Comparative Analysis of Environmental Impacts between Dregs Disposal and Conventional Cement Production by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Abstract:

The environmental impacts of the dregs disposal in cement kiln and conventional production were contrastively evaluated by life cycle assessment (LCA) in this study. The results showed that the environmental load ratio of both cement productions followed the order of energy depletion potential (EDP) > depletion potential (ADP) > global warming potential (GWP) > acidification potential (AP) > human toxicity (HT) > photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP). The comprehensive environmental load of disposal dregs was 14.465×10^-12/a, which was 3.98% lower than that of the conventional cement production. Moreover, the reduced percentage of the environmental load followed the order of HT> AP> POCP> EDP> ADP> GWP, which indicated that the reduced percentage of human toxicity and acidification reached 10.62% and 10.06% respectively. Thus, considering the environmental benefits, it would be a better method to dispose dregs instead of limestone in cement kiln.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 777)
• Pages: 461-466
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.777.461
• Online since: September 2013
• Authors: Kan Fu, Xiao Yu Ren, Jin Quan Lin, Ping Yue
• Keywords: Disposal, Dregs, Environmental Impact (EI), Life Cycle Assessment

References

[1] NDRC, IIM, SFB, 12th Five-Year Plan, of paper industry, East China Pulp & Paper Industry. 43 (2012) 1-5.

[2] H.L. Xia, Development and application of paper Chemicals Industry in China, Shanghai Paper Making. 43(2012) 40-50.

[3] Luan Gang, Operation experience of reducing residual alkali in dregs in an alkali recovery System, China Pulp & Paper. 22(1997) 1-4.

[4] B.W. Cao, Disposal of solid waste for pulp and paper mill, Paper & Paper Making. 28(2009) 47-51.

[5] J.W. Owens. Life cycle assessment: constraints on moving from inventory to impact assessment, J. Ind. Ecol. 1(1997)37-49.

[6] S. Ross, D. Evans, M. Webber, How LCA studies deal with uncertainty, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 7(2002) 47-52.

DOI: 10.1007/bf02978909

[7] Q. Deng, J.N. Chen, Consumption reduction and emission reduction of cement production made by steel industrial solid waste, Ecol. Environ. Sci. 21 (2012)298-302.

[8] C. Chen, G. Habert, Y. Bouzidi, A. Jullien, Environmental impact of cement production: detail of the different processes and cement plant variability evaluation, J. Clean Prod. 18 (2010) 478-485.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.014

[9] D.N. Huntzinger, T.D. Eatmon, A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies, J. Clean Prod. 17 (2009) 668-675.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.007

[10] E. Gartner, Industrially interesting approaches to low-CO2, cements, Cement Concrete Res. 34(2004) 1489-1498.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.01.021

[11] J.X. Yang, S.B. Wang, C. Xu, Allocation rule in life-cycle inventory, China Environ. Sci. 19(1999)285-288.

[12] S.B. Wang, R.S. Wang, Q.H. Wu, A new approach to calculate resource depletion potential and its equivalency factors in life cycle assessment, J. Fudan Univ. (Nat. Sci. ). 40 (2001)553-557.

[13] F. Vincea, E. Aoustina, P. Bréanta, F. Marechalb, LCA tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water production, Desalination. 220 (2008) 37-56.

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.021