-
Something wrong with this record ?
Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic waste: Environmental impact and economic assessment
YV. Fan, JJ. Klemeš, S. Perry, CT. Lee,
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Anaerobiosis MeSH
- Lignin * MeSH
- Refuse Disposal * MeSH
- Solid Waste MeSH
- Environment MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Geographicals
- Germany MeSH
Lignocellulosic waste (LW) is abundant in availability and is one of the suitable substrates for anaerobic digestion (AD). However, it is a complex solid substrate matrix that hinders the hydrolysis stage of anaerobic digestion. This study assessed various pre-treatment and post-treatments of lignocellulosic waste for anaerobic digestion benefiting from advanced P-graph and GaBi software (Thinkstep, Germany) from the perspective of cost and environmental performances (global warming potential, human toxicity, ozone depletion potential, particulate matter, photochemical oxidant creation, acidification and eutrophication potential). CaO pre-treatment (P4), H2S removal with membrane separation post-treatment (HSR MS) and without the composting of digestate is identified as the cost-optimal pathway. The biological (P7- Enzyme, P8- Microbial Consortium) and physical (P1- Grinding, P2- Steam Explosion, P3- Water Vapour) pre-treatments alternatives have lower environmental impacts than chemical pre-treatments (P4- CaO, P5- NaOH, P6- H2SO4) however they are not part of the near cost optimal solutions. For post-treatment, the near cost optimal alternatives are H2S removal with organic physical scrubbing (HSR OPS) and H2S removal with amine scrubbing (HSR AS). HSR AS has a better performance in the overall environmental impacts followed by HSR MS and HSR OPS. In general, the suggested cost-optimal solution is still having relatively lower environmental impacts and feasible for implementation (cost effective). There is very complicated to find a universal AD solution. Different scenarios (the type of substrate, the scale, product demand, policies) have different constraints and consequently solutions. The trade-offs between cost and environment performances should be a future extension of this work.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19034938
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20191008112916.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 191007s2019 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.020 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)30366314
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Fan, Yee Van $u Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory - SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT Brno, Technická 2896/2, 616 69, Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: fan@fme.vutbr.cz.
- 245 10
- $a Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic waste: Environmental impact and economic assessment / $c YV. Fan, JJ. Klemeš, S. Perry, CT. Lee,
- 520 9_
- $a Lignocellulosic waste (LW) is abundant in availability and is one of the suitable substrates for anaerobic digestion (AD). However, it is a complex solid substrate matrix that hinders the hydrolysis stage of anaerobic digestion. This study assessed various pre-treatment and post-treatments of lignocellulosic waste for anaerobic digestion benefiting from advanced P-graph and GaBi software (Thinkstep, Germany) from the perspective of cost and environmental performances (global warming potential, human toxicity, ozone depletion potential, particulate matter, photochemical oxidant creation, acidification and eutrophication potential). CaO pre-treatment (P4), H2S removal with membrane separation post-treatment (HSR MS) and without the composting of digestate is identified as the cost-optimal pathway. The biological (P7- Enzyme, P8- Microbial Consortium) and physical (P1- Grinding, P2- Steam Explosion, P3- Water Vapour) pre-treatments alternatives have lower environmental impacts than chemical pre-treatments (P4- CaO, P5- NaOH, P6- H2SO4) however they are not part of the near cost optimal solutions. For post-treatment, the near cost optimal alternatives are H2S removal with organic physical scrubbing (HSR OPS) and H2S removal with amine scrubbing (HSR AS). HSR AS has a better performance in the overall environmental impacts followed by HSR MS and HSR OPS. In general, the suggested cost-optimal solution is still having relatively lower environmental impacts and feasible for implementation (cost effective). There is very complicated to find a universal AD solution. Different scenarios (the type of substrate, the scale, product demand, policies) have different constraints and consequently solutions. The trade-offs between cost and environment performances should be a future extension of this work.
- 650 _2
- $a anaerobióza $7 D000693
- 650 _2
- $a životní prostředí $7 D004777
- 650 12
- $a lignin $7 D008031
- 650 12
- $a odpadky - odstraňování $7 D012037
- 650 _2
- $a tuhý odpad $7 D062611
- 651 _2
- $a Německo $7 D005858
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír $u Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory - SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT Brno, Technická 2896/2, 616 69, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Perry, Simon $u Centre for Process Integration, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
- 700 1_
- $a Lee, Chew Tin $u Department of Bioprocess Engineering, Faculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310, UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002657 $t Journal of environmental management $x 1095-8630 $g Roč. 231, č. - (2019), s. 352-363
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30366314 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20191007 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20191008113332 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1451598 $s 1073488
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2019 $b 231 $c - $d 352-363 $e 20181024 $i 1095-8630 $m Journal of environmental management $n J Environ Manage $x MED00002657
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20191007