Understanding the impacts of allocation approaches during process‐based life cycle assessment of water treatment chemicals

Chemicals are an important component of advanced water treatment operations not only in terms of economics but also from an environmental standpoint. Tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA) are useful for estimating the environmental impacts of water treatment operations. At the same time, LCA analysts must manage several fundamental and as yet unresolved methodological challenges, one of which is the question of how best to "allocate" environmental burdens in multifunctional processes. Using water treatment chemicals as a case study example, this article aims to quantify the variability in greenhouse gas emissions estimates stemming from methodological choices made in respect of allocation during LCA. The chemicals investigated and reported here are those most important to coagulation and disinfection processes, and the outcomes are illustrated on the basis of treating 1000 ML of noncoagulated and nondisinfected water. Recent process and economic data for the production of these chemicals is used and methodological alternatives for solving the multifunctionality problem, including system expansion and mass, exergy, and economic allocation, are applied to data from chlor-alkali plants. In addition, Monte Carlo simulation is included to provide a comprehensive picture of the robustness of economic allocation results to changes in the market price of these industrial commodities. For disinfection, results demonstrate that chlorine gas has a lower global warming potential (GWP) than sodium hypochlorite regardless of the technique used to solve allocation issues. For coagulation, when mass or economic allocation is used to solve the multifunctionality problem in the chlor-alkali facility, ferric chloride was found to have a higher GWP than aluminum sulfate and a slightly lower burden where system expansion or exergy allocation are applied instead. Monte Carlo results demonstrate that when economic allocation is used, GWP results were relatively robust and resilient to the changes in commodity prices encountered during the study period, with standard deviations less than 6% for all chlor-alkali-produced chemicals reported here. Overall outcomes from the study demonstrate the potential variability in LCA results according to the allocation approach taken and emphasize the need for a consensus approach to water sector LCAs.

[1]  J. Atherton Declaration by the Metals Industry on Recycling Principles , 2007 .

[2]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Economic allocation: Examples and derived decision tree , 2004 .

[3]  Mary Ann Curran,et al.  Studying the effect on system preference by varying coproduct allocation in creating life-cycle inventory. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Robert U Ayres,et al.  Exergy efficiency in industry: where do we stand? , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[5]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  EXERGY, WASTE ACCOUNTING, AND LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS , 1998 .

[6]  Gregory M Peters,et al.  Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review , 2001 .

[8]  Anne Marsden,et al.  International Organization for Standardization , 2014 .

[9]  Tomas Ekvall,et al.  Open-loop recycling: Criteria for allocation procedures , 1997 .

[10]  Rana Pant,et al.  ILCD Handbook Public Consultation Workshop , 2010 .

[11]  Matthias Schulz,et al.  A streamlined sustainability assessment tool for improved decision making in the urban water industry , 2012, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[12]  R. Frischknecht Allocation in Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Joint Production , 2000 .

[13]  Michael D. Short,et al.  A hybrid life cycle assessment of water treatment chemicals: an Australian experience , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Greg M. Peters Popularize or publish? Growth in Australia , 2009 .

[15]  Stephan Pfister,et al.  Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[16]  N. Pelletier,et al.  An Ecological Economic Critique of the Use of Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment Research , 2011 .

[17]  François Maréchal,et al.  LCA tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water production , 2008 .

[18]  Luis M. Serra,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Water Production Technologies - Part 1: Life Cycle Assessment of Different Commercial Desalination Technologies (MSF, MED, RO) (9 pp) , 2005 .

[19]  I. Dincer The role of exergy in energy policy making , 2002 .

[20]  Scott Duncan,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[21]  S Lundie,et al.  Integrated environmental assessment of tertiary and residuals treatment--LCA in the wastewater industry. , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[22]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Avoiding Co‐Product Allocation in Life‐Cycle Assessment , 2000 .

[23]  Hans-Joachim Leimkühler Managing CO2 Emissions in the Chemical Industry: LEIMKÜHLER:CO2 EMISSION O-BK , 2010 .

[24]  B. Weidema,et al.  Avoiding Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment Revisited , 2010 .