Journal Pre-proof

Comparative life-cycle assessment of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment

approaches

Guangji Hu, Haibo Feng, Pengwei He, Jianbing Li, Kasun Hewage, Rehan Sadiq

PII: S0959-6526(19)34464-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119594
Reference: JCLP 119594

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 7 January 2019

Revised Date: 10 September 2019
Accepted Date: 6 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Hu G, Feng H, He P, Li J, Hewage K, Sadiq R, Comparative life-cycle
assessment of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment approaches, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119594.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Comparative life-cycle assessment of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment

approaches

Guangji Hu1, Haibo Feng1, Pengwei He1,2, Jianbing Li3*, Kasun Hewage1, Rehan Sadiq1**
1
School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, 3333 University Way,
Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada
2
School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410083, PR China
3
Environmental Engineering Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333
University Way, Prince George, BC V2N 4Z9, Canada

*Corresponding Author:
Dr. Jianbing Li, Professor, P. Eng.
Environmental Engineering Program
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way, Prince George
British Columbia, Canada V2N 4Z9
Tel: 1-(250) 960-6397
Email: Jianbing.Li@unbc.ca

**Corresponding Author:
Dr. Rehan Sadiq, Professor, P. Eng.
School of Engineering
University of British Columbia, Okanagan
3333 University Way, Kelowna
British Columbia, Canada V1V 1V7
Tel: 1-(250) 807-9013
E-mail: rehan.sadiq@ubc.ca

1
Abstract

This study presents a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and emerging

treatment approaches for hazardous refinery oily sludge handling. Two traditional oily sludge

disposal approaches, including incineration and landfilling, and two emerging energy recovery

approaches, including solvent extraction and pyrolysis, were investigated. Life cycle inventories

listing all energy and material flows were established for the two emerging treatment approaches,

and the life cycle environmental impacts were assessed by following the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14040 procedure. The TRACI 2.1 method and Ecoinvent

3 database were used in the LCA. The results show that the two emerging energy recovery

approaches only account for < 10% of the total impacts posed by the traditional alternatives.

Traditional oily sludge treatment approaches are generally associated with relatively high global

warming potential, ecotoxicity, and adverse human health effects. Solvent extraction has the

lowest total effect on the environment, and the main adverse effects are related to ecotoxicity and

fossil fuel depletion. In solvent extraction treatment, vacuum distillation and combustion of

recovered oil account for the main impacts. In pyrolysis treatment, processes such as drying,

pyrolysis, and combustion of pyrolysis products are the main contributors to the total impact.

The energy recovery processes used in the two emerging approaches can significantly offset the

total adverse impacts. The two energy recovery approaches have great potential to be used for

low-impact oily sludge treatment.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment (LCA); oily sludge; incineration; landfilling; solvent extraction; pyrolysis

2
1. Introduction

Accompanying rapid industrialization and urbanization, a large quantity of natural resources

have been consumed and wastes have been generated (Cossu and William, 2015; He et al.,

2018). As an effective solution to the adverse impacts from natural resources depletion and waste

disposal, urban mining involves reclaiming compounds and elements from any kind of

anthropogenic stocks, such as buildings, infrastructure, products, and environmental media

receiving anthropogenic emissions (Lederer et al., 2014). Urban mining has also been

successfully applied to extract useful resources from municipal wastes (e.g., sewage sludge) and

industrial wastes (e.g., spent adsorbents and catalysts) (Cossu and William, 2015).

Oily sludge is an industrial waste generated from various petrochemical production processes

such as crude oil exploration, transportation, storage, and refining (Roldán et al., 2012). It is

estimated that a medium-sized refinery (refining capacity: 12,000 to 15,000 m3/d) generates

30,000 tons of oily sludge annually. The sludge generation quantity has been increasing because

of the ascending energy demand worldwide (Hu et al., 2013; EPA, 1991). Oily sludge generally

exists as a complex mixture of various petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs, or oil), water, metals,

and solid particles (Hu et al., 2013). It has been classified as a hazardous waste in both developed

and developing countries due to the presence of harmful substances such as carcinogenic

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic heavy metals (Naik et al., 2011). Owing to its large

generation quantity and toxic nature, the effective management of oily sludge has become a

pressing challenge to the oil and gas industry.

Over the past decade, significant efforts have been made in developing innovative oily

sludge treatment technologies as a response to more stringent environmental regulations and

increasing public concerns over the adverse environmental impacts posed by traditional oily

3
sludge disposal approaches (Chirwa et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2015). Traditional oily sludge

disposal approaches, such as incineration, landfarming, and landfilling, are associated with

several limitations such as high treatment cost and environmental risks. For example,

incineration requires the use of auxiliary fossil fuels to maintain the desired combustion

temperature and generates undesirable fugitive gaseous emissions and hazardous ash residues

(Gong et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2009); landfarming and landfilling represent important pathways

for the release of contaminants such as leachate and landfill gas to the environment (Cao and

Pawlowski, 2012).

Oily sludge can be a potential energy source considering its large production quantity and

high PHCs content (e.g., 30-50%) (da Silva et al., 2012). Energy recovery has been receiving

extensive research interests in recent years because this approach can not only recover valuable

resource but also mitigate the adverse environmental impacts by reducing the disposal volume of

oily sludge and contents of harmful PHCs. In the past decade, innovative technologies such as

ultrasonic irradiation, solvent extraction, pyrolysis, electrokinetic, freeze/thaw, and surfactant-

enhanced oil recovery and their combinations have been developed for oily sludge treatment (Hu

et al., 2013; da Silva et al., 2012). These developed technologies are associated with different

treatment mechanisms, resource recovery performance, energy consumptions, and environmental

impacts (Hu et al., 2013).

Prior to the adoption of innovative technologies and smart oily sludge waste management

strategies, the long-term impacts of related activities on public health, economy, and the

environment must be estimated. The selection of appropriate waste treatment strategies is of vital

importance and complexity that not only requires performance data but also assessment within

an economic and environmental sustainability context (Yoshida et al., 2018). A sustainability

4
assessment framework is essential for selecting, building, or offering products and processes that

balance the environment, economic costs, and human health (Guinée et al., 2011).

Among various sustainability assessment frameworks and tools, life cycle assessment (LCA)

represents an internationally standardized methodology for systematic evaluation of

environmental burdens of a product or process from its origin to the final disposal. In LCA, the

inputs and outputs to a system, including energy, materials, products, wastes, and pollutants, are

identified and quantified (Gentil et al., 2010). LCA has been widely used to evaluate the

environmental impacts of various waste (e.g., sewage sludge, municipal waste, and wastewater)

management practices (Mills et al., 2014; Reza et al., 2013; Vlasopoulos et al., 2006). For

example, Li and Feng (2018) investigated the life cycle impacts of an integrated anaerobic

digestion and pyrolysis approach for sewage sludge treatment, and the results showed that the

integrated approach had better environmental performance than the individual treatments.

Abuşoğlu et al. (2017) compared the life cycle impacts from digested sewage sludge incineration

using a fluidized bed combustor and a cement kiln, and they found that using the fluidized bed

combustor generated lower environmental impacts than using the cement kiln. The majority of

LCA studies on waste management practices have focused on the environmental loads from

waste treatment systems through comparing different treatment methods or management

scenarios, while others focused on assessing the influence of system boundaries and scale

through calculating their environmental impacts (Laurent et al., 2014).

Although the LCA methodology has been widely used in evaluating the environmental

implications of various waste and wastewater treatment technologies and/or management

strategies, limited attention has been paid to the life cycle environmental impacts of different oily

sludge treatment practices. Specifically, a significant knowledge gap exists regarding the

5
difference in environmental load or energy consumption between traditional and emerging oily

sludge treatment approaches. The environmental benefits of using emerging technologies are

debatable depending on many aspects, including energy recovery performance, resource and

management inputs, and impact outputs. As these influential aspects differ significantly from one

scenario to another, the environmental impacts associated with different treatment approaches

can also be highly variable, resulting in high uncertainties in adopting new oily sludge treatment

technologies.

As the first attempt to fill this knowledge gap, this study holistically quantified and compared

the life cycle environmental impacts of four different oily sludge treatment approaches, including

two emerging energy recovery approaches (i.e., solvent extraction and pyrolysis) and two

traditional alternatives (i.e., incineration and landfilling). The assessment began with oily sludge

generation from a petrochemical refinery through different treatments and ended with the final

disposal of unrecoverable residuals. In particular, the life cycle environmental performances of

the processes involved in the two emerging treatment approaches were analyzed. The results

would provide the critical oil and gas sector with useful information in selecting suitable

treatment approaches for sustainable oily waste management.

2. Oily sludge treatment approaches

2.1. Incineration

Incineration is a process of complete combustion of oily sludge in a controlled environment

with excess air and auxiliary fuels. Since oily sludge contains a relatively high water content, a

dewatering treatment is often required before incineration, while auxiliary fuels such as coal are

often used to increase the heat generated from the incineration process. The combustion

6
temperature is often > 1000 °C for complete decomposition of complex PHCs. Fluidized bed

incinerator is commonly used for oily sludge incineration owing to low pollutant emission and

high combustion efficiency compared to rotary kilns (Liu et al., 2009; Abuşoğlu et al., 2017).

Under optimum conditions, a combustion efficiency as high as 95% can be achieved by oily

sludge incineration (Bhattacharyya and Shekdar, 2002). However, the hazardous ash residues

and gaseous emissions need to be treated and properly handled for safe disposal (Gong et al.,

2018).

2.2. Landfilling

Land disposal is the ultimate destination for most hazardous wastes, although it is not an

attractive practice because of the inherent risks of environmental contamination. Landfilling

involves the mixing of oily sludge with soil, and then the mixture is placed in a secure landfill

for natural attenuation. This technology isolates sludge wastes from air and water through the use

of thick layers of impermeable clay and synthetic materials. A leachate collection system

consists of a network of perforated pipes above the bottom liners is also used to prevent

groundwater contamination (Mishra et al., 2017). Biological activity usually accounts for most of

the degradation of PHCs, although this degradation process is considerably slow (e.g., > 12

months in cold regions). A groundwater monitoring system that includes a series of deep wells

drilled in and around the landfilling site is also required. The wells allow a routine program of

sampling and testing to detect any leaks or groundwater contamination (Mishra et al., 2017).

2.3. Solvent extraction

In solvent extraction, oily sludge is mixed with suitable organic solvents at desirable ratios

to ensure that solvents can extract most PHCs in oily sludge. Water and solid impurities are not

miscible with the solvents, which can be separated by gravitational force or centrifugation (Hu et

7
al., 2013). Mechanical agitation is often used to facilitate the extraction process. The solvent/oil

mixture is then sent for vacuum distillation to separate oil from the solvent. The recovered oil

can be used for energy recovery and solvents can be reused for repeating the extraction cycle.

The separated water and solids need to be properly handled for safe disposal. Methyl ethyl

ketone (MEK) has been reported to be a suitable organic solvent for extracting oil from oily

sludge due to the relatively low cost and toxicity. MEK can extract approximately 33-39 w.t.%

of oil from oily sludge through mechanically assisted extractions (Hu et al., 2016; Zubaidy and

Abouelnasr, 2010), while the recovered oil has good quality in terms of the total PHCs and water

content compared to fresh crude feedstock. Hu et al. (2016) reported an optimum solvent-to-

sludge mixing ratio of 3:1 for energy recovery from oily sludge. In a closed extraction system,

roughly 95 w.t.% of the solvent can be recovered (Hu et al., 2016; Zubaidy and Abouelnasr,

2010).

2.4. Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is the thermal-chemical conversion process that turns organic materials in oily

sludge into pyrolysis oil, gaseous products, and solid char in an oxygen-free environment. Since

pyrolysis is an endothermic process, the products from this process have a higher total heating

value than the original oily sludge. About 33 w.t.% of pyrolysis oil, 14 w.t.% of solid char, and

53 w.t.% of gaseous products can be produced from oily sludge pyrolysis between the

temperature range of 450-500 °C (Hu et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2015). The resultant pyrolysis oil

has a similar physical property and element composition to heavy fuel oil. The gaseous products

generally include 50 w.t.% of CO2, 6 w.t.% of CO, 18 w.t.% of H2O, and 25 w.t.% of non-

condensable hydrocarbon gases such as methane, ethane, and hydrogen sulfide (Chang et al.,

2000). Non-condensable hydrocarbon gases and CO are combustible for energy recovery.

8
Pyrolysis oil and combustible gaseous products can be used as energy sources, while the solid

char can be used for soil conditioning (Chen et al., 2014). Unlike incineration, pyrolysis of oily

sludge generates lower emissions of NOX and SOX (Qin et al., 2015). However, this approach

requires the dewatering of oily sludge before the thermal-chemical conversion treatment.

3. Methodology

In this study, the ISO 14040 standard was followed to conduct the LCAs of different oily

sludge treatment approaches. The goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle

impact assessment (LCIA) method, and result interpretation are presented in the following

sections. Supplementary information such as assumptions, parameter values, comparison

reviews, and data sources are also elucidated.

3.1. Goal and scope definition

The goal of LCA was to assess the environmental performances of two emerging energy

recovery approaches for oily sludge treatment (i.e. solvent extraction and pyrolysis) and to

compare with those of two traditional oily sludge treatment approaches. The quantified life cycle

environmental impacts can provide practitioners with a holistic view of the environmental

performances of different oily sludge treatment systems, enabling them to identify suitable

treatment approaches that have low environmental impacts throughout their life cycle as well as

the limitations of each approach in different processing stages for potential improvement.

3.1.1 Functional unit

In this study, the functional unit was defined as treatment and/or disposal of 1000 kg of oily

sludge. The composition of oily sludge was determined based on the analysis of samples taken at

the American Petroleum Institute (API) oil-water separator of a refinery in Western Canada. The

9
oily sludge sample roughly consists of 50% of water, 30% of oil, and 20% of solids and has a

density of 0.97 kg/L (Hu et al., 2016; 2017). The oily sludge was assumed to be treated through

the four aforementioned approaches. The material and energy flows of each approach were used

as input data for the LCIA, and the quantified environmental impacts were the outputs from the

assessments. All input and output data were adapted to the functional unit.

3.1.2 System boundary

The second step of LCA was to define the system boundaries of each approach as shown in

Fig. 1. The system boundaries included all the processes taking place from the beginning of oily

sludge treatment in the proposed treatment facilities to the final landfill of treatment residuals. In

most LCA studies on waste management practices, the environmental impacts of treatment

infrastructure were not considered due to their large throughput and long service life (Li and

Feng, 2018; Ramachandran et al., 2017; Sebastião et al., 2016). In this study, the environmental

impacts of treatment infrastructure were calculated to be ≤ 1% of the total impacts of treatment

approaches. Thus, the impacts of treatment infrastructure were considered negligible and not

included. Also, the time period of LCA was not considered because the goal of this study is to

quantify the total impacts from treatments of one ton of oily sludge using different approaches

rather than to estimate the total life cycle impacts within a time range.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 1 HERE

==========================

10
3.2. Life cycle inventory

Data required as inputs for each approach were mainly obtained from experimental

investigations and literature reviews. In addition, inventory data for the chemicals, heat, and

electricity requirements in different treatment approaches were collected from the Ecoinvent 3.3-

unit process database in SimaProTM 8.3.0.0. The inventories established for the four oily sludge

treatment approaches was presented in the following sections, and the detailed material flows of

the two emerging oily sludge treatment approaches can also be found in the supplementary file.

3.2.1 Incineration

The inventory data of oily sludge incineration was obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.3

database. Since the refinery sludge mentioned in the database has a higher water content (88.8%)

than that of the oily sludge (50%) investigated in this study, the input mass of refinery sludge

needs to be modified. The element composition of the dried refinery sludge in the database is

calculated as 13% of hydrogen, 84% of carbon, and 3% of oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus, and

nitrogen; while the dried API water-oil separator oily sludge in this study contains 17.6% of

hydrogen, 78% of carbon, and 3.4% of other elements (Hu et al., 2017). The percentages of

PHCs, which mainly consist of hydrogen and carbon, in the two types of oily sludge can be

considered similar. Assuming the chemical compositions of the two types of oily sludge are

similar, the input mass of refinery sludge for incineration is calculated:

Mos × (1−Wos )
Mrs = (1)
(1 −Wrs )

where Mrs and Wrs are the mass and water content of the refinery sludge input in the Ecoinvent

database, respectively, and Mos and Wos are the mass and water content of the oily sludge

11
investigated in this study, respectively. It was calculated that the PHC content of one functional

unit (i.e., 1000 kg) of oily sludge investigated in this study is equivalent to that of 4465 kg of

refinery sludge recorded in the Ecoinvent database. The water content of oily sludge is reduced

to 10% before incineration using a sludge paddle dryer. The material and energy consumptions

of the sludge paddle dryer are provided in Section 3.2.4. Since the refinery sludge has a higher

water content than the oily sludge, the impacts from the removal of excessive amount of water

(3465 kg) in the refinery sludge were subtracted from the calculated impacts from incineration of

4465 kg of the refinery sludge, and the resultant values were presented as the impacts of

incineration process.

The lower heating value (LHV) of refinery sludge described in the Ecoinvent database is

2.45 MJ/kg. The energy recovery process involves converting the heat energy produced from

incineration of 500 kg of dried oily sludge to electricity to counteract the electricity consumption

in the incineration process. The incineration plant is equipped with air and waste emission

treatment units such as the wet flue gas scrubber and low-dust selective catalytic reduction

(SCR) DeNOx facility. Thus, the impacts of treatment of air emissions are included in the total

impacts of the incineration process. After incineration, about 10 w.t.% of the original oily sludge

is left as ash residuals, which need to be disposed of in a secure landfill (HKEPD, 2018).

3.2.2 Landfilling

The inventory data of oily sludge landfilling was also obtained from the Ecoinvent 3.3

database. The environmental data of treating 1000 kg of oily sludge under “waste treatment”

category in the Ecoinvent database was chosen. The landfill described in the Ecoinvent database

includes base seal, landfill gas and leachate collection system, and treatment of leachate in a

12
municipal wastewater treatment plant. The main environmental impacts of landfilling are related

to the emissions of landfill gas and leachate treatment.

3.2.3 Solvent extraction

As shown in Fig. 1, solvent extraction begins with mixing oily sludge with a suitable

organic solvent in an extraction tank (i.e., the extraction process). MEK is selected as the

extraction solvent. The extraction tank is equipped with a paddle agitator with a power of 2.2 kW

to facilitate the mixing of oil and solvent, and its capacity is chosen as 5000 L (BLS, 2018). Oily

sludge and MEK is mixed at a mass ratio of 1:3, and the extraction time is set at 0.5 hours per

batch to ensure that the oil is completely miscible with the solvent (Hu et al., 2016).

After mixing, the extraction mixture is transferred to a sludge decanter centrifuge (41 kW)

with a capacity of 8000 L/h for liquid-solid separation (Fuyi, 2018). Solids can be removed from

the extraction mixture by centrifugation, and about 90% of the liquid consisting of water, oil, and

solvent can be recovered. The liquid loss (10%) is mainly water due to the fact that water has a

higher density than the solvent/oil mixture. The liquid with a higher density is accumulated at the

bottom of the centrifuge, and thus it is prone to be removed along with the solid. The separated

solids (200 kg) contain 2% of PHCs, which are mainly asphaltenes that are not miscible with

MEK (Hu et al., 2016). Thus, the solid residuals containing asphaltenes need to be disposed of in

a secure landfill. The inventory data of landfilling of asphaltenes waste in the Ecoinvent database

was used to simulate the landfilling of solid residue.

The recovered liquid is transferred to a continuous flow water-oil centrifuge (3 kW) for

further water-oil/solvent mixture separation. The liquid flow rate into the water-oil centrifuge is

3000 kg/h (Zonelink, 2018). The separated water (500 kg) is treated in a WWTP, and the

standard inventory data of industrial wastewater treatment in the Ecoinvent database was used as

13
a reference. The separation of liquid and solids and the separation of water and oil-solvent

mixture are collectively called the water-oil separation process, and the transportation and

disposal of the solid residuals and wastewater are collectively called the waste disposal process.

The mixture of oil and solvent (3300 kg) separated from the liquid is sent to a vacuum

distillation unit (30 kW with a working capacity of 300 L/h) for the separation of oil and solvent

(Vbolt, 2018). Since the distillation unit is a closed system, as high as 93% of MEK can be

recovered (Vbolt, 2018). The recovered solvent can be reused in the next extraction cycle.

Therefore, the environmental impact of replenishing the MEK loss (7%) was considered in the

assessment. The remaining liquid in the distillation unit is recovered oil. Roughly 300 kg of

recovered oil can be generated from the extraction treatment of 1000 kg of oily sludge. The

recovered oil mainly consists of 47% of PHCs with a carbon chain length between C10-C16

(similar to diesel), 50% of PHCs with a carbon chain length between C16-C34 (similar to heavy

fuel oil), and 3% of asphaltene impurities (Hu et al., 2016). Since the chemical composition of

the recovered oil is similar to the mixture of diesel and heavy fuel oil, the inventory data for

combustion of diesel and heavy fuel oil were used to calculate the impact of recovered oil

combustion. The LHV of the recovered oil is 40.26 MJ/kg (Hu et al., 2016).

The heat generated from the combustion of recovered oil is used for generating electricity.

According to the estimation by the US Department of Energy, the efficiency of a large fuel

generator that converts fuel into electricity lies between 45-50% (Edwards et al., 2011). In this

study, the lower efficiency (i.e., 45%) was chosen to convert the total heating value from the

combustion of recovered oil into grid electricity. The impacts of generating the same amount of

grid electricity using natural gas were calculated as the offsets to the total impacts of oily sludge

14
treatment. All the materials, energy, and waste involved in the solvent extraction approach are

summarized in Table 1.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

==========================

3.2.4 Pyrolysis

As shown in Fig. 1, pyrolysis treatment starts with the drying process. A sludge paddle dryer

with a treatment capacity of 1.85 m3/h and working power of 11 kW is used to dewater the oily

sludge (Dingli, 2018). The water content in oily sludge is reduced to 10%. The sludge paddle

dryer uses steam (130 °C) as the heating medium to reduce the loss of volatile PHCs, which is

suitable for drying heat-sensitive materials. About 1.2 kg of steam is required to dry 1 kg of oily

sludge (Dingli, 2018). The inventory data of steam generation using natural gas is collected from

the Ecoinvent database. After the drying process, roughly 556 kg of dried oily sludge remains

from the dewatering of 1000 kg of raw oily sludge.

After dewatering, the dried oily sludge is pyrolyzed at 500 °C to produce pyrolysis oil (py-

oil) and pyrolysis gas (py-gas). Solid residuals are generated as the by-products of this treatment

approach. The pyrolysis process is conducted in a pyrolysis reactor (60 kW, 30 ton/day)

combined with a py-gas combustion unit (Jinpeng, 2018). About 100 m3 of natural gas and 200

kg of heavy fuel oil are required to generate heat to reach the desired pyrolysis temperature

(Jinpeng, 2018). The py-gas produced during the pyrolysis process is combusted in the py-gas

combustion unit to maintain the temperature of the pyrolysis reactor. About 228 kg of py-gas

15
(roughly 1/2 of the dried oily sludge weight) and 185 kg of py-oil (1/3 of the dried oily sludge

weight) can be produced from the pyrolysis of 556 kg of dried oil sludge (Hu et al., 2017).

The impacts of py-gas combustion were calculated based on the pyrolysis gas combustion

data from the Ecoinvent database. The obtained py-oil has an LHV of 45.65 MJ/kg, which can be

combusted for energy recovery (Hu et al., 2017). The inventory data of heavy fuel oil

combustion from the Ecoinvent database was used to simulate that of combustion of py-oil due

to their similar chemical compositions and physical properties (Hu et al., 2017). The impact

offsets by energy recovery process were calculated following the same method used for solvent

extraction approach. The solid by-products from the pyrolysis process can be used as a soil

conditioner, and thus the environmental impact was considered negligible (Chen et al., 2014).

All the materials, energy, and waste involved in the oily sludge pyrolysis treatment are listed in

Table 2.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

==========================

3.2.5 Transportation

A hazardous waste treatment facility in Western Canada was selected to landfill the solid

wastes generated from the four treatment approaches. The distance from the refinery to the

landfill is approximately 530 km, and long-haul transport trucks were selected for waste

transport. The environmental impacts of truck transportation were considered in the LCAs, and

the impact data were collected from the Ecoinvent 3 database.

16
 In terms of the incineration treatment, the incineration facility was assumed to be built

beside the petroleum refinery. Therefore, only the environmental impacts posed by the

transportation of ash residuals (100 kg) to the landfill was considered. In the landfilling treatment

approach, untreated oily sludge is directly transported to the landfill. In the solvent extraction

approach, 200 kg of solid residuals and 500 kg of wastewater generated from the treatment of

1000 kg of oily sludge require proper disposal. The solid residuals are delivered to the landfill by

trucks powered by diesel engines, and the environmental impacts of truck transportation are

included in the life cycle. Wastewater is transported through pipelines to a WWTP for safe

disposal, and the wastewater treatment data in the Ecoinvent database was used to calculate the

impacts of wastewater treatment.

3.3. Life cycle impact assessment

SimaPro 8.3.0.0TM was used together with the TRACI impact assessment method to

calculate the following impacts: ozone depletion potential (ODP), global warming potential

(GWP), photochemical smog formation (SM), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication

potential (EP), carcinogenic effects (CAR), non-carcinogenic effects (NCAR), respiratory effects

(RE), ecotoxicity (ECT), and fossil fuel depletion (FFD). In order to calculate the total

environmental impacts of each approach and compare the overall performance of the four

treatment approaches, normalization factors were applied to each impact category. The

normalized results of each impact category can be calculated as:

ISi
Ni = (2)
NFi

where Ni is the normalized impact score for impact category i, ISi is the impact score of a

process/approach earned on impact category i, and NFi is the normalization factor (impact capita-

17
1
year -1). As shown in Table 3, the normalization factors for North America LCA studies were

used to calculate the overall performance of each treatment approach (Ryberg et al., 2014). The

total life cycle environmental impact was determined by aggregating the normalized impact

scores.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

==========================

4. Results and discussion

The life cycle environmental impacts generated from the four oily sludge treatment

approaches are presented in ten categories. The impact scores for different impact categories

were converted to logarithm values for results presentation as the scores are determined at

different magnitudes. A lower logarithm value indicates a lower impact, on a ten-fold scale. The

heat generated from the energy recovery process is used to generate electricity, and this can

offset the environmental impacts posed by generating the same amount of electricity using

natural gas. Thus, the impact scores for energy recovery were calculated in negative values. The

absolute values of impact scores for energy recovery were used in the logarithm conversion, and

a higher value indicates a higher impact offset. The normalized total impacts of the four

treatment approaches were compared, and the key processes and substances contributing most

impacts to the environment were identified in each treatment approach.

4.1. Incineration

The life cycle environmental impacts of oily sludge incineration are shown in Fig. 2. As can

be seen, the corresponding impact comprises three parts: the impact from oily sludge

18
incineration, the impact from solid residuals transportation and disposal, and the impact offset

from energy recovery. Particularly, the incineration process accounts for almost all of the

impacts in different categories. For example, 12.0 ton of CO2-eq, 49.0 kg of SO2-eq, and 32.0 kg

of N-eq emissions are released into the atmosphere from the incineration of 1000 kg of oil

sludge, and only 5 kg of CO2-eq, 0.03 kg of SO2-eq, and 0.03 kg of N-eq emissions are generated

from the transportation and disposal of ash residuals. It has been reported that the main gas

emissions from oily sludge incineration include CO2, SO2, and NOx (Liu et al., 2009). In this

study, about 90% of the GWP impact is contributed by CO2 from the incineration process, while

the rest 10% is due to the methane (fossil) emission.

NOx and ethene emissions account for 96% and 3% of the SM impact from the incineration

process, respectively. NOX emissions are also responsible for 14% of the impact in terms of AP,

whereas SO2 is the dominant contributor (82%) to this impact category. The amount of SO2 and

NOx emissions can be reduced by the wet flue gas scrubber and the low-dust SCR DeNOx

facility, respectively. The relatively high emission of CO2-eq and fugitive emission of SO2-eq

result in high impact scores for categories such as GWP and AP. On the other hand, oily sludge

incineration generates heat for producing electricity, which offsets the total adverse

environmental impacts. About 1366 kWh of grid electricity can be generated using the recovered

heat energy from the incineration of 1 ton of oily sludge. However, the impact offsets by energy

recovery are much less than the total adverse impacts of the incineration process. Among the

three main processes, transportation and disposal of incineration by-products to the disposal

facility is associated with the lowest impact in each impact category.

The oily sludge incineration approach has significant impacts on several impact categories,

such as GWP, ECT, FFD, and SM. This is because auxiliary fossil fuels are required for the

19
complete combustion of oily sludge. The FFD impact is mainly due to the consumption of crude

oil (66%), coal (18%), and natural gas (16%) during the incineration. The combustion of

auxiliary fossil fuels and organic-rich sludge at high temperatures could generate a relatively

large amount of GHG, SO2, and NOx emissions, resulting in high impact scores in these

emission-related impact categories (Abuşoğlu et al., 2017). The emissions of PM2.5 (47%) and

SO2 (41%) are the dominant contributors to the RE effect. Potential water contamination by the

metals from the incineration process such as zinc, nickel, and vanadium are responsible for the

high ECT impact. However, the incineration approach is associated with relatively low ODP,

CAR, and NCAR impacts since most of the toxic emissions will be treated before releasing into

the environment. The ODP, CAR, and NCAR effects are mainly due to emissions of

bromofluoromethane to air (> 95%), chromium (VI) to water (90%), and various metals (e.g.,

zinc, lead, arsenic) to water and air (> 95%), respectively.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 2 HERE

==========================

4.2. Landfilling

The life cycle environmental impacts resulting from the landfilling approach are shown in

Fig. 3. The impacts of landfilling treatment approach can be divided into two parts: the impacts

from the transportation of oily sludge from the refinery to the landfill and the impacts from the

landfilling process. In this treatment approach, the landfilling process is associated with the most

significant impacts in terms of GWP and ECT. Roughly 648 kg of CO2-eq emissions are released

20
from the landfilling process, which accounts for 93% of the total GWP impact. The GWP impact

is mainly due to methane (77%) and CO2 (23%) emissions. It has been reported that fugitive

gaseous products (e.g., CO2, CH4) released from aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation of PHCs

in oily sludge are the main contributors to the GWP effect (Hejazi et al., 2003). More critically,

about 4.02 × 104 CTUe of ECT are released to the environment from the landfilling process,

accounting for 99% of the total ECT impact. The ECT impact could be a result of the potential

soil and groundwater contamination by the leachate containing toxic polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons and heavy metals (Karamalidis and Voudrias, 2007). In this study, the ECT impact

is mainly due to the potential water contamination by heavy metals such as zinc (79%), copper

(14%), and nickel (6%) in oily sludge.

The impacts on FFD, ODP, and SM are mainly due to the transportation of oily sludge from

the refinery to the landfill. The FFD and ODP impacts result from the consumption of fossil fuel

in form of crude oil (> 85%) and emission of bromotrifluoromethane (92%), respectively. Diesel

is used by transportation trucks as the fuel, and the combustion of diesel could generate a high

amount of undesirable NOX emissions, which are contaminants responsible for SM (Gilbert et

al., 2018). It is found that the NOX emission accounts for all the SM impact from the

transportation process in the landfilling treatment approach. Hence, the transportation method is

an important contributor to the total impact of the landfilling approach when the distance

between the refinery and landfill is long. Since the landfilling does not contain any energy

recovery process, no impact offset can be observed.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 3 HERE

21
 ==========================

4.3. Solvent extraction

Different categories of life cycle environmental impacts of solvent extraction treatment

approach are shown in Fig. 4. In this approach, the extraction, water-oil separation, vacuum

distillation, recovered oil combustion, and waste disposal processes generate adverse impacts on

the environment. The extraction process is associated with the lowest impact in each impact

category. Significant adverse impacts are generated from the vacuum distillation, recovered oil

combustion, and waste disposal processes. Moreover, a large portion of adverse impacts can be

mitigated due to the energy recovery from recovered oil combustion.

The extraction process only generates < 1% of the total impact for all impact categories

since the extraction tank is the only equipment that requires energy input and generates impacts

on the environment. The water-oil separation process also has a low contribution to the total

impact, although the impact scores are much higher than those of the extraction process. In

contrast, the vacuum distillation process has a significant contribution to the total life cycle

impacts. For example, 3.3 × 10-5 kg CFC-11 eq of ODP is generated from this process,

accounting for nearly 90% of the total impact score value. The ODP impact is primarily due to

the emissions of bromotrifluoromethane (85%), bromochlorodifluoromethane (6%),

dichloroethane (4%), and various chloromethanes (4%). This process also generates 0.23 kg

PM2.5- eq of RE, which accounts for more than 70% of the total value. The RE effect is mainly a

result of emissions of PM2.5 (66%), SO2 (25%), and particles (Ø > 2.5 µm) (7%). Additionally,

about 68% of EP impact is generated from the vacuum distillation process, which is equivalent to

0.81 kg of N eq emissions. Phosphate (55%), COD (20%), and BOD5 (20%) are the main

22
substances responsible for the EP impact. The environmental impact from the vacuum

distillation process is mainly due to the relatively high electricity consumption and MEK solvent

loss, and replenishing the loss of MEK has a much higher adverse impact than the electricity

consumption.

The process of recovered oil combustion also generates high impacts in terms of GWP (79%

of the total GWP impact), SM (80%), AP (78%), CAR (57%), NCAR (73%), ECT (56%), and

FFD (64%). The GWP (i.e., 1140 kg of CO2 eq) and SM (i.e., 220 kg of kg O3 eq) impacts are

predominantly because of CO2 (97%) and NOX (99%) emissions from the combustion of

recovered oil, respectively. NOX also accounts for 42% of the AP impact, following sulfur

monoxide (47%). The toxic effects such as CAR, NCAR, and ECT from the combustion of

recovered oil are mainly due to potential water resource contaminations by heavy metals such as

barium, chromium, and nickel (Corbin et al., 2018). The FFD impact is a result of the

consumption of crude oil and natural gas resources, which accounts for 95% and 5% of the

impact in this category, respectively.

It should be noted that the waste disposal process comprises the transportation and disposal

of unrecoverable solids and wastewater. The impact of waste transportation is much higher than

that of waste disposal. For example, about 2.48 × 10-6 kg CFC-11 eq of ODP and 9.76 kg CO2 eq

of GWP emissions are generated from the transportation, which are higher than those of solid

residual (ODP: 7.23 × 10-7 kg CFC-11 eq; GWP: 3.18 kg CO2 eq) and wastewater (ODP: 2.16 ×

10-8 kg CFC-11 eq; GWP: 0.27 kg CO2 eq) treatments. Significant impact offsets can be

generated from the energy recovery process. For example, about 85% and 96% of adverse

impacts in ODP and EP can be eliminated by the energy recovery process, and roughly 40-50%

of human health toxic effects (i.e., CAR and NCAR) can be offset. Particularly, the adverse

23
impact in RE category can be completely eliminated. For instance, roughly 0.33 kg PM2.5-eq of

RE are generated in total and 0.43 kg PM2.5-eq of RE can be eliminated by the energy recovery,

resulting in a negative impact score for RE. The energy recovery process can also mitigate

approximately 14% of adverse impacts in terms of GWP, SM, and AP, but the offsets are much

lower than the adverse impacts posed by the combustion of recovered oil, which account for

nearly 80% of the total impacts. Approximately 1150 kWh of grid electricity can be generated

using the heat energy from the combustion of recovered oil.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 4 HERE

==========================

4.4. Pyrolysis

The impacts of the pyrolysis treatment approach are illustrated in Fig. 5. As can be seen,

GWP, ECT, FFD, and SM are the main impact categories of concern for this approach. The

pyrolysis process and combustion of pyrolysis products are the two main processes identified

with significant impacts. The impacts from the pyrolysis process and the combustion process are

approximately equivalent. For instance, 1.05- and 1.19-ton CO2 eq of GWP are generated from

the pyrolysis process and the combustion process, respectively, and 2440 and 2480 CTUe of

ECT are generated from the pyrolysis process and the combustion process, respectively. The

high impact of the pyrolysis process in GWP category is linked to CO2 (1018 kg, 95% of the

CO2 eq) and methane (32 kg, 5% of the CO2 eq) emissions as a result of using external fossil

energy (i.e., heavy fuel oil and natural gas) for maintaining the temperature of the pyrolysis

24
reactor. Similar percentages of CO2 and methane emissions are generated from the combustion

of pyrolysis products. The relatively high ECT impact from both the pyrolysis and py-oil

combustion processes is due to the potential water contamination by metals such as barium

(73%), chromium (16%), and zinc (5%). These metals are generated from the combustion of

heavy fuel oil as a recent study found that the soot from the combustion of heavy fuel oil

contains several toxic heavy metals, such as vanadium, nickel, and barium (Corbin et al., 2018).

The oily sludge drying process also generates significant impacts in terms of GWP, ECT,

FFD, and SM because of considerable external energy inputs. Particularly, the drying process

generates the highest impact in terms of ODP (1.33 × 10-5 kg CFC-11 eq, 95% of the total ODP

impacts) and EP (0.24 kg N eq, 42% of the total EP impacts) among all the processes involved in

the pyrolysis treatment. Bromotrifluoromethane (57%) and bromochlorodifluoromethane (38%)

are the main substances responsible for the ODP impact from the drying process. The high EP

impact from the drying process is mainly due to water contamination of phosphate (90%), NOX

(5%), and nitrate (3%). It is estimated that the energy consumption of the drying process is

roughly 1/5 of the energy required for pyrolyzing 1000 kg of oily sludge. More importantly, the

recovered energy could considerably offset the adverse impacts of the entire pyrolysis approach.

The adverse ODP and EP effects can be completely eliminated by the energy recovery process.

About 24-53% of human health toxic effects, in terms of CAR, NCAR, and RE, and 4-6% of

adverse environmental impacts, in terms of GWP, SM, and AP, can be mitigated by energy

recovery. The energy recovery process can generate 1015 kWh of grid electricity using the heat

energy from the combustion of py-oil.

==========================

25
 PLEASE INSERT FIG. 5 HERE

==========================

4.5. Impact comparison of treatment approaches

Different categories of life cycle environmental impacts of the four oily sludge treatment

approaches are compared. As Fig. 6. shows, three environmental impact categories including

ECT, GWP, and FFD are the main concerns regarding oily sludge treatment. Generally, oily

sludge treatment has relatively insignificant impacts on the environment in terms of ODP, SM,

AP, EP, CAR, NCAR, and RE. In fact, solvent extraction and pyrolysis treatment approaches

could contribute offsets to impact categories such as RE, EP, and ODP, achieving negative

impact scores for these categories. The two traditional oily sludge treatment approaches,

incineration and landfilling, are associated with much higher ECT effects than the two emerging

treatment approaches. For example, the ECT impacts generated by solvent extraction and

pyrolysis treatment approaches are only equivalent to 5% and 7% of that of incineration

approach, respectively. This indicates that the two emerging oily sludge treatment approaches

could have much lower adverse effects on environmental media such as groundwater and soils.

The incineration treatment approach has the highest impact on GWP due to the combustion

of PHCs in oily sludge and the use of auxiliary fossil fuels. In comparison, landfilling has a

much lower impact on global warming, suggesting that the GHG emissions from biodegradation

of 1000 kg of oily sludge are significantly lower than those generated by incineration. Moreover,

the three treatment approaches with an energy recovery process are associated with different

levels of FFD potential. Pyrolysis approach has the highest FFD because it is an endothermal

process that requires a considerable amount of energy input to carry out the pyrolysis process.

26
 ==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 6 HERE

==========================

The normalized life cycle environmental impacts of different oily sludge treatment

approaches are presented in Fig. 7. As can be seen, solvent extraction and pyrolysis have total

normalized score values of 34.4 and 47.3 impacts per person per year, respectively, which are

much lower than those of incineration (701 impacts per person per year) and landfilling (586

impacts per person per year). Solvent extraction approach shows the lowest total normalized

environmental impact, which is equivalent to roughly 5% of the highest normalized impact

generated by oily sludge incineration. Thus, from an environmental perspective, the emerging

energy recovery treatments are more desirable than the traditional approaches. The total

normalized impact of solvent extraction approach is approximately equivalent to 73% of that of

pyrolysis approach.

It is found that the main adverse effect of the emerging oily recovery approaches is related

to ECT, which consists of nearly 80% of the total impact per person per year. Also, over 80%

and 90% of the total life cycle impacts from the incineration and landfilling approaches,

respectively, are related to the ECT impact. The high ECT impact of oily sludge treatments

might be due to the toxic nature of the waste. After normalization, it can be found that

incineration and landfilling approaches have significant life cycle NCAR toxic effects on human

health. The potential human toxic effects might be due to relatively large amounts of toxic

substances that are released to the environment through fugitive gaseous emission (i.e., SO and

27
NOX) from the incineration process and potential groundwater and soil contamination by the

leachate (i.e., heavy metals) during the landfilling process. Moreover, the incineration approach

shows a significant CAR effect on human health as a result of potential water and air

contamination by carcinogenic heavy metals such as chromium VI and arsenic from direct oily

sludge incineration.

==========================

PLEASE INSERT FIG. 7 HERE

==========================

Based on the LCIA results, it can be concluded that the emerging energy recovery

approaches are more desirable for oily sludge treatment owing to their much lower life cycle

environmental impacts. However, several assumptions were made to perform the LCAs, which

could result in uncertainties in the assessment outcomes. The inputs of the life cycle inventory

for the two emerging energy recovery approaches were collected from experimental data. Hence,

uncertainties could be generated when using experimental data to simulate real-world

applications. Different methodologies have also been developed to estimate the life cycle

impacts of scaling-up systems based on experimental data, which provide great references to

estimate the effects of scaling-up of oily sludge treatment systems (Piccinno et al., 2016; 2018;

Ravikumar et al., 2018).

Also, the properties of the refinery sludge investigated in the two traditional approaches

were considered the same as those of the oily sludge investigated in the two emerging

approaches due to lack of experimental data on the two traditional approaches. This assumption

28
could result in uncertainties in the quantified impacts. More accurate results may be obtained

when better information of the two traditional approaches becomes available. Moreover, the two

emerging treatment approaches might have different treatment performances on oily sludge with

different physical properties and chemical compositions. In fact, oily sludges from different

sources are often associated with different properties and/or compositions. The variation of

treatment performance could also lead to uncertainties in the LCIA results, and these

uncertainties are difficult to quantify due to data constraints. However, the results in this study

could provide preliminary information for decision making in selecting low-impact hazardous

oily sludge waste treatment technologies, and the developed method can be used as a reference to

the LCIAs of the treatment of oily sludge with different properties.

5. Conclusion

The life cycle environmental impacts of traditional and emerging oily sludge treatment

approaches were assessed. The life cycle environmental impacts were assessed by following the

standardized ISO 14040 procedure. The results show that the two emerging approaches,

including solvent extraction and pyrolysis, have much lower life cycle environmental impacts

than the traditional alternatives such as incineration and landfilling. Traditional oily sludge

treatment approaches are generally associated with relatively high GWP, ECT, and adverse

human health effects. Solvent extraction has the lowest adverse effect on the environment, which

is only equivalent to 5% of the total normalized impact of incineration approach. The adverse

effects of solvent extraction were found to be related to ECT and FFD. In the solvent extraction

treatment approach, the vacuum distillation process and combustion of recovered oil account for

the main impacts. In pyrolysis treatment, the drying, pyrolysis, and combustion of py-oil and py-

29
gas are the main contributors to the total impact. The energy recovery process in both emerging

approaches can reclaim heat energy for generating electricity and offset the total adverse

impacts. The emerging approaches are promising for low-impact refinery oily sludge treatment.

The results add new knowledge to urban mining regarding the recycling of hazardous industrial

wastes and provide useful information facilitating the oil and gas industry in transiting towards

more sustainable oily waste management.

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada (NSERC), the Multi-Partner Oil Spill Research Initiative (MPRI) of Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, and the China Scholarship Council (Sponsorship number: 201706370234). The

authors would also like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their help in improving

the quality of the manuscript.

30
References

Abuşoğlu, A., Özahi, E., Kutlar, A.İ., Al-jaf, H., 2017. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of digested

sewage sludge incineration for heat and power production. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 1684-1692.

Bhattacharyya, J.K., Shekdar, A.V., 2002. Treatment and disposal of refinery sludges: Indian

scenario, Waste Manage. Res. 21, 249-261.

BLS, 2018. Agitating machine/jacketed solvent tank-5000 L. https://www.alibaba.com/product-

detail/500L-Aloe-vera-gel-agitating

machine_60479085561.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.96.4R32UM (Accessed Jan 3,

2019).

Cao, Y., Pawlowski, A., 2012. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic

digestion and pyrolysis: Brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renew. Sustain.

Energ. Rev. 16, 1657-1665.

Chang, C., Shie, J., Lin, J., Wu, C., Lee, D., Chang, C., 2000. Major products obtained from the

pyrolysis of oil sludge. Energ. Fuel. 14(6), 1176-1183.

Chen, T., Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Lu, W., Zhou, Z., Zhang, Y., Ren, L., 2014. Influence of

pyrolysis temperature on characteristics and heavy metal adsorptive performance of biochar

derived from municipal sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 164, 47-54.

Chirwa, E.M.N., Mampholo, T., Fayemiwo, O., 2013. Biosurfactants as demulsifying agents for

oil recovery from oily sludge-performance evaluation. Water Sci. Technol. 61, 2875-2881.

Corbin, J.C., Mensah, A.A., Pieber, S.M., et al., 2018. Trace metals in soot and PM2.5 from

heavy-fuel-oil combustion in a marine engine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 6714-6722.

Cossu, R., Williams, I.D., 2015. Urban mining: concepts, terminology, challenges. Waste

Manage. 45, 1-3.

31
da Silva, L.J., Alves, F.C., de Franḉa, F.P., 2012. A review of the technological solutions for the

treatment of oily sludges from petroleum refineries. Waste Manage. Res. 2012, 30, 1016–

1030.

DingLi, 2018. Sludge paddle dryer. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Sludge-Paddle-

Dryer-Turnkey-Service-_60582001587.html?spm=a2700.7724838/old.2017115.8.jj5P5o

(Accessed Jan 3, 2019).

Edwards, K.D., Wagner, R.M., Briggs, T.E., Theiss, T.J., 2011. Defining engine efficiency

limits. The United States Department of Energy. 17th DEER Conference, Oct 3-6, Detroit,

MI, USA.

EPA, 1991. Safe, Environmentally acceptable resources recovery from oil refinery sludge, the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington DC.

Fuyi, 2018. Oily sludge/slurry decanter centrifuge. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Oily-

Sludge-Slurry-Decanter-Centrifuge-304_60591750255.html (Accessed Jan 3, 2019).

Gentil, E.C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., Eriksson, O., Thorneloe, S., Kaplan,

P.O., Barlaz, M., Muller, O., Matsui, Y., Li, R., Christensen, T.H., 2010. Models for waste

life cycle assessment: Review of technical assumptions. Waste Manage. 30, 2636-2648.

Gilbert, P., Walsh, C., Traut, M., Kesieme, U., Pazouki, K., Murphy, A., 2018. Assessment of

full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 855-866.

Gong, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., 2018. Study on migration characteristics of heavy metals during

oil sludge incineration. Petro. Sci. Technol. 36, 6, 469-474.

Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., 2011. Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 90-96.

32
He, P., Wang, C., Zuo, L., 2018. The present and future availability of high-tech minerals in

waste mobile phones: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 192, 940-949.

Hejazi, R.F., Husain, T., Khan, F., 2003. Landfarming operation of oily sludge in arid region-

human health risk assessment. J. Hazard. Mater. 99, 287-302.

HKEPD, 2018. Sludge incineration. Environmental Protection Department, the Government of

the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/incineration.htm

l (Accessed Jan 3, 2019).

Hu, G, Li, J., Zeng, G., 2013. Recent development in the treatment of oily sludge from petroleum

industry: a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 261, 470-490.

Hu, G., Li, J., Hou. H., 2015. A combination of solvent extraction and freeze-thaw for oil

recovery from petroleum refinery wastewater treatment pond sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 283,

832-840.

Hu, G., Li, J., Huang, S., Li. Y, 2016. Oil recovery from refinery oily sludge through ultrasonic

assisted extraction. J. Environ. Sci. Heal. A. 51(11), 921-929.

Hu, G., Li, J., Zhang, X., Li, Y., 2017. Investigation of waste biomass co-pyrolysis with

petroleum sludge using a response surface methodology. J. Environ. Manage. 192, 234-242.

Jinpeng, 2018. Continuous waste plastic pyrolysis plant. https://www.alibaba.com/product-

detail/Hot-Sale-continuous-waste-plastic-

pyrolysis_60107284331.html?spm=a2700.7724838/old.2017115.1.Y2Hd99 (Accessed Jan 3,

2019).

Karamalidis, A., Voudrias, E.A., 2007. Cement-based stabilization/solidification of oil refinery

sludge: Leaching behavior of alkanes and PAHs. J. Hazard. Mater. 148, 122-135.

33
Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Bakas, I., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H.,

Hauschild, M.Z., 2014. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – Part II:

Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage. 34, 589-606.

Lederer, J., Laner, D., Fellner, J., Recheberger, H., 2014. A framework for the evaluation of

anthropogenic resources based on natural resource evaluation concepts. In: Proceedings

SUM 2014, 2nd Symposium on Urban Mining, Bergamo, Italy; IWWG – International Waste

Working Group, ISBN:9788862650311; 016.

Li, H., Feng, K., 2018. Life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts and energy efficiency

of an integration of sludge anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 476-485.

Liu, J., Jiang, X., Zhou, L., Wang, H., Han, X., 2009. Co-firing of oil sludge with coal-water

slurry in an industrial internal circulating fluidized bed boiler. J. Hazard. Mater. 167, 817-

823.

Mills, N., Pearce, P., Farrow, J., Thorpe, R.B., Kirkby, N.F., 2014. Environmental & economic

life cycle assessment of current & future sewage sludge to energy technologies. Waste

Manage. 34, 185-195.

Mishra, H., Karmakar, S., Kumar, R., Singh, J., 2017. A framework for assessing uncertainty

associated with human health risks from MSW landfill leachate contamination. Risk Anal.

37(7), 1237-1255.

Naik, B.S., Mishra, I.M., Bhattacharya, S.D., 2011. Biodegradation of total petroleum

hydrocarbons from oily sludge. Biorem. J. 15, 140-147.

Piccinno, F., Hischier, R., Seeger, S., Som, C., 2016. From laboratory to industrial scale: a scale-

up framework for chemical processes in life cycle assessment studies. J. Clean. Prod. 135,

1085-1097.

34
Piccinno, F., Hischier, R., Seeger, S., Som, C., 2018. Predicting the environmental impact of a

future nanocellulose production at industrial scale: Application of the life cycle assessment

scale-up framework. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 283-295.

Qin, L., Han, J., He, X., Zhan, Y., Yu, F., 2015. Recovery of energy and iron from oily sludge

pyrolysis in a fluidized bed reactor. J. Environ. Manage. 154, 177-182.

Ramachandran, S., Yao, Z., You, S., Massier, T., Stimming, U., Wang, C., 2017. Life cycle

assessment of a sewage sludge and woody biomass co-gasification system. Energy 137, 369-

376.

Ravikumar, D., Seager, T., Cucurachi, S., Prado, V., Mutel, C., 2018. Novel method of

sensitivity analysis improves the prioritization of research in anticipatory life cycle

assessment of emerging technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 6534-6543.

Reza, B., Soltani, A., Ruparathna, R., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2013. Environmental and economic

aspects of production and utilization of RDF as alternative fuel in cement plants: A case

study of Metro Vancouver Waste Management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 81, 105-114.

Roldán, C.T., Castorena, C.G., Zapata, P.I., Reyes, A.J., Olguín, L.P., 2012. Aerobic

biodegradation of sludge with high hydrocarbon content generated by a Mexican natural gas

processing facility. J. Environ. Manage. 95, 93-98.

Ryberg, M., Vieira, M.D.M., Zgola, M., Bare, J., Rosenbaum, R.K., 2014. Updated US and

Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 16, 329–339.

Sebastião, D., Gonçalves, M.S., Marques, S., Fonseca, C., Gírio, F., Oliveira, A.C., Matos, C.T.,

2016. Life cycle assessment of advanced bioethanol production from pulp and paper sludge.

Bioresour. Technol. 208, 100-109.

35
Vbolt, 2018. Vacuum distillation used engine oil recycling machine.

https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Vacuum-Distillation-Used-Engine-Oil-

Recycling_60774138783.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.18.709854beAGEnhP&s=p

(Accessed Jan 3, 2019).

Vlasopoulos, N., Memon, F.A., Butler, D., Murphy, R., 2006. Life cycle assessment of

wastewater treatment technologies treating petroleum process waters. Sci. Total Environ.

367, 58-70.

Yoshida, H., Hoeve, M.T., Christensen, T.H., Bruun, S., Jensen, L.S., Scheutz, C., 2018. Life

cycle assessment of sewage sludge management options including long-term impacts after

land application. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 538-547.

Zonelink, 2018. GF105J high-speed tubular bowl oil water separation equipment/centrifugal

separator machine. https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/GF105J-High-Speed-tubular-

bowl-oil_60790292774.html?spm=a2700.7724838.2017115.12.30127545Arda9v (Accessed

Jan 3, 2019).

Zubaidy, E.A.H., Abouelnasr, D.M., 2010. Fuel recovery from waste oily sludge using solvent

extraction. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 88(5), 318-326.

36
 Tables

Table 1 Life cycle inventory of oily sludge treatment through solvent extraction approach.

Process Input/output Value a Source

Solvent Input
extraction Oily sludge (kg) 1000 Functional unit
Methyl ethyl ketone (kg) 3000 Calculated
Electricity for extraction tank operation (MJ) 3.17 (Vbolt, 2018)
Output
Extraction mixture (kg) 4000 Calculated
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Water-oil Input
separation Extraction mixture (kg) 4000 Calculated
Electricity for sludge decanter centrifuge 73.80 (Fuyi, 2018)
operation (MJ)
Electricity for water-oil centrifuge operation (MJ) 13.68 (Zonelink, 2018)
Output
Wastewater (kg) 500 Calculated
Solid residuals (kg) 200 Calculated
Oil-solvent mixture (kg) 3300 Calculated
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Vacuum Input
distillation Oil-solvent mixture (kg) 3300 Calculated
Electricity for vacuum distillation operation (MJ) 1188 (Vbolt, 2018)
Output
Recovered solvent (kg) 2850 Calculated
Recovered oil (kg) 300 Calculated
Solvent lost (kg) 150 Calculated
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Energy recovery Input
Recovered oil (kg) 300 (Hu et al., 2016)
Output
Grid electricity (efficiency from fuel to 45% (Edwards et al.,
electricity) 2011)
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Secure Input
landfilling Solid residuals (kg) 200 Calculated
Output
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Wastewater Input
treatment Wastewater (kg) 500 Calculated
Output
Impacts Ecoinvent database
a
Values are presented per functional unit.
 Table 2 Life cycle inventory of oily sludge treatment through pyrolysis approach.

Process Input/output Value a Source

Drying Input
Oily sludge (kg) 1000 Functional unit
Steam from the natural gas burner (kg) 1200 Calculated
Electricity for paddle dryer operation (MJ) 22.10 (Dingli, 2018)
Output
Dried oily sludge (kg) 556 Calculated
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Pyrolysis Input
Dried oily sludge (kg) 556 Calculated
Electricity for pyrolysis reactor operation (MJ) 96.10 (Jinpeng, 2018)
Heat from natural gas for reactor preheating (m3) 100 (Jinpeng, 2018)
Heat from heavy fuel oil for reactor preheating (kg) 200 (Jinpeng, 2018)
Output
Py-gas (kg) 228 Calculated
Py-oil (kg) 183.50 Calculated
Solid by-products for soil conditioning (kg) 44.50 Calculated
Impacts Ecoinvent database
Energy recovery Input
Py-oil (MJ/kg) 45.65 Calculated
Py-gas (kg) 228 Calculated
Output
Impacts Ecoinvent database
a
Values are presented per functional unit.
Table 3 Normalization factor for impact categories in TRACI 2.1 for North American LCA
studies.

Impact category Unit Impact capita-1 year -1

Ecotoxicity - no metals CTUe 7.40E+01
Carcinogenics - no metals CTUh 5.10E-06
Non carcinogenics - no metals CTUh 3.40E-05
Global warming Kg CO2 eq 2.40E+04
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 1.50E-01
Acidification kg SO2 eq 9.50E+01
Eutrophication kg N eq 2.10E+01
Smog (photochemical smog formation) kg O3 eq 1.50E+03
Respiratory effects kg PM2.5 eq 3.00E+01
Fossil fuel depletion MJ surplus 1.90E+04
 Figures

Fig. 1. System boundary of different oily sludge treatment approaches.

 6
Incineration Ash transportation and disposal Energy recovery Total

4
Log value of impact score

0
ODP GWP SM AP EP CAR NCAR RE ECT FFD
-2

-4

-6

-8 cycle environmental impacts of incineration treatment of 1000 kg of oily sludge (*

Fig. 2. Life
represents an impact offset).
 6
Landfilling Transportation Total
4
Log value of impact score

0
ODP GWP SM AP EP CAR NCAR RE ECT FFD
-2

-4

-6

Fig. -8
3. Life cycle environmental impacts of landfilling treatment of 1000 kg of oily sludge.
 4
Extraction Water-oil separation Vacuum distillation Recovered oil combustion Energy recovery Waste disposal Total
3
2
Log value of impact score

1
0
-1 ODP GWP SM AP EP CAR NCAR RE ECT FFD
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8

Fig. 4. Life cycle environmental impacts of solvent extraction treatment of 1000 kg of oily
sludge (* represents an impact offset).
 4 Drying Pyrolysis Py-oil and gas Energy recovery Total
combustion
Log value of impact score

0
ODP GWP SM AP EP CAR NCAR RE ECT FFD
-2

-4

-6

-8

Fig. 5. Life cycle environmental impacts of pyrolysis treatment of 1000 kg of oily sludge (*
represents an impact offset).
Fig. 6. LCIA results of four oily sludge treatment approaches.
Fig. 7. Total normalized life cycle impacts of four oily sludge treatment approaches.