Sustainable analytical chemistry—more than just being green

2013 ◽  
Vol 85 (12) ◽  
pp. 2217-2229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotta Turner
Keyword(s):  
Analytical Chemistry ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Green Chemistry ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Economic Feasibility ◽  
Societal Relevance ◽  
The Difference

This review article describes analytical chemistry beyond green chemistry and all efforts that contribute to a more sustainable development. A background is given on sustainable development and green chemistry. Examples of “greening” strategies for sample preparation, chromatography, and detection are given. Thereafter, the review discusses how and why a method or a solvent could be claimed as being “green”. Green metrics for analytical chemistry is discussed, including the environment, health, and safety (EHS) index and life cycle assessment (LCA). The choice of solvent and the criteria for a solvent being “green” is also discussed. Finally, sustainable analytical chemistry is described by considering the three important “legs” so as to obtain sustainable development—economic feasibility, societal relevance, and environmental soundness. Hopefully, the review article will stimulate some new perspectives on the difference between greenness and sustainability in analytical chemistry.

scholarly journals Environmental Impact and Levelised Cost of Energy Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic Systems in Selected Asia Pacific Region: A Cradle-to-Grave Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 396
Author(s):  
Norasikin Ahmad Ludin ◽  
Nurfarhana Alyssa Ahmad Affandi ◽  
Kathleen Purvis-Roberts ◽  
Azah Ahmad ◽  
Mohd Adib Ibrahim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Degradation Rate ◽  
Economic Feasibility ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Solar Photovoltaic ◽  
Economic Output ◽  
Cost Of Energy

Sustainability has been greatly impacted by the reality of budgets and available resources as a targeted range of carbon emission reduction greatly increases due to climate change. This study analyses the technical and economic feasibility for three types of solar photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy (RE) systems; (i) solar stand-alone, a non-grid-connected building rooftop-mounted structure, (ii) solar rooftop, a grid-connected building rooftop-mounted structure, (iii) solar farm, a grid-connected land-mounted structure in three tropical climate regions. Technical scientific and economic tools, including life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) with an integrated framework from a Malaysian case study were applied to similar climatic regions, Thailand, and Indonesia. The short-term, future scaled-up scenario was defined using a proxy technology and estimated data. Environmental locations for this scenario were identified, the environmental impacts were compared, and the techno-economic output were analysed. The scope of this study is cradle-to-grave. Levelised cost of energy (LCOE) was greatly affected due to PV performance degradation rate, especially the critical shading issues for large-scale installations. Despite the land use impact, increased CO2 emissions accumulate over time with regard to energy mix of the country, which requires the need for long-term procurement of both carbon and investment return. With regards to profitably, grid-connected roof-mounted systems achieve the lowest LCOE as compared to other types of installation, ranging from 0.0491 USD/kWh to 0.0605 USD/kWh under a 6% discounted rate. A simple payback (SPB) time between 7–10 years on average depends on annual power generated by the system with estimated energy payback of 0.40–0.55 years for common polycrystalline photovoltaic technology. Thus, maintaining the whole system by ensuring a low degradation rate of 0.2% over a long period of time is essential to generate benefits for both investors and the environment. Emerging technologies are progressing at an exponential rate in order to fill the gap of establishing renewable energy as an attractive business plan. Life cycle assessment is considered an excellent tool to assess the environmental impact of renewable energy.

scholarly journals 3 Tackling Demolition Waste – An en route to Sustainable Development

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Nadia Qamar ◽  
Ayesha Alam Khurram
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Material Flow ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Construction And Demolition Waste ◽  
Water Tank ◽  
Demolition Waste

In Pakistan, construction and demolition waste(CDW) is generated in voluminous amount each year. CDW iswidely ill-handled and ultimately fed to landfills causing harm tothe already alarming environmental conditions. In order tosearch for the solution of this drastic matter, a study was done,which is explained in this paper. This paper presents the studydone at a demolition site near Karachi, in Sindh while thedemolition works were being carried out. At the site there wereold barracks which were being demolished. Before the demolitionworks were commenced, the site was surveyed and structuralcomponents of the barracks were counted and their dimensionswere measured. When the demolition was over, the demolishedwaste was calculated which comprised of concrete and masonryrubble, steel round bars, steel doors, steel windows, steel ceiling,steel girders, steel main gate, and plastic water tank. This studyinterpreted that construction and demolition (C&D) works wereprogressing considering the works’ deadline and the clients’requirements but the ecosystem’s ecology and the environmentalhealth were not taken into account. Recommendations are madeto handle CDW properly throughout its lifecycle. Theserecommendations aim to provide technological and logicalsolutions to grip CDW. The recommendations include wastereduction and reusing waste, life cycle assessment and costing,environmental and economic impact, material flow analysis, andadvanced computerized-tools.

scholarly journals Adjustment of the Life Cycle Inventory in Life Cycle Assessment for the Flexible Integration into Energy Systems Analysis

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 4437
Author(s):  
Thomas Betten ◽  
Shivenes Shammugam ◽  
Roberta Graf
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Systems Analysis ◽  
Energy Systems ◽  
Use Case ◽  
Double Counting ◽  
Energy Technologies ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Energy Systems Analysis ◽  
The Difference

With an increasing share of renewable energy technologies in our energy systems, the integration of not only direct emission (from the use phase), but also the total life cycle emissions (including emissions during resource extraction, production, etc.) becomes more important in order to draw meaningful conclusions from Energy Systems Analysis (ESA). While the benefit of integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) into ESA is acknowledged, methodologically sound integration lacks resonance in practice, partly because the dimension of the implications is not yet fully understood. This study proposes an easy-to-implement procedure for the integration of LCA results in ESA based on existing theoretical approaches. The need for a methodologically sound integration, including the avoidance of double counting of emissions, is demonstrated on the use case of Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell photovoltaic technology. The difference in Global Warming Potential of 19% between direct and LCA based emissions shows the significance for the integration of the total emissions into energy systems analysis and the potential double counting of 75% of the life cycle emissions for the use case supports the need for avoidance of double counting.

scholarly journals Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of an Innovative Bio-Based Material in Construction: A Case Study of a Phase Change Material Panel

Forests ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Heidari ◽  
Damien Mathis ◽  
Pierre Blanchet ◽  
Ben Amor
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Phase Change ◽  
Phase Change Material ◽  
Product Life Cycle ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Data Intensive ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Change Material

Research Highlights: This is the first study that analyzes the environmental performance of wood-based phase change material (PCM) panels. Background and Objectives: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a powerful environmental management tool. However, a full LCA, especially during the early design phase of a product, is far too time and data intensive for industrial companies to conduct during their production and consumption processes. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for simpler methods to demonstrate a company’s resource efficiency potential without being data or time intensive. The goal of this study is to investigate the suitability of streamlined LCA (SLCA) tools and methods used in the building material industry, and to assess their robustness in the case study of a wood-based PCM panel. Materials and Methods: The Bilan Produit tool was selected as the SLCA tool and a matrix LCA was selected as the most commonly used SLCA method. A specific case study of a wood-based PCM panel was selected with a focus on its application in building construction in the province of Québec. Results: As a semi-quantitative LCA method, the matrix LCA provided a quick screening of the product life cycle and its hotspot stages, i.e., life cycle stages with high impact. However, the results of the full LCA and SLCA tools were quantitative and based on scientific databases. The use of the PCM panel and heating energy had the highest environmental impacts as compared to other inputs. The results of the full LCA and SLCA also identified energy consumption as a hotspot. Insufficient material or processes in the SLCA databases was one of the reasons for the difference between the results of the SLCA and full LCA. Conclusions: The examined SLCA methods provided proper explanations for the bio-based material in construction, but several limitations still exist, and the methods should be improved to make them more robust when implemented in such a specific sector.

scholarly journals 3 Tackling Demolition Waste – An en route to Sustainable Development

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
Nadia Qamar ◽  
Ayesha Alam Khurram
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Material Flow ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Construction And Demolition Waste ◽  
Water Tank ◽  
Demolition Waste

In Pakistan, construction and demolition waste(CDW) is generated in voluminous amount each year. CDW iswidely ill-handled and ultimately fed to landfills causing harm tothe already alarming environmental conditions. In order tosearch for the solution of this drastic matter, a study was done,which is explained in this paper. This paper presents the studydone at a demolition site near Karachi, in Sindh while thedemolition works were being carried out. At the site there wereold barracks which were being demolished. Before the demolitionworks were commenced, the site was surveyed and structuralcomponents of the barracks were counted and their dimensionswere measured. When the demolition was over, the demolishedwaste was calculated which comprised of concrete and masonryrubble, steel round bars, steel doors, steel windows, steel ceiling,steel girders, steel main gate, and plastic water tank. This studyinterpreted that construction and demolition (C&D) works wereprogressing considering the works’ deadline and the clients’requirements but the ecosystem’s ecology and the environmentalhealth were not taken into account. Recommendations are madeto handle CDW properly throughout its lifecycle. Theserecommendations aim to provide technological and logicalsolutions to grip CDW. The recommendations include wastereduction and reusing waste, life cycle assessment and costing,environmental and economic impact, material flow analysis, andadvanced computerized-tools.

scholarly journals A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of New Zealand Residential Buildings

Buildings ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Aflah Alamsah Dani ◽  
Krishanu Roy ◽  
Rehan Masood ◽  
Zhiyuan Fang ◽  
James B. P. Lim
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Carbon Emissions ◽  
Residential Buildings ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cradle To Cradle ◽  
The Difference

In New Zealand, housing is typically low density, with light timber framing being the dominant form of construction with more than 90% of the market. From 2020, as a result of the global pandemic, there was a shortage of timber in New Zealand, resulting in increased popularity for light steel framing, the main alternative to timber for housing. At the same time, the New Zealand government is committed to sustainability practises through legislation and frameworks, such as the reduction of whole-of-life carbon emissions for the building industry. New Zealand recently announced reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50% within 2030. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects associated with a product over its life cycle. Despite the popularity of LCA in the construction industry of New Zealand, prior research results seem varied. There is no unified NZ context database to perform an LCA for buildings. Therefore, in this paper, a comprehensive study using LCA was conducted to quantify and compare the quantity of carbon emissions from two commonly designed houses in the Auckland region, one built from light timber and the other from light steel, both designed for a lifespan of 90 years. The cradle-to-cradle system boundary was used for the LCA. From the results of this study, it was found that the light steel house had 12.3% more carbon in total (including embodied and operational carbons) when compared to the light timber house, of which the manufacturing of two houses had a difference of 50.4% in terms of carbon emissions. However, when the end-of-life (EOL) analysis was included, it was found that the extra carbon could be offset due to the steel’s recyclability, reducing the amount of embodied carbon in the manufacturing process. Therefore, there was no significant difference in carbon emissions between the light steel and the light timber building, with the difference being only 12.3%.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document