Buscador Multi-Base

13/8/2021 Buscador Multi-base
EBSCO Publishing Formato de citas:

APA (American Psychological Assoc.), 7.ª edición:
NOTA: repase las instrucciones en http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA

y realice las
correcciones necesarias antes de implementar este formato. Preste especial atención a los nombres propios, las
fechas y el uso de las mayúsculas. Siempre consulte los recursos de la biblioteca en cuanto a normas de formato y
puntuación.
Referencias
Ghannadzadeh, A. (2018). Exergy-aided environmental sustainability assessment of an ethylene dichloride-
vinyl chloride production process. Chemical Engineering Research & Design: Transactions of the
Institution of Chemical Engineers Part A, 130, 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2017.08.016

Exergy-aided environmental sustainability assessment of an ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride

production process
Graphical abstract Highlights • CO 2 has much more adverse impacts than ethylene dichloride and vinyl
chloride. • Environmental impacts are reduced from 5.19 to 5.15 MJ through biomass. • Impacts (e.g.
human toxicity) are increased surprisingly through natural gas. Abstract Vinyl chloride is a carcinogen
and ethylene dichloride is a toxic chemical besides the high-energy demand of their production process,
which can also cause environmental impacts. This paper presents an exergy-aided LCA to pinpoint the
avoidable key cause of the unsustainability in the period of energy transition, and enhance the
sustainability as much as achievable. The electricity generation system is pinpointed as the main source
of the unsustainability of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process under the strict
process constraints imposed by the energy transition. Then, a set of possible scenarios supported by
Monte Carlo simulation are defined, resulting in reducing environmental impacts from 5.19 to 5.15 MJ
equivalent of nonrenewable energy sources according to CExD or from dimensionless normalized
results of 2.47E-04 to 1.36E-04 according to ReCiPe, thus paving the way towards sustainable ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production process. In addition, LCA is advantageous to quantify precisely the
environmental impacts of each chemical component, showing that CO 2 has much more adverse
impacts than the hazardous substances on human health. Moreover, LCA reveals that natural gas can
even be less sustainable than residual fuel oil in terms of freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity,
terrestrial acidification, human toxicity, particulate matter formation, and fossil depletion impacts.
Life cycle assessment; Exergy; ReCiPe; Ethylene dichloride; Vinyl chloride; Monte Carlo simulation
1 Introduction
Ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride are in the list of the mostly produced chemicals in the world.
Approximately 31.1 million tons of vinyl chloride were produced in 2000 ([ 75] ) and nearly 20 million
tons of ethylene dichloride are produced in the US, Western Europe, and Japan ([ 25] ).
eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/delivery?sid=412332b4-d36f-4aeb-a8c1-1f1744e12649%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.b.ebsco… 1/34
On the other hand, ethylene dichloride is toxic mainly by inhalation due to its high vapour pressure,
highly flammable ([ 50] ), and possibly carcinogenic. Because of high solubility and 50-year half-life in
anoxic aquifers, it is a perennial pollutant and causes health risk that is very expensive to treat
conventionally, which needs a method of bioremediation ([ 17] ).
Likewise, vinyl chloride is in a group 1 human carcinogen posing elevated risks of rare angiosarcoma,
malignant haematopoeitic lymphatic tumours, and brain and lung tumours ([ 42] ). According to the EPA,
emissions of vinyl chloride from polyvinyl chloride, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride monomer
plants contribute or cause to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to cause a rise in mortality
or a rise in serious permanent, or incapacitating reversible illness ([ 53] ). Moreover, the US OSHA
restricts vinyl chloride exposure of workers to no more than 1 ppm for eight hours or 5 ppm for 15 min ([
71] ).
In order to deal with the increasing demand for environmentally sustainable ways of ethylene dichloride–
vinyl chloride production, the environmental impacts of existing ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride
production processes should be determined in a quantitative manner right from the start. As the concept
of life-cycle thinking is becoming more and more important, the method of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
([ 43] ) is now established as one of the major tools for the analysis of anthropogenic environmental
impacts ([ 44] ). LCA considers the entire life cycle of a product or process and assesses environmental
effects in terms of a number of environmental impact categories that go beyond the consideration of
material or energy flows ([ 47] ). In this context, there are a number of case studies where the LCA has
been applied to assess the ‘environmental sustainability’ of wide variety of processes towards cleaner
and more environmentally sustainable production. Examples of such include environmental
sustainability assessment of the electricity ([ 4] ) and bioenergy ([ 67] ) generation systems, the
processes for production of biofuels such as a biofuels from sugarcane bagasse ([ 56] ), butanol from
ethanol in a sugarcane biorefinery ([ 20] ), recently a switchgrass-based biofuel ([ 62] ), and more
recently polyol ether ([ 33] ).
In this context, exergy ([ 32] ) has been proved as a useful tool in environmental impacts analysis mainly
regarding assessment of resources and efficiencies ([ 27] ) which are one of the major challenges in the
development of environmentally sustainable technologies ([ 46] ). However, there is not even a single
study in the literature where an exergetic method and LCA have been combined to enhance
environmental sustainability of industrial ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production processes.
Therefore, one of the objectives of the present paper is to explore exergy as a single sustainability
metric among multiple metrics associated with an ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process.
In addition, to perform LCA based on impact assessment methods such as Cumulative Exergy Demand
(CExD) ([ 5] ) and ReCiPe ([ 35] ), a life cycle inventory analysis usually involves a large amount of data.
According to the literature ([ 68] ), the uncertainty linked with these parameters directly influences the
outcome of any environmental impact method. The application of stochastic model helps to characterize
the uncertainties better than a purely analytical mathematical approach. Monte Carlo simulation as a
stochastic method, can be regarded the most effective quantification method for uncertainties and
variability in accordance with literature ([ 48] ).
In spite of the importance of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, there are only a
couple of examples in the literature where exergy analysis is used on a stand-alone basis to enhance
environmental sustainability of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process. Examples of
such include exergy analysis of the Akzo Nobel vinyl-chloride plant at Rotterdam, the Netherlands using
Aspen plus™ ([ 36] ), assessment of the separation sections of vinyl chloride monomer production
plants ([ 18] ), and study on the purification of 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE) in a high-purity distillation
column of a vinyl chloride monomer plant ([ 3] ).
However, there is a more limited number of case studies where the process and the utilities have been
taken into account. Examples of such include reduction in the steam consumption by 50% at a vinyl
chloride plant in the Porto Torres plant by the European Vinyl Corporation ([ 10] ), and savings of 30% at
a vinyl chloride process through significant potential for process integration, heat pumps and
cogeneration ([ 6] ).
It can be furthered and include the production steps such as transportation as it is the main philosophy
of the LCA which has been applied to the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process.
Examples of such include study on a chlor-alkali/polyvinyl chloride sector in China ([ 45] ), the European
PVC cycle ([ 13] ), and bioproducts with near-term potential ([ 7] ).
Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, there is not even a single study in the literature where an exergetic
method and LCA have been combined to enhance environmental sustainability of industrial ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production processes. This makes it essential to dedicate a study to the
ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process. Therefore, this paper presents the first view on
how an exergetic LCA can be applied to the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process and
the benefits it can bring. From this regard, this work is based on CExD indicator ([ 5] ) and the objective
is to pave the way towards an environmentally sustainable ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production
process.
Unlike the existing studies on the life cycle of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production, this research
emphasizes on the utility systems such as the power generation system. Although the analysis of the
electricity generation system on a standalone basis ([ 51] ) could be performed without any attention to
the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, the analysis of both systems in one single
study is helpful. In fact, it allows the decision maker to specify the minimum amount of the unavailable
technology to fulfil the required specifications.
Furthermore, the scenario definition starts with a short-term solution such as the so-called clean fossil
energy (i.e. natural gas) and then present scenarios where the renewables are added up to the power
mix in a stepwise approach to avoid any perturbation in the system. However, life-cycle environmental
impacts must be taken into account to understand the true environmentally preferred alternatives. To do
so, the total depletion of exergy from the environment besides the ReCiPe-based environmental
impacts, is quantified. In addition, alternative processes that are potentially more sustainable under the
exergy metric as well as the ReCiPe are studied.
The paper starts with a set of information regarding the methodology and database; after which the LCA
of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process is presented. Following that the exergetic and
ReCiPe-based diagnosis of the entire process is given, which helps to pinpoint the source of
unsustainability in a systematic way to reduce environmental effects. Then, a set of scenarios is defined
and assessed in terms of environmental impacts to enhance eventually the environmental sustainability
aspects of the process.
2 Data and methods

2.1 Methodology
In this section, the methodology is presented in detail to pinpoint the avoidable key cause of the
environmental unsustainability in the period of clean energy transition, and enhance the sustainability as
much as achievable.
2.1.1 Process constraints
Prior to assessment, definition of process constraints is required. As the scope of this study is the
transition period due to the energy transition ([ 73] ) which starts with fossil fuels, moves through so-
called clean fossil fuels ([ 39] ) (e.g. natural gas ([ 76] )) and finally is targeted to reach the renewables ([
21] ), the solutions towards sustainability ([ 64] ) need to take into account the available technologies.
This signifies that the heart of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, the synthesis
reactor, becomes a black box, which cannot be undergone any modifications including operating
conditions or change in the process technology. This means that process constraints regarding the
reactor make it impossible to define scenarios where the synthesis block undergoes a retrofitting
project.
2.1.2 Scoping and diagnosis
The second step is to identify the units that predominantly cause the environmental effects. To do so,
LCA has been applied to the base case of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process
using ReCiPe and CExD. Moreover, it should be noted that the purpose of this research is not the
comparison of these two impact assessment methods. On the contrary, it aims at presenting the results
from two perspectives to enrich the results of LCA rather than showing how the choice of the impacts
assessment method can affect the results.
Therefore, there is a need for more emphasis on the process unit that is common in both impact
assessment methods. In fact, we have to take into account that even a small percentage in variation of
the most damaging unit, can cause high enhancements in sustainability indexes. Besides, Monte Carlo
simulations can be performed to evaluate the variation in sustainability indexes as a result of the
difference in the parameter of this unit.
2.1.3 Assessment of the base case through Monte Carlo simulation
During the scenarios definition, working with a number of impacts – as it is the case for ReCiPe – is not
only a cumbersome task but also can lead to different routes for the scenarios. Therefore, an
aggregated indicator such as CExD can be a right criterion to indicate the sustainability of the whole
system in terms of only one figure. Moreover, although the ReCiPe is one of the latest impact
assessment method, its parameters depend on the time and geographic scale. On the other hand,
CExD is centred on the concept of exergy, which is universal and independent of the time and place.
Therefore, it might be more suitable for long-term decision making, especially when it applies to a region
where its environmental parameters are different from what is assumed by the ReCiPe characterization
model. Besides, due to impossibility of aggregation of all the number of environmental impacts of
ReCiPe for Monte Carlo simulation in openLCA, we can limit the assessment into the CExD as shown
by literature ([ 33] ).
The next question regarding scenario definition is how much change distinguishes one scenario from
another. This question can be answered through Monte Carlo simulation as a stochastic method, which
can be regarded as the most effective quantification method for uncertainties and variability in
accordance with literature ([ 48] ). Therefore, Monte Carlo simulation can prove whether the specified
transitional step is a right value to represent a fingerprint different from the base scenario. In fact, as
proved by literature ([ 48] ), Monte Carlo simulation is a valuable tool for measuring the total uncertainty
aggregated by numerous uncertainty factors with non-linear relationship. Therefore, in this research, the
statistical features of the total power demand, the aggregation of power demand in various unit
operations, can be determined using its probability distribution found by Monte Carlo simulation.
Moreover, as there is no linear relation between power input and environmental impacts, Monte Carlo
simulation can be used to correlate the power input with the outputs such as CExD.
2.1.4 Scenarios definition
In the base scenario, all the electricity is produced from the residual fuel oil as a fossil fuel. On one
hand, fossil fuel is a nonrenewable resource and can cause large environmental damages because of
mining, transport, and electricity generation. In addition, uncertainty regarding the price and availability
of other fuels makes their future contributions unsure. On the other hand, fossil fuels are likely to play a
significant role for at least the next half-century, excluding significant technological changes and large
hydrocarbon discoveries. Moreover, the potential for the new technologies based on the fossil fuels
contributing to the future shows promise. Therefore, choice of an appropriate energy mix can reduce
emissions of the pollutants considerably. This means that although many future energy scenarios are
possible, it is wise to study the possible life cycle impacts of the fossil fuels use ([ 33] ).
In the transition period when the fossil fuels are going to be phased out, the choice of the alternative
energy source, which boost the environmental sustainability of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride
production process, is very important. Certainly, it would be much better to choose an alternative among
what is available in terms of the technology. For instance, natural gas ([ 59] ) seems an appropriate
choice for the starting point as it is not only available, but also its clean image has promoted its
applications dramatically to augment the environmental sustainability of the chemical and thermal
processes in general. However, to quantify this solution, which is based on the common wisdom, we
need to perform LCA. Therefore, the first alternative is dedicated to fossil fuels for the power generation
system to change the type of fuel from the residual fuels oil to natural gas. As reported in [ 5] , to
generate 1 kWh natural-gas-based electricity, mainly 0.30 m3 natural gas, 0.06 t.km transport by
combination of trucks using average fuel mix, and 0.35 t.km transport by pipeline are required, based on
the U.S. LCI Database ([ 54] ).
Moreover, according to the literature ([ 33] ), to enhance the sustainability of the power generation
system, there are a number of ways such as using natural gas ([ 65] ) as clean energy sources,
renewable energy sources such as bioenergy ([ 63] ), hydropower ([ 69] ), solar energy ([ 9] ), and
geothermal energy ([ 22] ) as the long-term solutions. Among the alternatives listed above, the biomass
is taken as the representative of renewables. Therefore, the second alternative is dedicated to the
power generation system as well to stop consuming the fossil fuels and to use only the biomass for the
power generation system. The biomass production under consideration is represented by a poplar tree
plantation with a seven-year growing cycle. In addition, electricity generation is accomplished by
gasification of biomass followed by a gas turbine. As reported in [ 5] based on the U.S. LCI Database ([
54] ), to generate 1 kWh bioenergy, mainly 5.99E-04 kg disposal solid waste, 0.02 t km transport by
combination of trucks using average fuel mix, 0.01 t km transport by diesel-powered train and 0.84 kg
carbon dioxide are required.
A wide range of energy resource mixes can meet the final energy demands of each scenario. However,
as the scenarios are dedicated to the transition period, the alternative energy sources should be added
up to the power mix in a stepwise approach to avoid any perturbation in the system. Therefore, we have
chosen three steps to introduce each alternative energy sources to the power mix, where in each step
one third of the total power mix is deduced from the conventional energy source and is added to the
alternative energy source, resulting in seven options as reported in [ 10] . In other words, for scenarios
1, 4 and 7, residual fuel oil, natural gas and the biomass alone provides enough energy for electricity,
respectively. For scenarios 2 and 3 both the residual fuel oil and natural gas are required to generate
electricity. For scenarios 5 and 6 both natural gas and the biomass are required to generate electricity.
Note that the scenarios 5 and 6 are considered as an outlook to assess the long-term solutions such as
the energy mixes of the natural gas and the biomass ([ 33] ). In summary, the first three scenarios are
dedicated to change the fuel from the residual fuel oil to the natural gas. In the second three scenarios,
the type of the fuel will be changed from the natural gas to the biomass as a long-term renewable
energy to mitigate the environmental effects. Overall, seven possibilities include alternative sourcing of
electricity to assess the application of three electricity sources as listed in [ 10] .
2.1.5 Environmental sustainability assessment of scenarios
LCA is used to assess the environmental sustainability of scenarios in order to address the several
critical points.
The first issue is that whether it is true that the unpleasant image of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl
chloride process technology originates from a thought that the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride itself is
known as one of the most hazardous chemical components to the human health. In other words, if we
consider the whole chains to produce ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride, the impact of ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride themselves on human health is still important or not.
The second challenge is that whether without any process revamping at the heart of life cycle of
ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production, there is a possibility towards environmentally sustainable
ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, which can be regarded as an achievable mid-term
solution.
The next argument is that the prejudgement presents natural gas as a less damaging energy source
compared to the residual fuel oil. At this stage, LCA can be brought into the action to verify whether
natural gas is more sustainable than the residual fuel oil or not.
The last but not definitely the least point is to find the most sustainable alternative and the worst choice
as well as to quantify precisely the impacts. Moreover, LCA is expected not only to report the maximum
reduction in the total environmental impact of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process,
but also report how much the options based and the biomass or natural gas are less sustainable in
terms of what impacts, translating different impacts with different units to quantities comparable with
each other.
2.1.6 Further assessment of scenarios through Monte Carlo simulation
To enhance the robustness of the results, the scenarios are further assessed by means of the Monte
Carlo simulation, which is readily available in openLCA. In fact, Monte Carlo simulations are carried out
to test the effects of changes in the source of power generation. As mentioned earlier, Monte Carlo
simulations are limited to the CExD.
As the scenarios are defined by 33% change in the source of power generation, Monte Carlo analysis is
carried out to confirm that CExD is sensitive to 33% change in the source of power generation. To do so,
parameters taking into account 33% change in the source of power generation are used in the Monte
Carlo simulations as reported in [ 15] . These parameters are derived based on the minimum and
maximum values.
The procedure of Monte Carlo simulations must be repeated often enough in order to be sure to obtain
input values that adequately represent the selected probability distribution. In this study, each Monte
Carlo simulation takes precisely 10,000 runs in OpenLCA.
As a result of the Monte Carlo simulation, confidence intervals estimating the values of the CExD of
scenarios 2–7 are formed and approximated with uniform distribution to obtain the values of the
obtained confidence intervals (95%). Based on the probability distribution of the input data, the Monte
Carlo simulation provides the distribution and confidence intervals of the results of each preference to
obtain the total forecast value ranges of CExD for scenarios 2–7.
If there is a high deviation of mean value from the determinist one for all scenarios, it can be concluded
that the environmental impacts of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process are sensitive
adequate to the power input in order to provide a basis for comparisons between the different routes,
leading to drawing robust conclusions due to the varying the class of power generation.
2.2 LCA information
The environmental impacts of the base case of an ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process
including the electricity generation from the fossil and the renewable sources in the US have been
estimated using LCA. The following paragraphs describe the goal and scope of the study as well as the
systems considered.
The main goal of the study is to estimate the life cycle environmental impacts of ethylene dichloride–
vinyl chloride production process including the electricity generation from the fossil and the renewable
sources in the US. A further aim is to compare the impacts from different scenarios to help inform future
energy planning.
The functional unit is defined as 1 kg ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride monomer. In other words, the
objective of the process that is considered for the base case is to produce 1 kg ethylene dichloride–vinyl
chloride monomer from 0.535 kg chlorine and 0.453 kg ethylene, 0.3605 kWh the electricity generated
by the residual fuel oil, and 0.12523 m3 natural gas combusted in the boilers detailed in [ 20] .
Regarding the scope of the study for the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process as well
as all electricity options, [ 5] shows the model graph for the product system under consideration to
present all the chains of the whole process.
By definition, LCA considers the entire life cycle of a product including the natural gas combusted in
industrial boiler, electricity at grid, transport by combination of diesel-powered trucks, and transport by
diesel-powered train. This means that the LCA needs the material and energy inputs and outputs in the
systems mentioned above and thus goes beyond the consideration of material and energy flows of the
ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride production process itself. [ 25] presents examples of such material and
energy flows for the power generation process by residual fuel oil.
This case study is mainly based on the data available in openLCA ([ 57] ), an open-source licensed LCA
software package. In fact, according to a recent case study ([ 58] ), this data is based on the “U.S. Life
Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database” administered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ([ 54] ). In
addition, according to the case study ([ 58] ), having download this database, the [ 23] impact
assessment methods are inserted and the NREL flows to the impact assessment methods are linked.
Moreover, according to US Life-Cycle Inventory Database ([ 54] ), the inventory data and the metadata
are available in full in a report ([ 26] ) reviewed within Franklin Associates and undergone partial critical
review by ACC Plastics Division members.
The presented production process is based on chlorination of ethylene in liquid phase using ferric
chloride catalyst. First, ethylene dichloride is produced from the reaction of ethylene and chlorine.
Ethylene is chlorinated in the liquid phase at a temperature of 20°–120 °C and a pressure of 5.10 bar. A
ferric chloride catalyst is used to drive the reaction. The crude product from the reactor is then purified
by distillation to yield ethylene dichloride. On the other hand, vinyl chloride monomer is produced almost
exclusively by thermal cleavage (dehydrochlorination) of ethylene dichloride. The ethylene dichloride is
fed to the cracking unit to form vinyl chloride monomer and hydrochloric acid. The hydrochloric acid from
this process is fed back to the ethylene dichloride reaction. Unreacted ethylene dichloride is separated
from the vinyl chloride monomer ([ 26] ).
In other words, reaction of ethylene and chlorine using a ferric chloride catalyst is followed by
purification to yield ethylene dichloride, which can be thermally cleaved to produce vinyl chloride
monomer. Unreacted ethylene dichloride can be sold off as a coproduct from vinyl chloride monomer
production, but this depends on the producer ([ 54] ).
2.3 Life cycle impact assessment methods
To associate the inventory data with potential environmental impacts, it is needed to choose one life
cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method. There are a number of LCIA methods reviewed by ([ 38] ).
One of the most up-to-date LCIA methods today is ReCiPe ([ 35] ), which is a combination of the well-
established methods of CML 2002 ([ 37] ) and Eco-Indicator 99 ([ 34] ).
In a recent review paper ([ 47] ), it is highly recommended to use ReCiPe in future analyses in
combination with the up-to-date ecoinvent dataset to improve the actuality, comparability and
consistency of LCA studies. Therefore, in this study, the environmental effects have been assessed with
impact methods defined in the ReCiPe endpoint method for the hierarchist perspective using physical
allocation method and “World ReCiPe H/H [person/year]” normalization and weighting set ([ 1] ).
2.3.1 ReCiPe
A comprehensive description of the category indicators is presented in the 2.3.1 ReCiPe main report ([
35] ). However, to give an impression of the way the impact assessment works, the category climate
change is described in the following paragraphs.
The impact category of climate change summarizes the effects of elementary output substances that
contribute to global warming. The estimation of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a certain
substance appearing in the LCI is carried out by the use of equivalence factors that have been defined
in the report of the IPCC. These equivalence factors are computed according to Eq. [ 5] .
( 1) G W P x , T = ∫ 0 T a x [ x ( t ) ] d t ∫ 0 T a r [ r ( t ) ] d t
where GWPx,T is global warming potential of substance x, T is time horizon under consideration, ax is
radiative efficiency as a result of an increase in abundance of x, x(t) is time dependent abundance of the
substance x, and the corresponding quantities for the reference gas are in the denominator.
The term ax describes the power of the substance x to increase the radiative forcing and the term x(t)
designates the lifetime of the gas since the gases in the atmosphere are subjected to different types of
effects that influence their concentrations such as chemical reactions with other gases or degradation
caused for example by UV-radiation.
In Eq. [ 5] , the quality that is used to describe the climate change is the increase of radiative forcing
caused by a greenhouse gas relative to a reference gas. In the case of the climate change, the
reference gas is CO2, which is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The direct relative
radiative forcing per ppbv (part per billion, volume basis) is derived from infrared radiative transfer
models based on laboratory measurements of the molecular properties of each substance and taking
into account the molecular weights.
2.3.2 CExD
Besides, the evaluation of energy-intensive chemical processes further strongly benefits from the
energy-related impact categories available in openLCA such as CED (Cumulative Energy Demand) and
2.3.2 CExD. However, 2.3.2 CExD is a more comprehensive indicator compared to the CED because of
taking into account the quality of energy and the integration of non-energetic resources.
According to literature ([ 70] ), exergy is defined as “the maximum amount of work that can be produced
by a system or a flow of matter or energy as it comes to equilibrium with a reference environment rather
the exergy is consumed or destroyed, due to the irreversibility for any real process”. Accordingly, exergy
is a measure for quality of energy. Exergy analysis provides an effective tool for evaluating the quality
and quantity of a resource, as it represents the maximum of the quantity of the resource that can be
converted into work, given the prevailing environmental conditions.
In many cases, exergetic methods take on a life-cycle viewpoint, quantifying the “ cumulated” exergy
consumption of a product or process from “cradle to grave”. In this regard, it is analogous to LCA. In
fact, exergy analysis can be part of an LCA, representing a method for the LCIA of resource
consumption such as 2.3.2 CExD. It is a measure of the depletion of exergy linked with the material
conversion from its natural state to products, resulting in an indicator of the global utilization of
resources ([ 19] ).
The work of [ 5] is the foundation of the implementation of the 2.3.2 CExD method. 2.3.2 CExD signifies
the total elimination of exergy in the generation of a system product, which means the exergy demand
by all necessary resources. The 2.3.2 CExD is equivalent to the definition of “cumulative exergy
consumption” ([ 70] ) as both quantify the required total exergy for a product. 2.3.2 CExD represents the
total exergy required by a process for a period, and it is specified in MJ equivalents to show that it is an
impact assessment indicator and not an inventory elementary flow, namely:
( 2) C E x D = ∑ i m i. E x ( c h ) , i + ∑ j n j. r e x − j , k
where mi represents the mass of resource i (kg), Ex(ch),i is the exergy per kg of substance i (MJ-eq/kg),
nj represents the amount of energy from energy carrier j (MJ), rex is the relation of exergy to energy of
the carrier j (MJ-eq/MJ), ch represents the chemical exergy and finally k is the physical exergy.
The chemical exergy is computed by adding up the exergy of the mole fractions (Eq. [ 15] ).
( 3) E x c h = ∑ n j. e x c h , j
where Exch is molar chemical exergy of material (kJ/mol), nj is mole fraction of substance j in material
(dimensionless).
If the composition is known, the chemical exergy can be computed based on the chemical formation
reaction, using the Gibbs free energy of formation and the exergy of the chemical elements in the
substance (Eq. [ 20] ).
( 4) e x c h , j ° = Δ f G i ° ∑ e l n e l. e x c h , e l °
where e x c h , j ° is standard molar chemical exergy of substance (kJ/mol), Δ f G i ° is standard Gibbs

free energy of formation of substance (kJ/mol), e x c h , e l ° is standard partial molar chemical exergy of
elements in substance (kJ/mol), and nel is number of elements in compound (dimensionless).
Regarding elementary metal, an allocation factor was applied to allocate the total exergy of an ore to the
distinct metals. Allocation is required to avoid double counting. For example, cadmium and zinc are
retrieved from the same ore. Consequently, the exergy of the ore needs to be allocated to these two
metals (Eq. [ 25] ).
( 5) E x c h , j ° = E x c h , o °. a ( r , m ) , j. 1 c j
where Ex ° ch, j is exergy per kg elementary metal j (MJ/kg), Ex ° ch, o is exergy per kg ore (MJ/kg), cj is
mass fraction of metal j in ore (dimensionless), a ( r , m ), j represents allocation factor for metal j
(dimensionless), r is revenue allocation, and m represents mass allocation.
In addition, thermal exergy is characterized by a Carnot cycle to specify the obtainable work from a heat
source (Eq. [ 30] ):
( 6) E x t h = Q h ( T h − T c ) T h
where Exth is thermal exergy (MJ), Qh is energy from heat source (MJ), Th is temperature of the heat
source (K), and Tc represents temperature of the environment (K).
2.4 Monte Carlo simulation
The analysis of the total power demand in the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride process as an energy-
intensive process, needs to be performed. According to literature ([ 2] ), the analysis of uncertainty
eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/delivery?sid=412332b4-d36f-4aeb-a8c1-1f1744e12649%40sessionmgr103&vid=2&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2feds.b.ebsc… 10/34
concerns measuring the degree to which each input causes the uncertainty in the output. Consider
function f, with two uncertain inputs, x 1 and x 2, and one output, y :
( 7) y = f ( x 1, x 2)
The analysis of uncertainty is the degree to which x contributes to y. Approaches to measure this are
termed measures of uncertainty importance, and are designated by U ( x , y ). The simplest measure of
uncertainty importance is sensitivity. This is the rate of change of the output y with respect to variation in
an input x, i.e. the partial derivatives of output y with respect to each input. Sensitivity is accordingly
defined as:
( 8) U s ( x , y ) = [ ∂ y / ∂ x ] x 0
where x0 = (x10, x20) and x10, x20 designate the nominal input values such as the mean, median or mode
of the input probability distribution. This normalized sensitivity, defined as the ratio of the relative change
in y induced by a unit relative change in x , is called elasticity:
( 9) U E ( x , y ) = [ ∂ y / ∂ x ] x 0 × ( x 0 / y 0 )
Sensitivity and elasticity take into account only the slopes of the response surface and do not take into
account the degree of uncertainty in each input. An input that has a slight sensitivity but a large
uncertainty may be as important as an input with a larger sensitivity but smaller uncertainty. Gaussian or
first order approximation is the simplest uncertainty analysis that takes into account both sensitivity and
uncertainty. In this method, a variable’s uncertainty importance is calculated as the product of its
sensitivity and uncertainty, σ :
( 10) U G ( x , y ) = [ ∂ y / ∂ x ] x 0 × σ
Gaussian approximation is accordingly quite precise for smooth functions and small uncertainties, but is
likely to yield misleading results for complex functions and large uncertainties. The nominal range
sensitivity method calculates the effect on the output of changing each input from its low to high value,
while maintaining the other inputs at their nominal values:
( 11) UR ( x 1, y ) = f ( x 1+, x 20) − f ( x 1−, x 20)
( 12) UR ( x 2, y ) = f ( x 10, x 2+) − f ( x 10, x 2−)
where ( x 1−, x 1+) and ( x 2−, x 2+) denote the bounds of reasonable variation for the inputs. The nominal
range sensitivity is not truly global, as it keeps all the other inputs at their nominal values when
examination the effect of each input. Therefore, a method is needed that assesses the effect of each
parameter for several values of the other inputs. This can be achieved by a parametric analysis that
assesses y for a sequence of different values for each input, maintaining the others constant.
The probability tree, an extension of the scenario tree, is a beneficial way to represent possible
combinations of inputs. The creation of a probability tree needs that the uncertainty in the input
parameters to be expressed as discrete probability distributions. Nevertheless, uncertain quantities are
commonly continuous rather than discrete. It is mathematically too complicated for all but the simplest
cases to achieve an analytical solution for the probability distribution of a function of a set of continuous
random variables. An alternative approach is 2.4 Monte Carlo simulation. In this approach, all the
combinatorial scenarios are reflected by selecting a random sample of scenarios for assessment. Each
scenario is made by selecting each branch at a node in accordance with its assigned probability, and as
the computational effort is dependent on sample size and not on the number of possible values for each
parameter, the branch values may be made directly from the main continuous distribution, avoiding the
need to discretize. For models with a huge number of uncertain variables, Monte Carlo methods are in
general superior to probability tree methods on the grounds of the computational effort needed.
Furthermore, Monte Carlo methods give a simple measure of uncertainty importance, that of a
correlation analysis.
In fact, 2.4 Monte Carlo simulation is the best-known and simplest approach for sampling from the
uncertain input domain. In this technique, a value is drawn at random from the distribution for each
uncertain input, generating a set of random values. This set, comprising one value for each input,
defines a scenario employed as input to the model, from which the corresponding output is calculated.
The process is repeated m times, generating m stand-alone scenarios and their output values. The m
output values form a random sample from the probability distribution over the output provoked by the
probability distributions over the inputs. Standard statistical methods can then be utilized to approximate
the accuracy of the output distribution derived from this random sample. The precision of the estimates
of the output distribution’s parameters is governed by the sample size m , and not on the number of
uncertain inputs n. This is for the reason that the output sample is made of separate random values
from the output distribution, and how representative the sample is of the output distribution is
irrespective of the number of uncertain inputs. The number of runs needed, m , depends on the relative
accuracy needed of the output distribution. For a certain degree of uncertainty, m is consequently
independent of n , the number of uncertain inputs, though the computational effort to run the model is
usually proportional to n.
As 2.4 Monte Carlo simulation is a useful tool for measuring the total uncertainty aggregated by various
uncertainty factors with nonlinear relation, in this study, the total power demand is the aggregation of
power demand in various unit operations. If the power demand in each activity is taken as a stochastic
factor considering the uncertainty of parameters, then the total power demand should also be a
stochastic factor. The statistical characteristics of the total power demand can be determined using its
probability distribution obtained by 2.4 Monte Carlo simulation. By means of standard statistical
techniques, an approximation of the number of samples needed to meet the desired accuracy can be
computed, either from stating the tolerable uncertainty regarding the mean, or from stating needed
confidence intervals for the fractiles. Wherever the random sample of m output variables is provided by (
y 1, y 2, y 3, …, ym ), the mean and standard deviation of y are approximated by:
( 13) y ¯ = ∑ i = 1 m y i m
( 14) s 2 = ∑ i = 1 m ( y i − y ¯ ) 2 m − 1
The required confidence interval, with confidence ɑ, is afterward given by:
( 15) ( y ¯ − c s m ⋅ y ¯ + c s m )
where c is the deviation for the unit normal enclosing probability ɑ. To find an estimate of the mean of y
with a confidence interval ɑ smaller than w units wide, the width of the interval have to be less than w ,
i.e.
( 16) 2 c s m < w
The number of samples required can be determined by specifying the required accuracy of the
estimation of the median or of the other fractiles. Supposing the m sample values of y are relabelled to
be in growing order, i.e. y 1 ≤ y 2 ≤ … ≤ ym sample value yi is an estimation of fractile Yp where p = i/m.
The confidence interval, ɑ , for a pair of sample values can be presented to be provided by ( yi , yk ),
where:
( 17) i = m p − c m p ( 1 − p )
( 18) k = m p + c m p ( 1 − p )
and the values of i and k are rounded down and up correspondingly. Assuming confidence, ɑ , of the
fractile Yp is identified as being between the sample value estimates of the p − Δ p th and p + Δ p th
fractile, i.e. i = m ( p − Δ p ) and k = m ( p + Δ p ). These expressions for i and k can be merged with the
above equations for i and k to give:
( 19) m = p ( 1 − p ) ( c Δ p ) 2
For this estimation of m , no previous sample runs require to be performed and the number of samples
can be found directly from the specified accuracy ([ 2] ). For instance, a 95% confidence interval for the
50th percentile to be plus or minus one estimated percentile, gives p = 0.5, Δp = 0.01 and c, the
deviation including 95% of the probability of the unit normal, almost equal to 2. To achieve this very high
accuracy, approximately 10,000 runs are needed ([ 2] ). Therefore, in this work, 2.4 Monte Carlo
simulations are conducted in openLCA with 10,000 iterations like what is already chosen by literature ([
8] ).
3 Results and discussion

3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Process constraints
The first step is to define process constraints. As mentioned earlier, the scope of this study is the
transition period, means that the heart of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, the
synthesis reactor, becomes a black box. Therefore, these process constraints make it impossible to
define scenarios where the synthesis block undergoes a retrofitting project.
3.1.2 Scoping and diagnosis
The second step is to identify the units that predominantly cause the environmental effects. To do so,
LCA has been applied to the base case of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process.
3.1.2.1 ReCiPe
[ 30] reports the list of the environmental impacts and the corresponding values. Based on the 3.1.2.1
ReCiPe, the environmental impacts of the base case are reported in terms of three main categories.
The ecosystems — total impact is approximated at 6.84E-09 species year, made up five subcategories
including climate change potential assessed at 6.80E-09 species year which is several orders of
magnitude higher than marine ecotoxicity potential calculated approximately at 2.12E-13 species year.
The second category is human health valued at 1.62E-06 DALY in total, consisted of five subcategories
including climate change potential evaluated at 1.20E-06 DALY, which is several orders of magnitude
higher than photochemical oxidant formation approximated at 5.35E-11 DALY. The last category is
resources estimated at 0.02951$, comprised by only one subcategory of fossil depletion.
Nevertheless, it is not possible to compare these environmental impacts, as they do not possess the
identical unit. Consequently, these environmental impacts have been normalized by means of the
weighing factors.
As a result, the right side of [ 30] reports that the most damaging environmental impacts. Resources —
fossil depletion with the normalized value of 1.20E-04 is the top environmental impact. Human health —
total with the normalized quantity of 1.20E-04 is the second most damaging environmental impact. The
subcategory of human health — climate change with the normalized value of 8.81E-05 is the third most
damaging environmental impact, which makes the human health — total, the second impact. Particulate
matter formation — human health is at the next place with the normalized quantity of 2.23E-05. It should
be noted that the ecosystems — total has the value of 7.46E-06. The contributions in terms of both
process and chemical constituents for these categories/subcategories are detailed in the following
sections.
3.1.2.1.1 Resources — fossil depletion
The units that initiate the environmental impact of resources — fossil depletion are pinpointed by means
of [ 35] . The natural gas, at extraction site (94.25%) is at top of the list followed by the bituminous coal,
at mine (5.08%) mainly owing to the extraction of natural gas (94.25%), bituminous coal 24.8 MJ/kg
(5.08%), crude oil (0.66%) as reported in [ 35] , primarily from natural gas extraction site, which is the
process limitations as defined earlier.
3.1.2.1.2 Human health — total
It can be observed that the human health — total is at the second rank with value of 1.20E-04. To
pinpoint the building blocks that are the sources of the environmental impact of human health — total, [
35] can be employed. The steam generation system supplied by natural gas (34.16%) is at the top of
the list followed by the electricity generation system supplied by the residual fuel oil (32.94%),
underlining the contribution of utilities in the damage to human health. Furthermore, the main chemical
components causing this environmental impact are reported in [ 35] . This environmental impact is
primarily due to the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil (65.97%), sulphur dioxide (12.09%),
methane (4.00%), mercury (3.59%), and nitrogen oxides (3.44%). Note that carbon dioxide and
methane as the top five chemical components are not due to the intrinsic nature of the ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, and can be reduced through an improved power
generation system as described later.
3.1.2.1.3 Human health — climate change
The units that affect the environmental impact of human health — climate change are found in [ 35] .
The steam generation system supplied by natural gas (44.12%) is at the top of the list followed by the
electricity generation system supplied by residual fuel oil (39.46%), highlighting the influence of utilities
in damage to human health due to climate change. As reported in [ 35] , the large majority of this impact
is because of the releases of carbon dioxide from fossil (89.16%), methane (5.40%) and carbon dioxide
(4.35%). Similar to the discussion presented earlier, the chemical constituents such as carbon dioxide
and methane are not associated with the heart of process technology and can be avoided.
3.1.2.1.4 Human health — particulate matter formation
The blocks that affect the environmental impact of human health — particulate matter formation are
pinpointed through [ 35] . The natural gas, processed at plant (60.95%) is at the top of the list followed
by the electricity generation system supplied by residual fuel oil (19.22%) and the steam generation
system supplied by natural gas (7.99%) and bituminous coal (7.36%) emphasizing the contribution of
utilities in damage to human health as a result of particulate matter formation. As reported in [ 35] , the
large majority of this environmental impact is caused by the emissions of sulphur dioxide (64.65%),
nitrogen oxides (18.37%), sulphur oxides (9.31%), and particulates between 2.5 and 10 μm (7.57%).
3.1.2.1.5 Ecosystems — total
Although the ecosystems — total is not at the top of list in [ 30] , it needs to be detailed because of its
importance. The components that cause the environmental impact of ecosystems — total are identified
using [ 35] . The steam generation system supplied by natural gas (43.92%) is at the top of the list
followed by the electricity generation system supplied by residual fuel oil (39.35%), underscoring the
contribution of utilities in damage to ecosystems in total. As reported in [ 35] , this environmental impact
is mainly because of releases of carbon dioxide — fossil (88.74%), methane (5.37%) and carbon
dioxide (4.33%).
3.1.2.2 CExD
Furthermore, the indicator 3.1.2.2 CExD represents the exergy of resources that are taken away from
nature and, as a result, are not accessible anymore in future exploitation. Based on the 3.1.2.2 CExD
findings, the total environmental impact of the base case already analysed, is equivalent of 5.19446 MJ
nonrenewable energy resources. Because of the fact that 3.1.2.2 CExD applies the exergy concept to
the resources comprised in the ecoinvent database taking into account all types of exergy like chemical
and thermal exergies, 3.1.2.2 CExD can describe total exergy removal from nature to provide a product
summing up the exergy of all resources required. Moreover, the 3.1.2.2 CExD indicator evaluates the
quality of energy requirements and incorporates the exergy of energy carriers as well as non-energetic
materials.
The units that cause the environmental impacts based on CEXD are pinpointed through [ 40] . The
steam generation system supplied by natural gas (93.97%) is at the top of the list followed by the units
such as the electricity generation system supplied by residual fuel oil (0.86%), stressing the contribution
of utilities in damage to the environment.
3.1.3 Assessment of the base case through Monte Carlo simulation

3.1.3.1 Inputs and outputs of Monte Carlo simulation
Having activated the simulation with the randomization cycle set to 10,000 trials, the numerical findings
have been depicted in the form of a frequency forecast chart ([ 10] ). The mean value of Monte Carlo
simulation for the base case is 5.194 MJ equivalent of fossil energy sources.
In addition, [ 10] shows the results of Monte Carlo simulation in terms of the standard deviation. The
standard deviation for the CExD is 9.284E-3 MJ equivalent, revealing that the uncertainties from the
input parameters in this study are acceptable.
As a result of the Monte Carlo simulation, confidence intervals estimating the values of the CExD of the
base case have been formed and approximated with normal distribution at the significance level of 0.05.
The value of the obtained confidence intervals (95%) is 5.209 MJ equivalent.
3.1.3.2 Outcomes of Monte Carlo simulation
Because of high deviation of mean value from the determinist one, it can be concluded that 33% is
considerable enough to be a different option for power demand. In other words, as the scope of this
work is limited to the transition period, we need to know how much change in power demand from the
inferior energy source into a superior one, can be defined as a new scenario. The high deviation in LCA
findings for CExD indicates that the environmental profiles of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride
production process are sensitive adequate to the power input, and provide a better basis for the LCA
comparisons between the different scenarios of power generation. Otherwise, the LCA results do not
allow drawing robust conclusions due to the varying the type of power generation.
Therefore, the following sections are dedicated to this important unit to evaluate the available solutions
in the short- to medium-terms as well as the long-term alternatives in order to mitigate the environmental
damages of the whole life cycle of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process.
3.1.4 Scenarios definition
Having assessed the life cycle of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production, the most negative
block and as the main source of the damage to the environment has been pinpointed to be the power
generation unit. Notice that the demand for electricity is relatively higher than that for other forms of
energy because of its use in compression stages, motors and electronics. Therefore, it seems
appropriate to define scenarios where this unit has been undergone the retrofitting.
Note that as feedstock of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process is a fossil fuel, it is
not expected to enhance dramatically the environmental sustainability with small modifications without
any change of intrinsic nature of the process itself. Moreover, process constraints regarding the
technology such as the reactor make it impossible to define scenarios where the synthesis block
undergoes a retrofitting project. Therefore, only the utilities that are out of these constraints can be
emphasized for the scenarios definition.
As listed in [ 10] , seven possibilities include alternative sourcing of electricity to assess the application
of three electricity sources. The first three scenarios are dedicated to change the fuel from the residual
fuel oil to natural gas. In the second three scenarios, the type of the fuel will be changed from natural
gas to biomass as a long-term renewable energy to mitigate the environmental effects.
3.1.5 Environmental sustainability assessment of scenarios

3.1.5.1 ReCiPe
The results of the environmental sustainability assessment for each type of the electricity possibility are
given in [ 15] where each impact is discussed in turn in the next sections.
The findings in [ 15] suggest that the scenario 7 is the most sustainable choice whereas the worst
possibility is the option 4 with 6 impacts higher than any other alternatives. As detailed in [ 20] , for 10
out of 11 impacts, the scenario 7 is the most sustainable option in terms of climate change and also all
the ecotoxicity categories, terrestrial acidification, ozone depletion, particulate matter formation and
fossil depletion.
However, as shown in [ 20] , the scenario 4 has the lowest photochemical oxidant formation potential
and it increases by rise in the share of the biomass power generation technology from scenarios 4 to 7
dramatically. This has emphasized the importance of LCA in quantifying of each impact compared to the
biased analysis. In other words, the prejudgements can present the biomass power as a less damaging
energy source from all the aspects. Nevertheless, LCA shows that the biomass power can even less
sustainable than natural gas from the perspective of photochemical oxidant formation impact that might
make the sustainability of the biomass power questionable. Nevertheless, we need to take into account
all the impacts as presented in the following sections.
In summary, despite the fact that the impact of photochemical oxidant formation makes the biomass the
least sustainable choice, the biomass-supplied power option becomes the most sustainable solution
compared to the alternative of natural gas and certainly the residual fuel oil by considering results of all
other impacts discussed in more detail below.
3.1.5.1.1 Ecosystems — climate change
As shown in [ 20] , option 1 has the highest climate change impact (5.23E-09 species year) followed by
option 2 (5.14E-09 species year). This impact for the base case is primarily due to the emission of
carbon dioxide and methane. Option 7 is the most advantageous alternatives for this indicator with a
value of 2.87E-09 species year.
3.1.5.1.2 Ecosystems — freshwater ecotoxicity
As depicted in [ 20] , the impact of freshwater ecotoxicity shows the different trend than the climate
change impact: the natural gas power is the most terrible choice with 1.22E-12 species year. This
quantity is one order of magnitude more than the renewables and even the residual fuel oil power. For
example, the impact from residual fuel oil power in option 1 is 6.61E-13 species year mainly owing to
the discharges of silver, barium, copper ion and nickel.
3.1.5.1.3 Ecosystems — marine ecotoxicity
As can be observed in [ 20] , the ranking of the possibilities for this environmental impact is the same as
for freshwater ecotoxicity. In other words, the option 4 is severer than any other possibility with impact of
2.30E-13 species year followed by option 3 with 2.00E-13 species year. The impact from the other
alternatives is the same orders of magnitude, with the biomass power being the best route at 1.22E-13
species year. The main reason for the high impact from the fossil fuel technologies such as the base
case is the discharge of barium, silver, nickel and mercury.
3.1.5.1.4 Ecosystems — terrestrial acidification
As demonstrated in [ 20] , the option 4 is the most unbearable option for this indicator, with a value of
2.93E-11 species year. Terrestrial acidification for the base case is chiefly because of the releases of
sulphur dioxide, sulphur oxides, and nitrogen oxides.
3.1.5.1.5 Ecosystems — terrestrial ecotoxicity
As displayed in [ 20] , the base case is significantly worse than any other route, with an estimated
terrestrial ecotoxicity of 1.11E-12 species year mainly due to the emissions of mercury, nickel, cobalt,
chlorine and selenium, followed by option 2 with 7.91E-13 species year. The biomass power is the most
advantageous alternative with 1.12E-13 species year, which is the same order of magnitude as the
natural gas power (1.30E-13 species year).
3.1.5.1.6 Human health — climate change
As shown in [ 20] , the biomass power choice has the lowest climate change impact, assessed at 5.07E-
07 DALY. The gas power is estimated to generate 8.75E-07 DALY, which makes it the worst possibility
among the alternative sources of energy. However, the residual fuel oil power is significantly severer
than any other routes, with an estimate of 9.24E-07 DALY, followed by option 2 with 9.08E-07 DALY and
option 3 with 8.91E-07 DALY. For the base case, the majority of climate change is because of releases
of carbon dioxide and methane.
3.1.5.1.7 Human health — human toxicity
As presented in [ 20] , the trend of human toxicity is totally different than the climate change. Option 4 is
the most unpleasant alternative for this indicator, with a value of 7.49E-08 DALY. For the base case, it is
largely because of emissions of mercury, barium and arsenic ion. The most sustainable preference is
biomass power with human toxicity of 4.13E-08 DALY.
3.1.5.1.8 Human health — ozone depletion
As presented in [ 20] , all the options result in the same impact regarding this indicator with a value of
2.08E-12 DALY. This impact for the base case is largely due to releases of methane (tetrachloro-, and
R-10).
3.1.5.1.9 Human health — particulate matter formation
As depicted in [ 20] , the impact of particulate matter formation shows the same trend as the impacts of
human toxicity: the gas power is the most terrible choice with 2.88E-07 DALY. For the base case, it is
mainly owing to the discharges of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, and particulates
between 2.5 and 10 μm.
3.1.5.1.10 Human health — photochemical oxidant formation
As discussed earlier, although the common sense considers scenario 5 as a more sustainable than
scenario 4, LCA results in terms of photochemical oxidant formation proves inverse. Taking into account
of all impacts, according to the LCA, scenario 5 is more sustainable than scenario 4. However, in terms
of photochemical oxidant formation criterion, scenario 4 causes less damage to the environment,
compared to scenario 5 as presented in [ 20] . The large majority of this impact for the base case, is
largely due to the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, sulphur oxides, carbon monoxide,
methane.
3.1.5.1.11 Resources — fossil depletion
As expected, by adding the contribution of renewable energy sources, the environmental sustainability
of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride monomer production process can be increased specially in
terms of fossil depletion sources. As shown in [ 20] , option 4 has the highest fossil depletion (3.69E-02
$) followed by options 3 and 5 (3.1E-02 $). This impact for the base case is primarily due to the flows of
natural gas, the bituminous coal 24.8 MJ/kg, and crude oil. The biomass power is the best alternative for
this indicator with a value of 1.95E-02 $. In other words, as expected, the depletion fossil resources are
highest for the fossil-fuel power generation units with 1.97E-02 $ for the residual fuel oil and 3.69E-02 $
for natural gas. By comparison, the depletion of fossil resources for the renewable routes is almost
equal to the options based on the residual fuel oil. Scenario 7 (totally renewable route) and scenario 1
cause almost the same impact of 2.0E-02 $. Likewise, scenario 6 (67% renewable resource) and
scenario 2 cause the same impact of 2.5E-02 $.
3.1.5.2 CExD
The results of 3.1.5.2 CExD for the total ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process including
power generation are summarized in [ 25] , which has important implications as it considers exergy
depletion as a measure of sustainability for the entire production process.
[ 25] shows that a range of 3.1.5.2 CExD is possible, from approximately 5.15–9.76 MJ equivalent of
non-renewable energy resources depending on the processing route. In fact, the rankings of options
change depending on the utilization of the power generation technologies. As depicted in [ 25] , the
utilization of the biomass for the power generation are preferred as opposed to the natural gas power.
More specifically, electricity from the biomass sources is more sustainable than that from the residual
fuel oil and natural gas. In addition, 3.1.5.2 CExD is influenced by the natural gas power source. The
gas-supplied electricity appears the worst alternative compared to the electricity from the biomass
source and even the use of electricity from the residual fuel oil source. In other words, the fuel oil power
is much more sustainable compared to the gas power.
Higher percentages of renewable energy carriers reduce 3.1.5.2 CExD and also influence concerns
such as conservation of nonrenewable resources and greenhouse gas emissions as shown earlier by
ReCiPe. Scenario 5 (with lower 3.1.5.2 CExD) is based on the fossil sources with 67% natural gas, and
on renewables with 33% the biomass. Scenario 6 is established on the fossil sources with 33% natural
gas, and on renewables with 67% the biomass.
3.1.6 Further assessment of scenarios through Monte Carlo simulation
As mentioned earlier, to enhance the robustness of the results, the scenarios are further assessed by
means of the Monte Carlo simulation where assessment is limited to the CExD. Moreover, it should be
noted that the sum of total impact categories assessed by ReCiPe ([ 15] ) shows the same trend as
those evaluated by CExD ([ 25] ).
Parameters used in the Monte Carlo simulations are presented in [ 15] . As mentioned earlier, these
parameters are derived based on the minimum and maximum values. Moreover, precisely, 10,000
Monte Carlo simulations are run in OpenLCA.
As a result of the Monte Carlo simulation, confidence intervals estimating the values of the CExD of
scenarios 2–7 have been formed and approximated with uniform distribution. The values of the obtained
confidence intervals (95%) are 8.102, 9.614, 11.159, 9.604, 8.056 and 5.146.
Based on the probability distribution of the input data ([ 15] ), the Monte Carlo simulation provides the
distribution and confidence intervals of the results of each preference. The findings are presented in [
30] that shows the outcome of changing the confidence interval to 95%. The total forecast value ranges
of CExD for scenarios 2–7 forecast value amounted to the mean values of 6.707, 8.209, 9.744, 8.198,
6.678 and 5.146, respectively.
As a consequence of high deviation of mean value from the determinist one for all possibilities, it can be
concluded that the environmental impacts of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process
are sensitive adequate to the power input to provide a basis for comparisons between the different
routes, leading to drawing robust conclusions due to the varying the class of power generation.
Overall, the carried out Monte Carlo analysis suggested the defining scenario based on the presented
model is quite sensitive to 33% change in the source of power generation. Hence, application of Monte
Carlo simulation is meaningful in such cases to avoid misleading decisions due to overestimation or
underestimation.
3.2 Discussion
The current study has demonstrated the important advantages of LCA in the specific case of an
ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process. These advantages lead to the concluding
remarks, which are not achievable without LCA. For instance, the unpleasant image of the ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride process technology originates from a thought that vinyl chloride itself is known
as one of the most hazardous chemical components to the human health. For example, vinyl chloride is
classified in group 1 human carcinogen posing elevated risks of brain and lung tumours ([ 42] ). On the
contrary, based on LCA that consider the whole chains to produce ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride, the
impact of ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride on human health is not at all as important as the impacts
associated with CO2, leading to different implications. Overall, despite the bias concerning ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride originating from the synthesis block, CO2 has much more adverse impact on
the human health (80%) and similarly on the ecosystem (91%) due to the residual fuel oil at the power
generator. This means that a special attention on the power generator in the case of ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride process is worthy to be taken to avoid the damages associated with the fuels
such as the residual fuel oil and quantify the impact of utilities, which is not the heart of technology and
can be undergone of revamping projects.
This study evaluated whether even without any process revamping at the heart of life cycle of ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production, there is a possibility towards environmentally sustainable ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, which can be regarded as an achievable mid-term solution.
In this regard, several possible solutions for the transition period have been evaluated to reduce the
environmental impacts as much as possible with the existing technology including the process itself.
These solutions comprised the modification of utilities because the strict process constraints make the
modification of the process itself impossible.
In addition, the sensitivity of the whole ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process including
the utilities, transportations, and pipelines has been analysed to the bioenergy. Although the analysis of
the electricity generation system on a standalone basis could be performed without any attention to the
ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, the analysis of both systems in one single study is
helpful. This is because it allows the decision maker to specify the minimum amount of the unavailable
technology to fulfil the required specifications defined by the environmental regulations and heed to
literature ([ 15] ) suggesting investment in alternative energy sources. In other words, depending on the
electricity demand, in some cases even with one-third increase in contributions of alternative energy
sources such as bioenergy, the unsustainability of the whole ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride
production process can be reduced dramatically as it is the case for scenarios 5–7. It is especially
interesting for scenario 5 where only 33.33% introduction of the bioenergy to the energy mix results in
environmental impacts reduction compared with scenario 4. It highlights the importance of proper choice
of the energy mix among the available energy sources to increase the environmental sustainability when
congestion of non-fossil energy shows a rising trend in recent years ([ 78] ) and energy production
technologies are shifted away from high carbon content fossil-fuels towards low carbon content fossil-
based and renewable energies ([ 79] ) i.e. clean energy transition.
In this regard, LCA quantifies the environmental impact of each scenario to enable us for evaluation of
each modification on the sustainability of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process.
More precisely, at the first step of transition towards sustainability by taking into account the growing
trend of natural gas power generation by the year 2022 ([ 72] ) and even further by 2030 ([ 77] ),
replacing the residual fuel oil with natural gas as a so-called “clean energy”, is investigated. This leads
to sustainability enhancement only in terms of the climate change (ecosystems and human health),
terrestrial ecotoxicity, and ozone depletion. However, it does not result in the overall sustainability
augmentation according to CExD and ReCiPe. This has emphasized the importance of LCA in
quantifying of each impact compared to the biased analysis, as this quantitative trend in sustainability
diminution is not expected at the beginning.
In other words, the prejudgements can present natural gas as a less damaging energy source
compared to the fuel oil. Nevertheless, LCA shows that natural gas can even less sustainable than the
residual fuel oil from the perspective of freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, terrestrial acidification,
human toxicity, particulate matter formation, and fossil depletion impacts, which can make the
sustainability of natural gas power questionable. It should be noted that a previous research on a
transition from heavy fuel oil to use of LNG or methanol produced from natural gas ([ 11] ) presented
that the impact on climate change is of the same order of magnitude as with use of heavy fuel oil while
the overall environmental performance can significantly be improved. A recent and comparable research
on bi-fuel thermal power plant ([ 16] ) presented that bi-fuel operation does not contribute to exacerbate
global trends in GHG emissions when compared with mono-fuel operation. Another recent research ([
12] ) which started with coal concluded that when the price of natural gas declines sharply can natural
gas units become one of the alternatives that reduce coal consumption and the related CO2 emissions.
Therefore, LCA enables us to make a right choice and instead of application of natural gas, short-term
solutions based on the residual fuel oil such as saving energy examined through tools such as pinch
analysis ([ 66] ) can be performed as the future works.
In addition, LCA results have suggested that the scenario 7 is the most sustainable alternative while the
worst choice is the scenario 4. More precisely, the scenario 7 is the most sustainable option in terms of
10 out of 11 impacts: climate change, all ecotoxicity categories, terrestrial acidification, freshwater
eutrophication, ozone depletion, particulate matter formation, and fossil depletion. The total
environmental impact of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride production process can be reduced from
5.19 to 5.15 MJ-eq according to CExD or from 2.47E-04 to 1.36E-04 according to ReCiPe by switching
fuel from the residual fuel oil to the biomass. However, unlike the scenario 7, the scenario 4 has the
lowest photochemical oxidant formation potential, highlighting the importance of LCA in quantifying of
each impact. In addition to this, LCA is capable to report how much the options based and the biomass
are lees sustainable in terms of photochemical oxidant formation impact, translating its impact to a
quantity comparable with other impacts.
Finally, it should be noted that as both the steam generation and the electricity generation systems are
the main sources of the environmental impacts, the proposed principle is also applicable to the steam
generation system to be performed in the future works. More importantly, applications of systems such
as the cogeneration system ([ 30] ) seems useful to reduce the environmental effects of the ethylene
dichloride–vinyl chloride production process, to be considered as the future works.
4 Conclusion
In the list of the mostly produced chemicals, vinyl chloride is a carcinogen and ethylene dichloride is a
toxic chemical besides the high-energy demand of their production process, which can also cause
environmental impacts. In order to pinpoint the key and avoidable cause of the environmental
unsustainability in the period of clean energy transition, and subsequently enhance the environmental
sustainability as much as achievable in a short term, this paper has presented an exergy-aided life cycle
assessments supported by Monte Carlo simulation as a case study.
Overall, LCA shows the importance of proper choice of the energy mix via conducting the sensitivity of
the whole cycle to the long-term energy sources to prove that under strict process constraints, boosting
sustainability is possible as LCA is beneficial to evaluate minimum amount of the renewables to achieve
sustainability under the worst conditions. More importantly, LCA is advantageous to quantify precisely
the impact of each chemical component on the environment including the human health, showing that
CO2 has much more adverse impacts than ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride. Additionally and even
more interestingly, LCA reveals that natural gas can even be less sustainable than the residual fuel oil in
terms of freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, terrestrial acidification, human toxicity, particulate
matter formation, and fossil depletion impacts.
Despite the fact that the current work is concentrated on the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride
production, the way it has been presented helps similar approaches to be developed for other
processes of interest. Therefore, this helps the process developers to evaluate continuously either the
existing or the new processes, and to apply lessons learned in one field to another. The present case
study demonstrates that even though a technology may be well developed; there can be still opportunity
for environmental improvements.
Table 1 Inventory data of the power generation processes by natural gas and biomass.
Fuel Natural gas Biomass

Flow Category Amount Unit Flow Category Amount Unit
3
Inputs Natural gas, Product 0.29829 m Carbon dioxide, in airResource/in 0.84323 kg
processed, at plant and waste air
flows
Transport, Product 0.05921 t km Disposal, solid waste Product 5.99E-04 kg
combination truck, and waste and waste
average fuel mix flows flows
Transport, pipeline Product 0.35372 t km Transport, Product 0.024604t km
and waste combination truck, and waste
flows average fuel mix flows
Transport, train, Product 0.003537t km Transport, train, Product 0.010545t km
diesel powered and waste diesel powered and waste

flows flows
OutputsArsenic Air 9.56E-10 kg Acidity Water 1.36E-08 kg
Benzene Air 1.00E-08 kg Aldehydes Air 1.38E-07 kg
Beryllium Air 5.73E-11 kg Ammonia Water 7.44E-06 kg
Cadmium Air 5.26E-09 kg Ammonia Air 3.51E-05 kg
Carbon dioxide, fossil Air 0.58466 kg Ammonia, as N Water 6.82E-09 kg
Carbon monoxide, Air 4.01E-04 kg BOD5, Biological Water 3.00E-07 kg
fossil Oxygen Demand
Chromium Air 6.69E-09 kg Carbon dioxide, Air 0.84323 kg
biogenic
Cobalt Air 4.01E-10 kg Carbon dioxide, Air 0.040356kg
fossil
Dinitrogen monoxide Air 1.07E-05 kg Carbon monoxide Air 7.22E-05 kg
Electricity, natural Product 1 kWhChloride Water 4.71E-09 kg
gas, at power plant and waste
flows
Formaldehyde Air 3.58E-07 kg Chloride Air 6.46E-10 kg
Lead Air 2.39E-09 kg COD, Chemical Water 8.98E-07 kg
Oxygen Demand
Manganese Air 1.82E-09 kg Cyanide Water 4.25E-11 kg
Mercury Air 1.24E-09 kg Dinitrogen monoxide Air 9.31E-06 kg
Methane, fossil Air 1.07E-05 kg Dissolved organic Water 4.17E-11 kg
matter
Naphthalene Air 2.91E-09 kg Dissolved solids Water 4.14E-05 kg
Nickel Air 1.00E-08 kg Electricity, biomass, Product 1 kWh
at power plant and waste
flows
Nitrogen oxides Air 4.78E-04 kg Fluoride Water 6.54E-09 kg
Particulates, >2.5 μm, Air 3.61E-05 kg Fluoride Air 8.06E-09 kg
and <10 μm
Radioactive species Air 0.001022kBq Hydrocarbons Water 5.22E-11 kg
Selenium Air 1.15E-10 kg Hydrogen chloride Air 2.02E-09 kg
Sulfur oxides Air 3.02E-06 kg Hydrogen fluoride Air 3.68E-10 kg
VOC, volatile organic Air 2.64E-05 kg Hydrogen sulfide Air 2.09E-11 kg
compounds
Iron Water 1.50E-12 kg
Isoprene Air 0.021181 kg
Metallic ions Water 6.37E-10 kg
Metals Air 2.40E-12 kg
Methane Air 4.85E-06 kg
Nitrate Water 4.57E-12 kg
Nitrate compounds Water 1.84E-10 kg
Nitric acid Water 4.13E-07 kg
Nitrogen oxides Air 6.59E-04 kg
NMVOC, non- Air 5.87E-04 kg
methane volatile
organic compounds
Oils Water 8.43E-07 kg
Organic substances Air 1.01E-06 kg
Particulates Air 3.82E-05 kg
Phenol Water 1.29E-10 kg
Sodium, ion Water 7.77E-10 kg
Solids, inorganic Water 1.05E-09 kg
Sulfate Water 7.82E-10 kg
Sulfide Water 8.49E-11 kg
Sulfur oxides Air 2.95E-04 kg
Suspended solids Water 2.26E-07 kg
Tar Water 1.04E-11 kg
Tar Air 7.27E-10 kg
Table 2 The share of the electricity production technologies per 1 kWh power demand (Ghannadzadeh,
2018).
Different colors are used to show the “image” of each fuel type.
Table 3 Input parameters in Monte Carlo simulations (per 1 kWh power demand).
ScenarioDistribution typeFuel oilNatural gasBiomass

Min. Max. Min. Max.Min.Max.
2 Uniform 0.33 1 0 0.67 – –
3 Uniform 0 0.67 0.33 1 – –
4 Uniform – – 0.67 1.33 – –
5 Uniform – – 0.33 1 0 0.67
6 Uniform – – 0 0.67 0.331
7 Uniform – – – – 0.671.33
Table 4 Inventory data of the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride monomer production – base case.
Inputs Outputs
Flow Amount Unit Flow AmountUnit
Chlorine, production mix, at plant 0.535 kg Carbon dioxide 0.0373 kg
Disposal, solid waste, to municipal 0.00332 kg Carbon monoxide 1.10E- kg
incineration I 05
Disposal, solid waste, to municipal 0.0217 kg Chloride 1.00E- kg
incineration II 08
Disposal, solid waste, to landfill 3.60E-04 kg Chlorine 1.00E- kg
06
Transport, pipeline, natural gas 0.001609t km Copper, ion 1.00E- kg
10
Transport, pipeline, petroleum 0.087484t km Ethene, chloro- 1.00E- kg
products I 06
Transport, pipeline, petroleum 0.004477t km Ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride 1 kg
products II monomer, at plant
Electricity, at grid 0.3605 kWhHydrogen chloride 2.60E- kg
06
Ethylene, at plant 0.453 kg Nitrogen oxides 3.20E- kg
05
Natural gas, combusted in industrial 0.12523 m3 Organic substances 6.90E- kg
boiler 06
Oxygen, liquid, at plant 0.144 kg Particulates, <2.5 μm 1.00E- kg
06
Transport, combination truck, diesel 0.042361t km Particulates, >2.5 μm, and < 10 μm 1.00E- kg
powered 06
Transport, train, diesel powered 0.11451 t km Particulates 1.00E- kg
05
Table 5 Inventory data of the power generation process by residual fuel oil – base case.
Inputs Outputs
Flow Amount UnitFlow Amount Unit
Disposal, solid waste, to 3.38E-04 kg Arsenic 4.17E-08 kg
treatment
Residual fuel oil, at refiner 0.26339 L Benzene 6.75E-09 kg
Transport, barge, average fuel 0.007487t Beryllium 8.77E-10 kg
mix km
Transport, combination truck, 0.001382t Cadmium 1.26E-08 kg
average fuel mi km
Transport, train, diesel powered 8.84E-04 t Carbon dioxide, fossil 0.80464 kg
km
Carbon monoxide, fossil 1.58E-04 kg
Chloride 2.10E-09 kg
Chromium 2.67E-08 kg
Cobalt 1.90E-07 kg
Copper, ion 1.05E-08 kg
Dinitrogen monoxide 3.50E-06 kg
Dioxins, measured as 2,3,7,8- 4.72E-13 kg
tetrachlorodibenzo- p -dioxin
Electricity, residual fuel oil, at power plant 1 kWh
Ethene, tetrachloro- 2.60E-09 kg
Formaldehyde 1.04E-06 kg
Hydrogen chloride 2.21E-05 kg
Iron 1.05E-08 kg
Lead 4.77E-08 kg
Manganese 9.47E-08 kg
Mercury 3.57E-09 kg
Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 1.52E-07 kg
Methane, fossil 8.86E-06 kg
Naphthalene 3.57E-08 kg
Nickel 2.67E-06 kg
Nitrogen oxides 0.001009kg
Oils 1.57E-07 kg
Particulates, >2.5 μm, and <10 μm 5.99E-05 kg

Phenols 1.15E-07 kg
Radioactive species 0.030737kBq
Selenium 2.16E-08 kg
Sulfur oxides 0.001262kg
Suspended solids 3.15E-07 kg
VOC, volatile organic compounds 2.39E-05 kg
Table 6 Results of ReCiPe for the base case.
Different colors are used to show the intensity of each impact category.
Table 7 Main contributing processes and chemical flows according to ReCiPe.
Impact category Type ContributionProcess/Chemical flows Amount

Resources — fossil depletion ($) Process 94.25% Natural gas, at extraction site 2.78E-
02
5.08% Bituminous coal, at mine 1.50E-
03
0.66% Crude oil, at production 2.00E-
04
Chemical 94.25% Gas, natural, in ground 2.78E-
flows 02
5.08% Coal, bituminous, 24.8 MJ per kg, in 1.50E-
ground 03
0.66% Oil, crude, in ground 2.00E-
04
Human Health — total (DALY) Process 34.16% Natural gas, combusted in industrial 5.55E-
boiler 07
32.94% Electricity, residual fuel oil, at power 5.35E-
plant 07
11.99% Natural gas, processed, at plant 1.95E-
07
7.29% Natural gas, at extraction site 1.18E-
07
4.70% Bituminous coal, combusted in 7.62E-
industrial boiler 08
3.57% Chlor-alkali electrolysis, average 5.79E-
production mix, at plant 08
3.37% Ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride 5.47E-
monomer, at plant 08
Chemical 65.97% Carbon dioxide, fossil 1.07E-
flows 06
12.09% Sulfur dioxide 1.96E-
07
4.00% Methane 6.49E-
08
3.59% Mercury 5.84E-
08
3.44% Nitrogen oxides 5.58E-
08
3.35% Barium 5.45E-
08
3.22% Carbon dioxide 5.23E-
08
1.74% Sulfur oxides 2.83E-
08
1.42% Particulates, >2.5 μm, and <10 μm 2.30E-
08
Health Health − climate change Process 44.12% Natural gas, combusted in industrial 5.30E-
(DALY) boiler 07
plant 07
08
flows 06
08
08
Human Health — particulate matter Process 60.95% Natural gas, processed, at plant 1.85E-
formation (DALY) 07
plant 08
7.99% Natural gas, combusted in industrial 2.43E-
boiler 08
1.38% Transport, train, diesel powered 4.18E-
09
Chemical 64.65% Sulfur dioxide 1.96E-
flows 07
18.37% Nitrogen oxides 5.58E-
08
9.31% Sulfur oxides 2.83E-
08
7.57% Particulates, >2.5 μm, and <10 μm 2.30E-
08
Ecosystems – total (species year) Process 43.92% Natural gas, combusted in industrial 3.00E-
boiler 09
plant 09
10
1.10% Natural gas, processed, at plant 7.51E-
11
flows 09
10
10
Table 8 Main contributing processes according to CExD.
ContributionProcess Amount
93.97% Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler 4.88113
4.67% Ethylene production 0.24261
0.86% Electricity, residual fuel oil, at power plant 0.04467
0.44% Chlor-alkali electrolysis, average production mix, at plant0.02277
0.05% Oxygen, liquid, at plant 0.00246
0.01% Transport, combination truck, diesel powered 0.0005
0.01% Transport, train, diesel powered 0.00032
References
1 A.P. Acero C. Rodríguez A. Ciroth LCIA Methods — Impact Assessment Methods in Life Cycle
Assessment and Their Impact Categories 2016 GreenDelta GmbH Berlin, Germany
2 V. Antwi Use of Monte Carlo Analysis in Life Cycle Assessment: Case Study—Fruits Processing Plant
in Ghana 2010 Department of Chemical Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology Kumasi, Ghana
3 A.C.B. Araújo L.G.S. Vasconcelos M.F. Fossy R.P. Brito Exergetic and economic analysis of an
industrial distillation column Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 24 2007 461 469
4 B. Atilgan A. Azapagic Assessing the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in turkey on

a life cycle basis Energies 9 2016 31
5 M.E. Bösch S. Hellweg M.A. Huijbregts R. Frischknecht Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD)
indicators to the ecoinvent database Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 2007 181 190
6 R. Banerjee Y. Gong D.J. Gielen G. Januzzi F. Marechal A.T. McKane M.A. Rosen D. Es E. van
Worrell Energy end-use: industry Gobal Energy Assessment — Toward a Sustainable Future 2012
Cambridge University Press p. 513
7 M.J. Biddy C. Scarlata C. Kinchin Chemicals from Biomass: A Market Assessment of Bioproducts with
Near-term Potential 2016 NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) Golden, CO, United States
8 B. Bieda Application of stochastic approach based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for life cycle
inventory (LCI) to the steel process chain: case study Sci. Total Environ. 481 2014 649 655
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.123
9 M. Boxwell Solar Electricity Handbook: A Simple, Practical Guide to Solar Energy: how to Design and
Install Photovoltaic Solar Electric Systems 2012 Greenstream Publishing
10 V. Bruzzi M. Colaianni L. Zanderighi Energy savings in chemical plants: a vinyl chloride case history
Energy Convers. Manag. 39 1998 1853 1862 10.1016/S0196-8904(98)00058-2
11 S. Brynolf E. Fridell K. Andersson Environmental assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas,
liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol J. Clean. Prod. 74 2014 86 95
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.052
12 Z. Chang H. Wu K. Pan H. Zhu J. Chen Clean production pathways for regional power-generation
system under emission constraints: a case study of Shanghai, China J. Clean. Prod. 143 2017 989 1000
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.021
13 L. Ciacci F. Passarini I. Vassura The European PVC cycle: in-use stock and flows Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 123 2016 108 116
14 A. Ciroth G. Fleischer J. Steinbach Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 9 2004 216 10.1007/BF02978597
15 S. D’Alessandro T. Luzzati M. Morroni Energy transition towards economic and environmental

sustainability: feasible paths and policy implications J. Clean. Prod. 18 2010 291 298
10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.10.015
16 C.F. de Almeida V.G. Maciel M. Tsambe L.F. de Abreu Cybis Environmental assessment of a bi-fuel
thermal power plant in an isolated power system in the Brazilian Amazon region J. Clean. Prod. 154
2017 41 50 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.209
17 S. De Wildeman W. Verstraete The quest for microbial reductive dechlorination of C 2 to C 4

chloroalkanes is warranted Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 61 2003 94 102
18 Y. Demirel Assessment of thermodynamic performances for distillation columns Int. J. Exergy 3 2006
345 361 10.1504/IJEX.2006.010229
19 J. Dewulf M.E. Bösch B.D. Meester G.V. Vorst H.V. der Langenhove S. Hellweg M.A. Huijbregts
Cumulative exergy extraction from the natural environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact
assessment method for resource accounting Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 2007 8477 8483
20 M.O.S. Dias L.G. Pereira T.L. Junqueira L.G. Pavanello M.F. Chagas O. Cavalett R. Maciel Filho A.
Bonomi Butanol production in a sugarcane biorefinery using ethanol as feedstock. Part I: integration to a
first generation sugarcane distillery Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92 2014 1441 1451
10.1016/j.cherd.2014.04.030
21 P. Droege Urban Energy Transition: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Power 2011 Elsevier
22 W.A. Duffield J.H. Sass (U.S.), G.S Geothermal Energy: Clean Power from the Earth’s Heat 2003
U.S. Geological Survey
23 ecoinvent, 2016. http://www.ecoinvent.org/ (Accessed 22 September 2016).
24 I.A.S. Ehtiwesh M.C. Coelho A.C.M. Sousa Exergetic and environmental life cycle assessment
analysis of concentrated solar power plants Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 2016 145 155
10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.066
25 J.A. Field R. Sierra-Alvarez Biodegradability of chlorinated solvents and related chlorinated aliphatic
compounds Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 3 2004 185 254
26 Franklin Associates Cradle-to-gate life cycle inventory of nine plastic resins and four polyurethane
precursors 2011 Eastern Research Group, Inc. Prairie Village, KS, USA
27 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Diagnosis of an alternative ammonia process technology to

reduce exergy losses Energy Convers. Manag. 109 2016 63 70 10.1016/j.enconman.2015.11.040
28 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Evaluation of an alternative chlorine production process for

energy saving toward sustainability Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 35 2016 1512 1520
10.1002/ep.12374
29 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Exergy analysis as a scoping tool for cleaner production of

chemicals: a case study of an ethylene production process J. Clean. Prod. 129 2016 508 520
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.018
30 A. Ghannadzadeh S. Perry R. Smith A new shaftwork targeting model for total sites Chem. Eng.
Trans. 25 2011 917 922
31 A. Ghannadzadeh S. Perry R. Smith Cogeneration targeting for site utility systems Appl. Therm. Eng.
43 2012 60 66 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.10.006
32 A. Ghannadzadeh R. Thery-Hetreux O. Baudouin P. Baudet P. Floquet X. Joulia General

methodology for exergy balance in ProSimPlus ® process simulator Energy 44 2012 38 59
10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.017
33 A. Ghannadzadeh Assessment of power generation from natural gas and biomass to enhance
environmental sustainability of a polyol ether production process for rigid foam polyurethane synthesis
Renew. Energy 115 2018 846 858 10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.059
34 M. Goedkoop S. Effting M. Collignon The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life-cycle
impact assessment: manual for designers 2000 PRé Consultants
35 M. Goedkoop R. Heijungs M. Huijbregts A. De Schryver J. Struijs R. van Zelm ReCiPe 2008+. A Life
Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint
and the Endpoint Level 2013 Available https://sites.google.com/site/lciarecipe/file-cabinet (Accessed
2017-12-14)
36 A. Graveland E. Gisolf Exergy analysis: an efficient tool for process optimization and understanding.
Demonstrated on the vinyl-chloride plant of AKZO Nobel Comput. Chem. Eng. 22 1998 S545 S552
37 J.B. Guinée Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 7 2002 311 313
38 M.Z. Hauschild M. Goedkoop J. Guinée R. Heijungs M. Huijbregts O. Jolliet M. Margni A. De

Schryver S. Humbert A. Laurent Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life
cycle impact assessment Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 2013 683 697
39 R.A. Hefner III The Grand Energy Transition: The Rise of Energy Gases, Sustainable Life and
Growth, and the Next Great Economic Expansion 2009 John Wiley & Sons
40 J. Hong S. Shaked R.K. Rosenbaum O. Jolliet Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle
inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15
2010 499 510 10.1007/s11367-010-0175-4
41 J. Hong G.Q. Shen Y. Peng Y. Feng C. Mao Uncertainty analysis for measuring greenhouse gas
emissions in the building construction phase: a case study in China J. Clean. Prod. 129 2016 183 195
42 IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Vinyl chloride, polyvinyl chloride and vinyl
chloride?vinyl acetate copolymers IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risk Chem. Hum. 19 1979 377 438
43 ISO, I 14040 International standard. Environ. Manag. Cycle Assessment — Principles Framew 2006
Int. Organ. Stand. Geneva Switz
44 L. Jacquemin P.-Y. Pontalier C. Sablayrolles Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process
industry: a review Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 2012 1028 1041
45 X. Jia G. Xin Y. Qian Y. Qian Sectoral co-control of air pollutants: case of a chlor-alkali/polyvinyl
chloride sector in China J. Clean. Prod. 112 2016 1667 1675
46 J. Keedy E. Prymak N. Macken G. Pourhashem S. Spatari C.A. Mullen A.A. Boateng Exergy based
assessment of the production and conversion of switchgrass equine waste, and forest residue to bio-oil
using fast pyrolysis Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 54 2014 529 539
47 D. Kralisch D. Ott D. Gericke Rules and benefits of Life Cycle Assessment in green chemical process
and synthesis design: a tutorial review Green Chem. 17 2015 123 145
48 M.D. LaGrega P.L. Buckingham J.C. Evans The Environmental Resources Management Group.
Hazardous Waste Management 1994 McGraw-Hill Singapore
49 N.E. Lanzuela F.J.R. Sanchís A.R. Señer G.C. Polo A.P. Vidal N.S. Pellicer Uncertainty analysis in
the environmental assessment of an integrated management system for restaurant and catering waste
in Spain Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 2015 244 262 10.1007/s11367-014-0825-z
50 Mallinckrodt 1,2-Dichoroethane MSDS 1997 Mallinckrodt Chem

http://hazard.com/msds/mf/baker/baker/files/d2440.htm (Accessed 28 June 2017)
51 P.J. Meier Life-cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate
Change Policy Analysis 2002 University of Wisconsin–Madison
52 C. Moya R. Domínguez H. Van Langenhove S. Herrero P. Gil C. Ledón J. Dewulf Exergetic analysis
in cane sugar production in combination with Life Cycle Assessment J. Clean. Prod. 59 2013 43 50
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.028
53 NESHAP, 2001. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Vinyl
Chloride Subpart F, OMB Control Number 2060-0071, EPA ICR Number 0186.09, Federal Register:
September 25, (vol. 66, number 186).
54 NREL US Life-cycle Inventory Database 2014 Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. http://www.nrel.
gov/lci/(June 2014)
55 P.J. Notten Life Cycle Inventory Uncertainty in Resource-based Industries: A Focus on Coal-based
Power Generation 2001 University of Cape Town
56 K. Ojeda O. Ávila J. Suárez V. Kafarov Evaluation of technological alternatives for process

integration of sugarcane bagasse for sustainable biofuels production—Part 1 Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 89
2011 270 279 10.1016/j.cherd.2010.07.007
57 openLCA, 2016. http://www.openlca.org/ (Accessed 24 June 2016).
58 openLCA openLCA 1.4 Case Study of a Beer Bottle: Aluminium Can vs PET Bottle 2014 openLCA
59 Plevan, M., Stoppel, L., Wetzel, T., Heinzel, A., Weisenburger, A., Müller, G., Fazio, C., Abánades,
A., Falco, C., Ghannadzadeh, A., Stückrad, S., Salmieri, D., Rubbia, C., 2013. Hydrogen production via
direct thermal cracking of methane: Concept of a molten metal bubble column reactor. Presented at the
The Fifth World Hydrogen Technologies Convention (WHTC2013), Shanghai.
60 Plevan, M., Geißler, T., Stoppel, L., Wetzel, T., Heinzel, A., Weisenburger, A., Müller, G., Fazio, C.,
Konys, J., Schroer, C., Abánades, A., Falco, C., Ghannadzadeh, A., Mehravaran, K., Rathnam, R.K.,
Salmieri, D., Rubbia, C., Stückrad, S., Wenninger, H., 2014. Experimental activities at KIT. Presented at
the IASS Evaluation, Potsdam.
61 Plevan, M., Geißler, T., Stoppel, L., Wetzel, T., Heinzel, A., Weisenburger, A., Müller, G., Fazio, C.,
Konys, J., Schroer, C., Rubbia, C., Abánades, A., Falco, C., Ghannadzadeh, A., Stückrad, S., 2014.
Hydrogen production via direct thermal cracking of methane: concept of a molten metal bubble column
reactor. Presented at the Jahrestreffen der ProcessNet-Fachgruppe Energieverfahrenstechnik,
Karlsruhe.
62 J.C. Sacramento-Rivero F. Navarro-Pineda L.E. Vilchiz-Bravo Evaluating the sustainability of

biorefineries at the conceptual design stage Chem. Eng. Res. Des., Biorefinery Value Chain Creation
107 2016 167 180 10.1016/j.cherd.2015.10.017
63 M. Sadeqzadeh M. Ghasemi A. Ghannadzadeh B. Salamatinia T. Jafary W.R.W. Daud S.H.A.

Hassan Mass transfer limitation in different anode electrode surface areas on the performance of dual
chamber microbial fuel cell Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol. 8 2012 320 325 10.3844/ajbbsp.2012.320.325
64 H.-J. Schellnhuber World in Transition: Towards Sustainable Energy Systems 2004 Earthscan
65 T.A. Siddiqi Balusa Enhancing Clean Energy Supplies for Development: A Natural Gas Pipeline for
India and Pakistan 2003 Balusa Inc.
66 R. Smith Chemical Process Design and Integration 2005 John Wiley West Sussex
67 S. Solinas Environmental Sustainability of Bioenergy Cropping Systems in Sardinia: An Analysis

Based on Life Cycle Assessment and Farmers’ perspectives 2014
68 G. Sonnemann F. Castells M. Schuhmacher M. Hauschild Integrated life-cycle and risk assessment

for industrial processes Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 2004 206 207
69 L. Spilsbury Dams and Hydropower 2011 The Rosen Publishing Group
70 Szargut D.R. Morris F.R. Steward Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and Metallurgical
Processes 1988 Hemisphere Publishing Corporation New York
71 US OSHA US OSHA 1910 https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show%5fdocument?

p%5ftable=STANDARDS&p%5fid=10021 (Accessed 28 June 2017)
72 F.P. Vahl N.C. Filho Energy transition and path creation for natural gas in the Brazilian electricity mix
J. Clean. Prod. 86 2015 221 229 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.033
73 G. Verbong D. Loorbach Governing the Energy Transition: Reality, Illusion or Necessity? 2012
Routledge
74 C.L. Weber P. Jaramillo J. Marriott C. Samaras Life cycle assessment and grid electricity: what do we
know and what can we know? 2010 ACS Publications
75 K. Weissermel H.-J. Arpe Industrial Organic Chemistry 2008 John Wiley & Sons
76 K. Wu G. Paranjothi J.B. Milford F. Kreith Transition to sustainability with natural gas from fracking
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 14 2016 26 34
77 B. Xiao D. Niu X. Guo Can natural gas-fired power generation break through the dilemma in China?
A system dynamics analysis J. Clean. Prod. 137 2016 1191 1204 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.198
78 D.Q. Zhou F.Y. Meng Y. Bai S.Q. Cai Energy efficiency and congestion assessment with energy mix
effect: The case of APEC countries J. Clean. Prod. 142 Part 2 2017 819 828
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.166
79 H. Zou H. Du D.C. Broadstock J. Guo Y. Gong G. Mao China’s future energy mix and emissions
reduction potential: a scenario analysis incorporating technological learning curves J. Clean. Prod. 112
Part 2 2016 1475 1485 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.012
Graph: Fig. 1 Model graph for the ethylene dichloride–vinyl chloride monomer production.
Graph: Fig. 2 Results of Monte Carlo simulation for the base case.
Graph: Fig. 3 Impact categories of Ecosystems, Human Health, and Resources for the scenarios based
on the ReCiPe results.
Graph: Fig. 4 Impact subcategories of Ecosystems, Human Health and Resources.
Graph: Fig. 5 CExD results for the scenarios (MJ equivalent of non-renewable energy resources).
Graph: Fig. 6 Results of Monte Carlo simulations based on CExD: (a) Scenario 2, (b) Scenario 3, (c)
Scenario 4, (d) Scenario 5, (e) Scenario 6, (f) Scenario 7.
~~~~~~~~
By Ali Ghannadzadeh
Copyright of Chemical Engineering Research & Design: Transactions of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers Part A is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Buscador Multi-Base

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buscador Multi-Base

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13/8/2021 Buscador Multi-base

EBSCO Publishing Formato de citas:

NOTA: repase las instrucciones en http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=eds&lang=&feature_id=APA

Exergy-aided environmental sustainability assessment of an ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride

2 Data and methods

2.1.1 Process constraints

2.1.2 Scoping and diagnosis

2.1.3 Assessment of the base case through Monte Carlo simulation

2.1.4 Scenarios definition

2.1.5 Environmental sustainability assessment of scenarios

2.1.6 Further assessment of scenarios through Monte Carlo simulation

2.2 LCA information

2.3 Life cycle impact assessment methods

where e x c h , j ° is standard molar chemical exergy of substance (kJ/mol), Δ f G i ° is standard Gibbs

2.4 Monte Carlo simulation

( 11) UR ( x 1, y ) = f ( x 1+, x 20) − f ( x 1−, x 20)

( 12) UR ( x 2, y ) = f ( x 10, x 2+) − f ( x 10, x 2−)

The required confidence interval, with confidence ɑ, is afterward given by:

3 Results and discussion

3.1.2 Scoping and diagnosis

3.1.2.1.1 Resources — fossil depletion

3.1.2.1.2 Human health — total

3.1.2.1.3 Human health — climate change

3.1.2.1.4 Human health — particulate matter formation

3.1.2.1.5 Ecosystems — total

3.1.3 Assessment of the base case through Monte Carlo simulation

3.1.3.2 Outcomes of Monte Carlo simulation

3.1.4 Scenarios definition

3.1.5 Environmental sustainability assessment of scenarios

3.1.5.1.1 Ecosystems — climate change

3.1.5.1.2 Ecosystems — freshwater ecotoxicity

3.1.5.1.3 Ecosystems — marine ecotoxicity

3.1.5.1.4 Ecosystems — terrestrial acidification

3.1.5.1.5 Ecosystems — terrestrial ecotoxicity

3.1.5.1.6 Human health — climate change

3.1.5.1.7 Human health — human toxicity

3.1.5.1.8 Human health — ozone depletion

3.1.5.1.9 Human health — particulate matter formation

3.1.5.1.10 Human health — photochemical oxidant formation

3.1.5.1.11 Resources — fossil depletion

3.1.6 Further assessment of scenarios through Monte Carlo simulation

Fuel Natural gas Biomass

diesel powered and waste diesel powered and waste

ScenarioDistribution typeFuel oilNatural gasBiomass

Particulates, >2.5 μm, and <10 μm 5.99E-05 kg

Table 7 Main contributing processes and chemical flows according to ReCiPe.

Impact category Type ContributionProcess/Chemical flows Amount

4 B. Atilgan A. Azapagic Assessing the environmental sustainability of electricity generation in turkey on

15 S. D’Alessandro T. Luzzati M. Morroni Energy transition towards economic and environmental

17 S. De Wildeman W. Verstraete The quest for microbial reductive dechlorination of C 2 to C 4

23 ecoinvent, 2016. http://www.ecoinvent.org/ (Accessed 22 September 2016).

27 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Diagnosis of an alternative ammonia process technology to

28 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Evaluation of an alternative chlorine production process for

29 A. Ghannadzadeh M. Sadeqzadeh Exergy analysis as a scoping tool for cleaner production of

32 A. Ghannadzadeh R. Thery-Hetreux O. Baudouin P. Baudet P. Floquet X. Joulia General

38 M.Z. Hauschild M. Goedkoop J. Guinée R. Heijungs M. Huijbregts O. Jolliet M. Margni A. De

50 Mallinckrodt 1,2-Dichoroethane MSDS 1997 Mallinckrodt Chem

56 K. Ojeda O. Ávila J. Suárez V. Kafarov Evaluation of technological alternatives for process

57 openLCA, 2016. http://www.openlca.org/ (Accessed 24 June 2016).

62 J.C. Sacramento-Rivero F. Navarro-Pineda L.E. Vilchiz-Bravo Evaluating the sustainability of

63 M. Sadeqzadeh M. Ghasemi A. Ghannadzadeh B. Salamatinia T. Jafary W.R.W. Daud S.H.A.

67 S. Solinas Environmental Sustainability of Bioenergy Cropping Systems in Sardinia: An Analysis

68 G. Sonnemann F. Castells M. Schuhmacher M. Hauschild Integrated life-cycle and risk assessment