Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of anion exchange and granular activated carbon systems for remediation of groundwater contaminated by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)

被引:20
|
作者
Ellis, Anderson C. [1 ]
Boyer, Treavor H. [2 ]
Fang, Yida [1 ,3 ]
Liu, Charlie J. [1 ,4 ]
Strathmann, Timothy J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Colorado Sch Mines, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Golden, CO 80401 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ ASU, Sch Sustainable Engn & Built Environm SSEBE, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA
[3] CDM Smith, Bellevue, WA 98807 USA
[4] Kennedy Jenks Consultants, San Francisco, CA 94118 USA
关键词
LCA; Life cycle cost; PFAS; Sustainability; Anion exchange resin; GAC; PERFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES; NORMALIZATION FACTORS; WASTE-WATER; REMOVAL; TECHNOLOGIES; SCALE; GAC; US;
D O I
10.1016/j.watres.2023.120324
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Anion exchange resin (AER) and granular activated carbon (GAC) have emerged as prominent technologies for treatment of waters contaminated with per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). This study compares the life cycle environmental impacts and life cycle costs of remediating PFAS-contaminated groundwater with these competing technologies, using field pilot data to inform model inputs. Comparative analysis indicates that AER systems employing single-use "PFAS-selective" resins have lower environmental impacts and costs than systems using regenerable resins or GAC adsorbents, supporting its use in future remediation efforts. Use of GAC operated as a single-use adsorbent led to the highest emissions as well as the highest treatment costs, with thermally-reactivated GAC proving to be less impactful than regenerable AER treatment. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the dominance of media usage rate (MUR), which is highly dependent on the selected PFAS treatment goals, to determine environmental impacts and costs over a 30-year system life cycle. Selection of very stringent changeout criteria (e.g., detection of any PFASs in effluent) significantly reduces the advantages of single-use resins. For regenerable AER, environmental impacts were dominated by management of the PFAS-contaminated brine/co-solvent waste stream used to regenerate the adsorbent, as well as the cosolvent con -tent of the regenerant mixture and the cosolvent recovery efficiency achieved via on-site distillation. High im-pacts estimated for GAC adsorption, the result of high MUR relative to ion exchange media, can be significantly reduced if spent adsorbents are reused after thermal reactivation, but impacts are still greater than those pre-dicted for single-use ion exchange systems. Findings are expected to hold across a range of diverse sites, including drinking water systems treating more dilute sources of PFAS contamination, as PFAS breakthrough was not found to be highly sensitive to sourcewater PFAS concentrations.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [31] Long-Term Comparative Life Cycle Assessment, Cost, and Comfort Analysis of Heavyweight vs. Lightweight Construction Systems in a Mediterranean Climate
    Costantino, Carlo
    Bigiotti, Stefano
    Marucci, Alvaro
    Gulli, Riccardo
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (20)
  • [32] Carbon dioxide submarine storage in glass containers: Life Cycle Assessment and cost analysis of four case studies in the cement sector
    Barreto, Beatriz Beccari
    Caserini, Stefano
    Dolci, Giovanni
    Grosso, Mario
    MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION STRATEGIES FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, 2020, 25 (02) : 165 - 183
  • [33] Energy and greenhouse gas life cycle assessment and cost analysis of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactor systems: Influence of scale, population density, climate, and methane recovery
    Cashman, Sarah
    Ma, Xin
    Mosley, Janet
    Garland, Jay
    Crone, Brian
    Xue, Xiaobo
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 254 : 56 - 66
  • [34] Life Cycle Analysis and Operating Cost Assessment of a Carbon Negative Catalytic Pyrolysis Technique Using a Spent Aluminum Hydroxide Nanoparticle Adsorbent-Derived Catalyst: Insights into Coproduct Utilization and Sustainability
    Gupta, Shubhi
    Patel, Pushpraj
    Mondal, Prasenjit
    ENERGY & FUELS, 2023, 37 (04) : 2960 - 2971