178.
• [8] Venkatesh, G., Brattebø, H., 2011. Environmental impact analysis of chemicals and energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants: case study of Oslo, Norway. Water Science and Technology 63 (2011), 1018-1031.
• [9] Tillman, A., Svingby, M. and Lundstrom, H., 1998. Life Cycle Assessment of Municipal WastewaterSystems, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 3(1998), No. 3, pp. 145-157.
• [10] Vidal, N., Poch, M., Martí, E., Rodríguez-Roda, I., 2002. Evaluation of the Environmental Implications to Include Structural Changes in a Wastewater Treatment Plant. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, Vol. 77(2002), No. 11, pp 1206-1211.
• [11] Remy, C., Jekel, M., 2008. Sustainable wastewater management: life cycle assessment of conventional and source-separating urban sanitation systems. Water Science and Technology 58 (2008), 1555-1562.
• [12] Pasqualino, J. C., Meneses, M., Castells, F., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Alternatives. J. Ind. Ecol., Vol. 15(2011), No. 1, pp 49-63.
• [13] Y. Li, X. Luo, X. Huang, D. Wang, W. Zhang, 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant: A case study in Suzhou, China. J. Clean. Prod., vol. 57(2013), 221–227.
• [14] Opher, T., Friedler, E., 2016. Comparative LCA of decentralized wastewater treatment alternatives for non-potable urban reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 182(2016), 464–476.
• [15] Alfonsín, C., Hospido, A., Omil, F., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2014. PPCPs in wastewater update and calculation of characterization factors for their inclusion in LCA studies.J. Clean. Prod. 83(2014), 245–255.
• [16] Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Beck, M.B., Daigger, G.T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S.J., Karvazy, K., Kelly, L., Macpherson, L., Mihelcic, J.R., Pramanik, A., Raskin, L., Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Yeh, D., Love, N.G., 2009. A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (2009), 6121-6125.
• [17] Ecoinvent Centre, 2013. Database Ecoinvent Data v3.0, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. URL www.Eco-invent.org (date of Access: 10.06.2019)
• [18] PRe Sustainability, 2017. PRé Consultant, SimaPro 8.5.2.0, https://simapro.com/, Geneva.
• [19] Guinée J. B., Gorrée M., Heijungs R., Huppes G., Kleijn R., de Koning A., Van Oers L., Wegener Sleeswijk A., Suh S., Udo de Haes H. A., de Bruijn H., van Duin R., Huijbregts M. A. J., Lindeijer E., Roorda A. A. H. and Weidema B. P., 2001a. Life cycle assessment; An operational guide to the ISO standards; Parts 1 and 2. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Den Haag and Leiden, The Netherlands, retrieved from: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/lca2.html
• [20] Guinée J. B., Gorrée M., Heijungs R., Huppes G., Kleijn R., de Koning A., van Oers L., Wegener Sleeswijk A., Suh S., Udo de Haes H. A., de Bruijn H., van Duin R., Huijbregts M. A. J., Lindeijer E., Roorda A. A. H. and Weidema B. P., 2001b. Life cycle assessment; An operational guide to the ISO standards; Part 3: Scientific Background. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and Centre of Environmental Science (CML). Den Haag and Leiden, The Netherlands, retrieved from: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/lca2.html.