Abstract
Industrial processes, particularly those within the chemical industry, contribute products and services to improve and increase society’s quality of life. However, the transformation of raw materials into their respective final goods involves the consumption of mass and energy and the possible generation of by-products and releases. To address these issues, the new approach for chemical processing is focused on sustainable production: minimize raw material consumption and energy loads, minimize/eliminate releases, and increase the economic feasibility of the process. To evaluate these advances, a sustainability assessment methodology, GREENSCOPE, has been developed into a tool to evaluate and assist in the synthesis and design of chemical processes. New process sustainability indicators have been proposed based on input/output process data, and the base-case ratio approach is implemented to predict process changes from known process performance data and design relationships. In addition, a discussion regarding the implications of using sustainability evaluations beyond the process boundaries, applying the principles of green chemistry in all steps of chemical process development, and a description of their benefits to the life cycle inventory and the subsequent life cycle assessment is included. Finally, a new methodology approach to integrate GREENSCOPE into a life cycle inventory to develop sustainable systems is introduced.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Chemistry Council (2010) Chemistry industry facts. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/bin.asp?CID=1772&DID=6573&DOC=FILE.PDF. Accessed April 2011
Anastas PT, Lankey RL (2000) Life cycle assessment and green chemistry: the yin and yang of industrial ecology. Green Chem 2(6):289–295
Anastas PT, Warner JC (1998) Green chemistry: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB (2003) Design through the 12 principles of green engineering. Environ Sci Technol 37(5):94A–101A. doi:10.1021/es032373g
Argonne National Laboratory (2012) The GREET model. http://greet.es.anl.gov/. Accessed August 2012
AspenTech (2012) Aspen economic evaluation. http://www.aspentech.com/core/aspen-economic-eval.aspx. Accessed August 2012
Bakshi BR, Fiksel J (2003) The quest for sustainability: challenges for process systems engineering. AIChE J 49(6):1350–1358
Brunet R, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Jiménez L (2011) Cleaner design of single-product biotechnological facilities through the integration of process simulation, multiobjective optimization, life cycle assessment, and principal component analysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(1):410–424. doi:10.1021/ie2011577
Buchholz T, Luzadis VA, Volk TA (2009) Sustainability criteria for bioenergy systems: results from an expert survey. J Clean Prod 17(Supplement 10):S86–S98. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.015
Cano-Ruiz JA, McRae GJ (1998) Environmentally conscious chemical process design. Annu Rev Energy Env 23(1):499–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.23.1.499
Cavalett O, Ortega E (2010) Integrated environmental assessment of biodiesel production from soybean in Brazil. J Clean Prod 18(1):55–70. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.008
Center for Resilience Ohio State University (2010) Ecologically-based life cycle assessment. http://resilience.eng.ohio-state.edu/eco-lca/index.htm. Accessed October 2010
Chen H, Badenschier SM, Shonnard DR (2002) Uncertainty analysis for toxicity assessment of chemical process designs. Ind Eng Chem Res 41(18):4440–4450. doi:10.1021/ie010550l
Ciuffo B, Miola A, Punzo V, Sala S (2012) Dealing with uncertainty in sustainability assessment. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Cornell University Library Guides (2012) Chemical prices. http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=2816&sid=14269. Accessed August 2012
Dorini G, Kapelan Z, Azapagic A (2011) Managing uncertainty in multiple-criteria decision making related to sustainability assessment. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13(1):133–139. doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0291-7
European Commission (2010) European chemical substances information system (ESIS). http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Accessed February 2011
Gonzalez MA, Smith RL (2003) A methodology to evaluate process sustainability. Environ Prog 22(4):269–276
Guillén-Gosálbez G, Grossmann I (2010) A global optimization strategy for the environmentally conscious design of chemical supply chains under uncertainty in the damage assessment model. Comput Chem Eng 34(1):42–58. doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2009.09.003
Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3(2):469–499
International Agency for Research on Cancer (2010) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. Accessed April 2011
International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (2012) The emergy database. http://emergydatabase.org/. Accessed August 2012
Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Ponder CS, Broxterman QB, Manley JB (2011) Using the right green yardstick—why process mass intensity is used in the pharmaceutical industry to drive more sustainable processes. Org Process Res Dev. doi:10.1021/op200097d
Jiménez-González C, Kim S, Overcash M (2000) Methodology for developing gate-to-gate Life cycle inventory information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):153–159
Jiménez-González C, Curzons A, Constable D, Cunningham V (2004) Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory and assessment of pharmaceutical compounds. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(2):114–121
Ju LP, Chen B (2011) Embodied energy and emergy evaluation of a typical biodiesel production chain in China. Ecol Model 222(14):2385–2392. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.07.021
Kazantzi V, El-Halwagi A, Kazantzis N, El-Halwagi M (2012) Managing uncertainties in a safety-constrained process system for solvent selection and usage: an optimization approach with technical, economic, and risk factors. Clean Technol Environ Policy:1–12. doi:10.1007/s10098-012-0516-z
Kim K-J, Smith RL (2005) Systematic procedure for designing processes with multiple environmental objectives. Environ Sci Technol 39(7):2394–2405. doi:10.1021/es0490424
Lange J-P (2002) Sustainable development: efficiency and recycling in chemicals manufacturing. Green Chem 4(6):546–550
Liu Z, Huang Y (2012) Technology evaluation and decision making for sustainability enhancement of industrial systems under uncertainty. AIChE J 58(6):1841–1852. doi:10.1002/aic.13818
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2008) U.S. life-cycle inventory database. http://www.nrel.gov/lci/database/. Accessed March 2011
Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: EMERGY and environmental decision making. Wiley, New York
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011) The global portal to information on chemical substances (eChemPortal). http://www.echemportal.org/echemportal/substancesearch/page.action?pageID=0. Accessed February 2011
PRé Consultants (2012) SimaPro. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/content/simapro-lca-software. Accessed August 2012
Rowley HV, Peters GM, Lundie S, Moore SJ (2012) Aggregating sustainability indicators: Beyond the weighted sum. J Environ Manage 111:24–33. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.004
Rugani B (2010) Advances towards a comprehensive evaluation of emergy in life cycle assessment. University of Siena, Siena
Ruiz-Mercado GJ, Smith RL, Gonzalez MA (2012a) Sustainability indicators for chemical processes: I. Taxonomy. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(5):2309–2328. doi:10.1021/ie102116e
Ruiz-Mercado GJ, Smith RL, Gonzalez MA (2012b) Sustainability indicators for chemical processes: II. Data needs. Ind Eng Chem Res 51(5):2329–2353. doi:10.1021/ie200755k
Schulz W (2007) The costs of biofuels. Chem Eng News 85(51):12–16
Sikdar S (2009) On aggregating multiple indicators into a single metric for sustainability. Clean Technol Environ Policy 11(2):157–161. doi:10.1007/s10098-009-0225-4
Smith RL, Gonzalez MA (2004) Methods for evaluating the sustainability of green processes. In: Barbosa-Póvoa A, Matos H (eds) Computer aided chemical engineering, vol 18. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1135–1140
Smith RL, Ruiz-Mercado G (2012) A method for decision making using sustainability indicators. Clean Technol Environ Policy (Submitted)
Stefanis SK, Pistikopoulos EN (1997) Methodology for environmental risk assessment of industrial nonroutine releases. Ind Eng Chem Res 36(9):3694–3707. doi:10.1021/ie9607816
Sugiyama H, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K, Hirao M (2008) Decision framework for chemical process design including different stages of environmental, health, and safety assessment. AIChE J 54(4):1037–1053
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories (2010) Ecoinvent data v2.2, http://www.ecoinvent.org/home/. Accessed March 2011
The University of Texas Libraries (2012) Chemical engineering economics. http://lib.utexas.edu/chem/info/chemengecon.html. Accessed August 2012
Turton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA (2009) Analysis, synthesis, and design of chemical processes, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
United Nations (2012) UN documents: gathering a body of global agreements. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm. Accessed September 2012
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2009) GDP and personal income of the U.S. http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp. Accessed April 2011
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2008) Bulk chemical industry energy consumption. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=38-AEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a. Accessed April 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) The integrated risk information system http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html. Accessed February 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Aggregated computational toxicology resource (ACToR). http://epa.gov/ncct/actor/. Accessed March 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012a) 2010 Toxics release inventory national analysis overview. http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri10/nationalanalysis/overview/2010TRINAOverview.pdf. Accessed August 2012
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012b) Life cycle perspective. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/lca/. Accessed May 2012
U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2011) NIST chemistry WebBook. http://webbook.nist.gov/. Accessed March 2011
U.S. National Library of Medicine (2011a) Hazardous substances data bank (HSDB). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB. Accessed March 2011
U.S. National Library of Medicine (2011b) Toxicology data network (TOXNET). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/index.html. Accessed March 2011
Villalba G, Ayres L, Ayres RU (2006) A proposal for emission calculations for chemical processes, Part I. Resour Conserv Recycl 48(3):280–299. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.01.006
Wang J–J, Jing Y-Y, Zhang C-F, Zhao J-H (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2263–2278. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021
Winterton N (2001) Twelve more green chemistry principles. Green Chem 6(1):G73–G75
Yi H-S, Hau JL, Ukidwe NU, Bakshi BR (2004) Hierarchical thermodynamic metrics for evaluating the environmental sustainability of industrial processes. Environ Prog 23(4):302–314
Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR (2010a) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, Part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2624–2631. doi:10.1021/es900548a
Zhang Y, Singh S, Bakshi BR (2010b) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, part I: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2232–2242. doi:10.1021/es9021156
Acknowledgments
This project was supported in part by an appointment of Dr. Ruiz-Mercado to the Research Participation Program for the EPA, Office of Research and Development administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
List of indicators
Environmental indicators | ||
1. | N haz. mat. | Number of hazardous materials input |
2. | m haz. mat. | Mass of hazardous materials input |
3. | m haz. mat. spec. | Specific hazardous raw materials input |
4. | m PBT mat. | Total mass of persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic chemicals used |
5. | CEI | Chemical exposure index |
6. | HHirritation | Health hazard, irritation factor |
7. | HHchronic toxicity | Health hazard, chronic toxicity factor |
8. | SHmobility | Safety hazard, mobility |
9. | SHfire/explosion | Safety hazard, fire/explosion |
10. | SHreac/dec I | Safety hazard, reaction/decomposition I |
11. | SHreac/dec II | Safety hazard, reaction/decomposition II |
12. | SHacute tox. | Safety hazard, acute toxicity |
13. | FTA | Fault tree assessment |
14. | TRs | Specific toxic release |
15. | TR | Toxic release intensity |
16. | EQ | Environmental quotient |
17. | EBcancer eff. | Human health burden, cancer effects |
18. | EHdegradation | Environmental hazard, persistency of organic substances |
19. | EHair | Environmental hazard, air hazard |
20. | EHwater | Environmental hazard, water hazard |
21. | EHsolid | Environmental hazard, solid waste (inorganic pollutants) |
22. | EHbioacc. | Environmental hazard, bioaccumulation (the food chain or in soil) |
23. | GWP | Global warming potential |
24. | GWI | Global warming intensity |
25. | ODP | Stratospheric ozone-depletion potential |
26. | ODI | Stratospheric ozone-depletion intensity |
27. | PCOP | Photochemical oxidation (smog) potential |
28. | PCOI | Photochemical oxidation (smog) intensity |
29. | AP | Atmospheric acidification potential |
30. | API | Atmospheric acidification intensity |
31. | WPacid. water | Aquatic acidification potential |
32. | WPIacid. water | Aquatic acidification intensity |
33. | WPbasi. water | Aquatic basification potential |
34. | WPIbasi. water | Aquatic basification intensity |
35. | WPsalinity | Aquatic salinization potential |
36. | WPIsalinity | Aquatic salinization intensity |
37. | WPO2 dem. | Aquatic oxygen demand potential |
38. | WPIO2 dem. | Aquatic oxygen demand intensity |
39. | WPtox. other | Ecotoxicity to aquatic life potential |
40. | WPItox. other | Ecotoxicity to aquatic life intensity |
41. | WPtox. metal | Ecotoxicity to aquatic life potential by metals |
42. | WPItox. metal | Ecotoxicity to aquatic life intensity by metals |
43. | EP | Eutrophication potential |
44. | EPI | Eutrophication potential intensity |
45. | SMIM | Specific emergy intensity |
46. | MIM | Emergy intensity |
47. | ELR | Environmental loading ratio |
48. | EYR | Emergy yield ratio |
49. | ESI | Emergy sustainability Index |
50. | BFM | Breeding factor |
51. | RI | Renewability index |
52. | m s, tot. | Total solid waste mass |
53. | m s, spec. | Specific solid waste mass |
54. | m s, recov. | Solid waste mass for recovery |
55. | m s, disp. | Solid waste mass for disposal |
56. | w s, recycl. | Recycling mass fraction |
57. | w s, non-recycl. | Disposal mass fraction |
58. | w s, haz. | Hazardous solid waste mass fraction |
59. | m s, haz. | Total hazardous solid waste disposal |
60. | m s, haz. spec. | Specific hazardous solid waste |
61. | m s, n-haz. | Total non-hazardous solid waste disposal |
62. | m s, n-haz.spec. | Non-hazardous solid waste intensity |
63. | V l, tot. | Total volume of liquid waste |
64. | V l, spec. | Specific liquid waste volume |
65. | V l, non-poll. | Non-polluted liquid waste volume |
66. | V l, poll. | Polluted liquid waste volume |
Efficiency indicators | ||
1. | ε | Reaction yield |
2. | AE i | Atom economy |
3. | AAE | Actual atom economy |
4. | SF | Stoichiometric factor |
5. | RME | Reaction mass efficiency |
6. | m mat., tot. | Total material consumption |
7. | MIv | Value mass intensity |
8. | MI | Mass intensity |
9. | MP | Mass productivity |
10. | E | Environmental factor |
11. | MLI | Mass loss index |
12. | E mw | Environmental factor based on molecular weight |
13. | EMY | Effective mass yield |
14. | CE | Carbon efficiency |
15. | MRP | Material recovery parameter |
16. | f | Solvent and catalyst environmental impact parameter |
17. | pROIM | Physical return on investment |
18. | RIM | Renewability-material index |
19. | BFM | Breeding-material factor |
20. | w recycl. mat. | Recycled material fraction |
21. | w recycl. prod. | Mass fraction of product from recyclable materials |
22. | w recov. prod. | Mass fraction of product designed for disassembly, reuse or recycling |
23. | V water, tot. | Total water consumption |
24. | FWC | Fractional water consumption |
25. | WI | Water intensity |
26. | Φwater type | Volume fraction of water type |
Economic indicators | ||
1. | NPV | Net present value |
2. | PVR | Present value ratio |
3. | DPBP | Discounted payback period |
4. | DCFROR | Discounted cash flow rate of return |
5. | CCF | Capital charge factors |
6. | EP | (Specific) Economic potential |
7. | ROI | Rate of return on investment |
8. | PBP | Payback Period |
9. | TR | Turnover ratio |
10. | CCP | Cumulative cash position |
11. | CCR | Cumulative cash ratio |
12. | R n | Net return |
13. | REV | Revenues from eco-products |
14. | REVeco-prod. | Revenue fraction of eco-products |
15. | C eq | Equivalent annual cost |
16. | TPC | Total product cost |
17. | E PC | Production cost |
18. | C TM | Capital cost |
19. | COM | Manufacturing cost |
20. | C SRM | Specific raw material cost |
21. | C mat, tot. | Total material cost |
22. | C E, tot. | Total energy cost |
23. | C E, spec. | Specific energy costs |
24. | C E, source | Average cost of energy source |
25. | C water tot. | Total water cost |
26. | C water spec. | Water cost fraction |
27. | C water type | Average volume water type cost |
28. | C s tot. | Total solid waste cost |
29. | C s spec. | Solid waste cost fraction |
30. | C l tot. | Total liquid waste cost |
31. | C l spec. | Liquid waste cost fraction |
32. | C pur. air | Costs of purifying air |
33. | C pur. air fract. | Fractional costs of purifying air |
Energy indicators | ||
1. | E total | Total energy consumption |
2. | R SEI | Specific energy intensity |
3. | R EI | Energy intensity |
4. | WTE | Waste treatment energy |
5. | SRE | Solvent recovery energy |
6. | ηE | Resource-energy efficiency |
7. | RIE | Renewability-energy index |
8. | BFE | Breeding-energy factor |
9. | E recycl. | Energy for recycling |
10. | Extotal | Exergy consumption |
11. | R Ex | Exergy intensity |
12. | ηEx | Resource-exergy efficiency |
13. | RIEx | Renewability-exergy index |
14. | BFEx | Breeding-exergy factor |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruiz-Mercado, G.J., Gonzalez, M.A. & Smith, R.L. Expanding GREENSCOPE beyond the gate: a green chemistry and life cycle perspective. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16, 703–717 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0533-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0533-y