This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
CARBON FOOTPRINTING
Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from sewer pipeline system
1Department of Advanced Technology, Land & Housing Institute, Korea Land & Housing Corporation, 539-99 Expo-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34047, South Korea2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34141, South Korea3Korea Environment Institute, 370 Sicheong-daero, Sejong 30147, South Korea4School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), 77 Cheongam-ro, Nam-gu, Pohang 37673, South Korea
Daeseung Kyung and Dongwook Kim contributed equally to this manuscript
System boundaryFrom material production to end of lifed
From material production to rehabilitation
From material production to construction
Database
Country Korea Norway United Kingdom
Life Cycle Inventory
Korean LCI database and Ecoinvet database (v.2.2)
Ecoinvent database (v 2.01)
CPSA proprietary data about four factories and Plastics Europe DB
a(Venkatesh et al. 2009)b(CPSA 2001)cIn CPSA study, the emission factor for PP pipe was estimated, instead of PE pipedThe Emissions from operation stage are excluded
S5
Table S7 Significant factors affecting GHG emissions at each life cycle stage based on the sensitivity analysis
Stage Significant factor Sensitivity (%)
MPmaterial of pipeline 70.6
EFEST of pipeline 23.7
MT transportation distance (Dm) 99.2
COEF of excavator (EFe) 71.7
material of pipeline 25.5
OPdiameter of pipeline 59.8
biofilm reaction rate (Rateb) 19.0
MItransportation distance (Dm) 40.2
pipe replacement ratio (ratiom) 32.2
ELpipe replacement ratio (ratiom) 62.9
material of pipeline 36.8
Table S8 Effect of pipeline replacement ratio on GHG emissions at overall, MI, and EL stages
ScenarioOverall(tCO2eq∙yr-1)
MI and EL stages(tCO2eq∙yr-1) (%)
Current replacement ratio (0.199) 6.64×103 6.97×102 10.49%
Enhancement of replacement ratio: -1 % (0.197) 6.63×103 6.89×102 10.40%
Enhancement of replacement ratio: -3 % (0.193) 6.61×103 6.76×102 10.21%
Enhancement of replacement ratio: -5 % (0.189) 6.58×103 6.59×102 10.02%
Enhancement of replacement ratio: -10 % (0.179)
6.57×103 6.26×102 9.54%
Enhancement of replacement ratio: -15 % (0.169)
6.53×103 5.92×102 9.06%
S6
Table S9 Effect of pipe diameter on GHG emissions at overall, MP, and OP stages
ScenarioTotal
(tCO2eq∙yr-1)
MP stage OP stage
(tCO2eq∙yr-1) (%) (tCO2eq∙yr-1) (%)
D150: Construction of 228km
pipeline with 150 mm diameter7.05×103 1.07×103 15.18 4.66×103 66.16
D300: Construction of 228km
pipeline with 300 mm diameter7.28×103 1.11×103 15.25 4.83×103 66.26
D450: Construction of 228km
pipeline with 450 mm diameter7.52×103 1.17×103 15.53 4.97×103 66.11
D700: Construction of 228km
pipeline with 700 mm diameter7.99×103 1.29×103 16.20 5.23×103 65.47
D900: Construction of 228km
pipeline with 900 mm diameter8.34×103 1.40×103 16.76 5.40×103 64.82
Table S10 Effect of biofilm reaction rate change on GHG emissions at overall and OP stages
ScenarioTotal(tCO2eq∙yr-1)
OP stage(tCO2eq∙yr-1) (%)
Current biofilm reaction rate (5.24×10-5) 6.64×103 4.45×103 67.00Reduction of biofilm reaction rate: -1 % (5.12×10-
5)6.58×103 4.37×103 66.36
Reduction of biofilm reaction rate: -2 % (5.14×10-
5)6.56×103 4.31×103 65.72
Reduction of biofilm reaction rate: -3 % (5.08×10-
5)6.52×103 4.24×103 65.08
Reduction of biofilm reaction rate: -4 % (5.03×10-
5)6.46×103 4.16×103 64.44
Reduction of biofilm reaction rate: -5 % (4.98×10-
5)6.40×103 4.09×103 63.80
S7
S8
Fig. S1 Map of DMC and location of WWTPs
S9
ELMI
OP
MP
MICO
6.93 e+37.17 e+3
6.58 e+3
7.05 e+3
6.41 e+3 6.46 e+37.0e+3
6.0e+3
5.0e+3
4.0e+3
3.0e+3
2.0e+3
0.0
GH
G e
mis
sion
s (tC
O2e
q ∙y
r-1)
Fig. S2 GHG emissions with different combination of pipe materials
*C (construction of 100 % PVC pipe), P1 (100 % PE pipe), P2 (100 % concrete pipe), P3 (50 % PVC and 50 % PE pipe), P4 (50 % PVC and 50 % concrete pipe), and P5 (50 % PE and 50 % concrete pipe)
S10
ReferencesCPSA (2001) Environmental assessment of UK sewer systems Groundbreaking Research, in:
Hobson, J. (Ed.). Department of Trade and Industry