LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF ACTIVATED CARBON FROM WOODY BIOMASS
Keywords:Activated Carbon (AC), biochar, coal, thermochemical conversion, life-cycle assessment (LCA), BET surface
Activated carbon (AC) developed and marketed for water and gas purification is traditionally made from hard coals (fossil-based materials). However, increasing awareness of environmental impacts caused by fossil fuel consumption and fossil-based products has provided a market opportunity for renewable and low-impact biobased products as alternatives including AC. The huge volumes of woody biomass generated from forest management activities could be used as feedstocks for these new bioproducts. These new bioproducts require evaluation to determine if they are low impact. To aid in quantifying environmental impacts of a new bioproduct (such as AC), this study developed the cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory (LCI) data for the carbon activation of biochar in a rotary calciner by collecting operational and direct emission data while conforming to the internationally accepted life cycle assessmentmethod. The LCI datawere then modeled to develop the life cycle impact assessment profile of biochar-based carbon activation and compared with commercial coal-based carbon activation. The results showed about 35% less cradle-to-product gate cumulative energy demand for the biochar AC system compared with the coal AC system. Consequentially, the greenhouse gas emissions for biochar AC production were less than half that of coal AC production (8.60 kg CO2 eq vs 18.28 kg CO2 eq per kg of AC produced). This was because of both lower energy consumption and the biogenic carbon benefit from using woody biomass for both feedstock and processing. To ensure substitution of the two ACs, the physical properties for the AC from biochar and coal were compared for their Brunauer–Emmett–Teller surface area and iodine number, which showed that both indicators were superior for biochar AC compared with coal AC. Therefore, biochar AC results from this study suggest a potential high-value market for woody biomass derived from forest restoration and wildfire suppression activities.
Alhashimi HA, Aktas CB (2017) Life cycle environmental and economic performance of biochar compared with activated carbon: A meta-analysis. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 118: 13-26.
Anderson N, Mitchell D (2016) Forest operations and woody
biomass logistics to improve efficiency, value, and sustainability. Bioenergy Res 9:518-533.
Arena N, Lee J, Clift R (2016) Life Cycle Assessment of activated carbon from coconut shells. Journal of Cleaner Production 125: 68-77.
Azargohar R, Dalai AK (2006) Biochar as a precursor of
activated carbon. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 131:762-773.
Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ 13(5):687-696.
Bayer P, Heuer E, Karl U, Finkel M (2005) Economical and ecological comparison of granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber refill strategies. Water Research 39:1719-1728.
Bergman R, Gu H, Page-Dumroese DS, Anderson N (2016)
Life cycle analysis of biochar. Pages 46-69, Chapter 3 in
Bruckman, VJ, Varol EA, Uzun BB, Liu J, eds. Biochar: A
regional supply chain approach in view of climate change
mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Buchholz T, Hurteau MD, Gunn J, Saah D (2016) A global
meta-analysis of forest bioenergy greenhouse gas emission
accounting studies.Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 8:281-289
Cherubini F, Stromman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: State of the art and future challenges. Biores Technol 102(2):437-451.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (2012) Energy Security in the United States, May 2012. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/05-09-energysecurity.pdf 2 May 2018).
del-Campo BG, Morris MD, Laird DA, Kieffer MM, Brown RC (2015) Optimizing the production of activated carbon from fast pyrolysis char. Technology 3(2 & 3): 104-111.
Fan M, Marshall W, Daugaard D, Brown RC (2004) Steam activation of chars produced from oat hulls and corn stover. Bioresources Technology 93:103-107.
Field JL, Keske CMH, Birch GL, Defoort MW, Cotrufo MF (2013) Distributed biochar and bioenergy coproduction: A regionally specific case study of environmental benefits and economic impacts. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 5:177-191.
Garcia-Nunez JA, Pelaez-Samaniego MR, Garcia-Perez ME,
Fonts I, Abrego J, Westerhof RJM, Garcia-PerezM(2017)
Historical developments of pyrolysis reactors: A review.
Energy Fuels 31(6):5751-5775.
Gu H, Bergman RD (2016) Life-cycle assessment of a distributed-scale thermochemical bioenergy conversion system. Wood Fiber Sci 48(2): 129-141.
Gu H, Bergman RD (2017) Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of syngas electricity from woody biomass residues. Wood Fiber Sci 49(2):177-192.
Hensen R, Essen Ma, Anderson N, Peters L, Kimmerly A
(2016) Integrating sustainable biofuels and byproducts into
forest industry supply chains. USDA Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 37 pp.
Hertwich EG, Gibon T, Bouman EA, Arvesen A, Suh S, Heath GA, Bergesen JD, Ramirez A, Vega MI, Shi L (2013) Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(20):6277-6282. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1312753111 (20 February 2018).
Hjaila K, Baccar R, Sarra M, Gasol CM, Blanquez P (2013) Environmental impact associated with activated carbon preparation from olive-waste cake via life cycle assessment. J of Environmental Management 130: 242-247.
Hutto RL (2008) The ecological importance of severe
wildfires: Some like it hot. Ecol Appl 18(8):1827-1834.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland. 46 pp.
Iqbaldin MM, Khudzir I, Azlan MM, Zaidi AG, Surani B, Zubri Z (2013) Properties of coconut shell activated carbon. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 25(4): 497-503.
Kataki R, Bordoloi NJ, Saikia R, Sut D, Narzari R, Gogoi L,
Bhuyan N (2018) Chapter 21: Waste valorization to fuel
and chemicals through pyrolysis: Technology, feedstock,
products, and economic analysis. Pages 477-514 in Singhania
R, Agarwal R, Kumar R, Sukumaran R, eds. Waste to
wealth. Energy, environment, and sustainability. Springer,
Lippke B, Gustafson R, Venditti R, Steele P, Volk T, Oneil E, Johnson L, Puettmann M, Skog K. (2012) Comparing life-cycle carbon and energy impacts for biofuel, wood product, and forest management alternatives. Forest Prod. J., 62(4), 247–257.
Marsh H, Reinoso FR (2006) Chapter 9–Production and
reference material. Pages 454-508 in Activated carbon.
Published by Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK. eBook ISBN:
Hardcover ISBN: 9780080444635.
Meier MA (1997) Eco-efficiency evaluation of waste gas purification systems in the chemical industry. Doctoral thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Diss. ETH No. 12259. 271 pp.
Miller S, Essen M, Anderson N, Chung W, Elliot W, Page-Dumroese D, Han, Han-Sup, Hogland J, Keyes CR (2014). Burgeoning biomass: Creating efficient and sustainable forest biomass supply chains in the Rockies. Science You Can Use Bulletin, Issue 13. USDA For Serv Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 10 pp.
Miller S, Essen M, Anderson N, Page-Dumroese D,
McCollum D, Bergman R, Elder T (2015) Burgeoning
biomass: Creating efficient and sustainable forest biomass
supply chains in the Rockies, Part II. Science you can use
bulletin, issue 17. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 10 pp.
Miner R, Abt RC, Bowyer JL, Buford MA, Malmsheimer RW, O'Laughlin J, Oneil E, Sedjo R, Skog KE (2014) Forest carbon accounting considerations in US bioenergy policy. J of Forestry 112(6):591-606.
Munoz I, Peral J, Ayllon JA, Malato S, Martin MJ, Perrot JY, Vincent M, Domenech X (2007) Life-cycle assessment of a coupled advanced oxidation-biological process for wastewater treatment: Comparison with granular activated carbon adsorption. Environmental Engineering Science 24(5):638-651.
NREL (2012) Life-cycle inventory database project. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://uslci.lcacommons.
gov/uslci/search (9 March 2018).
Pierobon F, Ganguly G, Anfodillo T, Eastin IL (2014) Evaluation of environmental impacts of harvest residue-based bioenergy using radiative forcing analysis. For Chron 90(5):577-585.
Pollard SJT, Fowler GD, Sollars CJ, Perry R (1992) Low-cost adsorbents for waste and wastewater treatment: a review. The Science of the Total Environment 116: 31-52.
PRé Consultants (2017) Life-cycle assessment software package SimaPro 8 update instructions. Stationsplein 121, 3818 LE Amersfoort, The Netherlands. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/ (6 March 2017).
Roy P, Dias G (2017) Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in
the bioenergy sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy
Ruiz M, Rolz C (1971) Activated carbons from sugar cane
bagasse. Ind Eng Chem Prod Res Dev 10(4):429-432.
Sebastian F, Royo J, Gomez M (2011) Co-firing versus biomass-fired power plants: GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions savings comparison by means of LCA (life cycle assessment) methodology. Energy 36:2029-2037.
Sejio R.A. 2013. Comparative life cycle assessments: Carbon neutrality and wood biomass energy. Discussion paper. Resources for the Future. RFF DP 13-11, April 2010. 21 pp.
Stephenson A, MacKay DJC (2014) Life cycle impacts of biomass electricity in 2020. Department of Energy and Climate Change, London, UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government5/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349024/BEAC_Report_290814.pdf (3 May 2018).
Steubing B, Zah R, Ludwig C (2011) Life cycle assessment of SNG from wood for heating, electricity, and transportation. Biomass Bioenerg 35(7):2950-2960.
Stokes B, Rials TG, Johnson LR, Abt KL, Nepal P, Skog KE,
Abt RC, He L, English BC (2016) Chapter 3—At the
roadside: Forest resources. Page 104 in 2016 Billion-Ton
Report: Advancing domestic resources for a thriving
bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic availability of feedstock.
U.S. Department of Energy. ORNL/TM-2016/160.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J., Searchinger, T., Somerville C, Williams R, (2009) Beneficial biofuels: The food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 325(5938), 270-271.
United States Department of Energy (USDOE) (2016) 2016
Billion-ton report: Advancing domestic resources for
a thriving bioeconomy, Vol. 1: Economic availability of
feedstock. ORNL/TM-2016/160. USDOE Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA)
(2018a) Annual energy outlook 2018 with projections
to 2050. Report No. AEO2018. https://www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2018_FINAL_PDF.pdf (20 February
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA)
(2018b) International energy outlook 2017. ReportNumber:
section_issues.php#uon (20 February 2018).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
(1998a) Method 5—Particulate matter (PM). USEPA,
Washington, DC. 41 pp. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/
promgate/m-05.pdf (1 March 2017).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
(1998b) Method 320—Measurement of vapor phase organic
and inorganic emissions by extractive fourier
transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. 44 pp. USEPA,
Washington, DC. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/promgate/
m-320.pdf (1 March 2017).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2016) Carbon dioxide emissions associated with biomass use at stationary sources. USEPA, Washington, DC. https://www3.
(28 April 2017).
Wienk CL, Sieg CH, McPherson GR (2004) Evaluating the
role of cutting treatments, fire and soil seed banks in an experimental
framework in ponderosa pine forests of the Black
Hills, South Dakota. For Ecol Mgmt 192(2/3):375-393.
Woodall CW, Coulston JW, Domke GM, Walters BF, Wear
DN, Smith JE, Andersen H, Clough BJ, Cohen WB,
Griffith DM, Hagen SC, Hanou IS, Nichols MC, Perry
CH, Russell MB, Westfall JA, Wilson BT (2015) The
U.S. forest carbon accounting framework: Stocks and
stock change, 1990-2016. Gen Tech Rep NRS-154.
USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Newtown
Square, PA. 49 pp.
Zou Y, and Han B, (2001) High-Surface-Area Activated Carbon from Chinese Coal. Energy and Fuels 2001, 15, 1383-1386.
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.