Advertisement

Environmental impact assessment of galvanized sheet production: a case study in Shandong Province, China

  • Changxing Ji
  • Xiaotian Ma
  • Yijie Zhai
  • Ruirui Zhang
  • Xiaoxu Shen
  • Tianzuo Zhang
  • Jinglan HongEmail author
LCA FOR MANUFACTURING AND NANOTECHNOLOGY
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Galvanized sheet is the most widely used coated steel plate globally in the industry of construction, automobile, electronics manufacturing, etc. Large amounts of resources and energy are used in galvanized sheet production, which likewise generates vast amounts of pollutant emissions. In the face of the rapid growth of the production and demand of galvanized sheet in China, it is very important to find out the key factors of the environment impact in the production of galvanized sheet. An evaluation of the environmental impact of galvanized sheet production in China was conducted by using the framework of life cycle assessment to improve resource saving and environmental protection in the galvanized sheet industry, and update the life cycle inventory database of galvanized sheet production.

Methods

The environmental impact assessment was carried out based on the life cycle assessment framework by the use of ReCiPe 2016 method which was applicable on a global scale to evaluate the environmental impact of galvanized sheet production. Methods of uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis were adopted to provide credible support.

Results and discussion

The midpoint categories of global warming and fossil resource scarcity, as well as the endpoint categories of human health contributed most to environmental burden, which were mainly caused by carbon dioxide emissions and coal consumption. Environmental impact was dominated by the key process of continuous casting billet production, followed by electrolytic zinc production and electricity generation.

Conclusions

Additional CO2-reducing measures should be implemented in galvanized sheet production to slow the effect of global warming. Moreover, biomass char reducing agents, rather than coal-based reducing agents, should be utilized in steelmaking to reduce fossil resource consumption. Furthermore, renewable energy, rather than coal-based electricity, should be used in galvanized sheet production to reduce carbon emissions and fossil resource consumption. Increasing the recycling rate of scrap steel and zinc waste can save resources and reduce environmental burden. The results of this study can provide guidance in the reduction of resource consumption and environmental burden of galvanized sheet production to the maximum extent.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment Galvanized sheet Steel Zinc Energy Environmental impact 

Notes

Funding information

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Major Basic Research Projects of the Shandong Natural Science Foundation, China (ZR2018ZC2362), National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFF0206702; 2017YFF0211605), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71671105; 71974113), and The Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University, China (2018JC049).

Supplementary material

11367_2020_1735_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Abdul Quader M, Shamsuddin A, Dawal SZ, Nukman Y (2016) Present needs, recent progress and future trends of energy-efficient ultra-low carbon dioxide (CO2) steelmaking (ULCOS) program. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arasto A, Tsupari E, Kärki J, Pisilä E, Sorsamäki L (2013) Post-combustion capture of CO2 at an integrated steel mill–part I: technical concept analysis. Int J Greenh Gas Control 16:271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolin CA, Smith ST (2011) Life cycle assessment of borate-treated lumber with comparison to galvanized steel framing. J Clean Prod 19:630–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brito M, Martins F (2017) Life cycle assessment of butanol production. Fuel 208:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burchart-Korol D (2013) Life cycle assessment of steel production in Poland: a case study. J Clean Prod 54:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chisalita DA, Petrescu L, Cobden P, van Dijk HAJ, Cormos AM, Cormos CC (2019) Assessing the environmental impact of an integrated steel mill with post-combustion CO2 capture and storage using the LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 211:1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CISSY (2017) China iron and steel statistical yearbook. China Iron and Steel Industry Association. Available from< http://www.chinaisa.org.cn/ >. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  9. CNMIY (2017) China nonferrous metals industry yearbook. China statistics press. Available from< http://www.chinania.org.cn/>. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  10. CPLCID (2018) Chinese process-based life cycle inventory database. Available from< http://www.huanke.sdu.edu.cn/info/1024/3275.htm>. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  11. Feliciano-Bruzual C (2014) Charcoal injection in blast furnaces (bio-PCI): CO2 reduction potential and economic prospects. J Mater Res Technol 3:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R, (2009) A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level, first ed. In: Report I: Characterization. Available from< http://www.lciarecipe.net>. Accessed 21 Feb
  13. GRID (2018) State garid Shandong electric power company. Available from<http://www.sd.sgcc.com.cn/>. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  14. Hernández-Betancur JD, Hernández HF, Ocampo-Carmona LM (2019) A holistic framework for assessing hot-dip galvanizing process sustainability. J Clean Prod 206:755–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang Z, Ding X, Sun H, Liu S (2010) Identification of main influencing factors of life cycle CO2 emissions from the integrated steelworks using sensitivity analysis. J Clean Prod 18:1052–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 14040 (2006) International Standard. Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Available from<http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=37456>. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  18. King JH, Buckton G, Poole S (2015) Life cycle assessment of electricity production from renewable energies: review and results harmonization. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:1113–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kong G, White R (2010) Toward cleaner production of hot dip galvanizing industry in China. J Clean Prod 18:1092–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li H, Tan XC, Guo JX, Zhu KW, Huang C (2019) Study on an implementation scheme of synergistic emission reduction of CO2 and air pollutants in China’s steel industry. Sustainability 11:22Google Scholar
  21. Lobato NCC, Villegas EA, Mansur MB (2015) Management of solid wastes from steelmaking and galvanizing processes: a brief review. Resour Conserv Recycl 102:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma H, Oxley L, Gibson J, Li W (2010) A survey of China’s renewable energy economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma X, Yang D, Shen X, Zhai Y, Zhang R, Hong J (2018) How much water is required for coal power generation: an analysis of gray and blue water footprints. Sci Total Environ 636:547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manhabosco SM, Manhabosco TM, Geoffroy N, Vignal V, Dick LFP (2018) Corrosion behaviour of galvanized steel studied by electrochemical microprobes applied on low-angle cross sections. Corros Sci 140:379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Karlsson K (2011) 100% renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl Energy 88:488–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Midrex-Technologies (2010) Environmental. A clean environment. Available from<http://www.midrex.com>. Accessed 21 Feb 2020
  27. Ng KW, Giroux L, Todoschuk T (2018) Value-in-use of biocarbon fuel for direct injection in blast furnace ironmaking. Ironmak Steelmak 45:406–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olmez GM, Dilek FB, Karanfil T, Yetis U (2016) The environmental impacts of iron and steel industry: a life cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod 130:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pohlmann JG, Borrego AG, Osório E, Diez MA, Vilela ACF (2016) Combustion of eucalyptus charcoals and coals of similar volatile yields aiming at blast furnace injection in a CO2 mitigation environment. J Clean Prod 129:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pritzel dos Santos A, Manhabosco SM, Rodrigues JS, Dick LFP (2015) Comparative study of the corrosion behavior of galvanized, galvannealed and Zn55Al coated interstitial free steels. Surf Coat Technol 279:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Qi C, Ye L, Ma X, Yang D, Hong J (2017) Life cycle assessment of the hydrometallurgical zinc production chain in China. J Clean Prod 156:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raja VS, Panday CK, Saji VS, Vagge ST, Narasimhan K (2006) An electrochemical study on deformed galvanneal steel sheets. Surf Coat Technol 201:2296–2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ranzani da Costa A, Wagner D, Patisson F (2013) Modelling a new, low CO2 emissions, hydrogen steelmaking process. J Clean Prod 46:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rossi B, Marquart S, Rossi G (2017) Comparative life cycle cost assessment of painted and hot-dip galvanized bridges. J Environ Manag 197:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seré PR, Deyá C, Elsner CI, Di Sarli AR (2015) Corrosion of painted galvanneal steel. Procedia Mater Sci 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sleeswijk AW, van Oers LF, Guinee JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MA (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suopajärvi H, Umeki K, Mousa E, Hedayati A, Romar H, Kemppainen A, Wang C, Phounglamcheik A, Tuomikoski S, Norberg N, Andefors A, Öhman M, Lassi U, Fabritius T (2018) Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking–status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies. Appl Energy 213:384–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tongpool R, Jirajariyavech A, Yuvaniyama C, Mungcharoen T (2010) Analysis of steel production in Thailand: environmental impacts and solutions. Energy 35:4192–4200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang C, Larsson M, Lövgren J, Nilsson L, Mellin P, Yang W, Salman H, Hultgren A (2014) Injection of solid biomass products into the blast furnace and its potential effects on an integrated steel plant. Energy Procedia 61:2184–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wen L, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Zhang X (2011) Potential of renewable energy systems in China. Appl Energy 88:518–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu C, Hong J, Ren Y, Wang Q, Yuan X (2015) Approaches for controlling air pollutants and their environmental impacts generated from coal-based electricity generation in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:12384–12395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yellishetty M, Mudd GM, Ranjith PG, Tharumarajah A (2011) Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel production and recycling: sustainability issues, problems and prospects. Environ Sci Pol 14:650–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao G, Pedersen AS (2018) Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production and consumption in an isolated territory. Procedia CIRP 69:529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changxing Ji
    • 1
  • Xiaotian Ma
    • 1
  • Yijie Zhai
    • 1
  • Ruirui Zhang
    • 1
  • Xiaoxu Shen
    • 1
  • Tianzuo Zhang
    • 1
  • Jinglan Hong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShandong UniversityQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations