biofuel or excavation? - life cycle assessment (lca) of soil remediation options

b i om a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 9 6 9e9 8 1

Avai lab le a t www.sc iencedi rec t .com

ht tp : / /www.e lsev ier . com/ loca te /b iombioe

Biofuel or excavation? - Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soilremediation options

Pascal Suer*, Yvonne Andersson-Skold

Swedish Geotechnical Institute, 58193 Linkoping, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 18 November 2009

Received in revised form

27 October 2010

Accepted 5 November 2010

Available online 4 December 2010

Keywords:

LCA

Biofuel

Remediation

Contaminated soil

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ46 13 201889;E-mail address: [email protected]

0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2010 Elsevdoi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.022

a b s t r a c t

The environmental consequences of soil remediation through biofuel or through dig-and-

dump were compared using life cycle assessment (LCA). Willow (Salix viminalis) was

actually grown in-situ on a discontinued oil depot, as a phytoremediation treatment. These

data were used for the biofuel remediation, while excavation-and-refill data were esti-

mated from experience. The biofuel remediation had great environmental advantages

compared to the ex situ excavation remediation. With the ReCiPe impact assessment

method, which included biodiversity, the net environmental effect was even positive, in

spite of the fact that the wood harvest was not utilised for biofuel production, but left on

the contaminated site. Impact from the Salix viminalis cultivation was mainly through land

use for the short rotation coppice, and through journeys of control personnel. The latter

may be reduced when familiarity with biofuel as a soil treatment method increases. The

excavation-and-refill remediation was dominated by the landfill and the transport of

contaminated soil and backfill.

ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the Swedish demand [4,5]. In addition to the significant

The soil of around 3million sites in the EEAmember countries

are suspected of being contaminated, and 250 000 contami-

nated sites are known to require clean up in this European

region [1]. At many of those sites the extent of contamination

may not be sufficient to trigger remediation under current

regulatory conditions, and there may be little economic

incentive to regenerate the areas affected. The potential

number of contaminated sites in Sweden is 80 000 [2] and also

in Sweden known contaminated areas lie unused. Remedia-

tion is only considered for sites with high exploitation pres-

sure and for the sites that pose the highest risk to human

health or the environment [2]. At the same time, competition

for land resources increases. The European target is to replace

10% of the fossil fuel with biofuel by 2020 [3]. This could

require around 30 000 km2 land for biofuel production to meet

fax: þ46 13 201912.(P. Suer).ier Ltd. All rights reserved

increasing demand of biofuel there also is an increasing

market for other bioproducts such as bio-based plastics and

fibres and bio-feedstock. Biofuel, and other non-food crop,

production on land that is suitable for food-crops may place

an increasing stress on agricultural land and food prices [6]. By

a first estimate, around 750 km2 of the contaminated land in

Sweden could be suitable for biofuel or other non food crop

production with regard to contaminant levels, location in

relation to market and infrastructural demands, topograph-

ical features etc. [7,8].

The use of vegetation for in-situ risk reduction for

contaminated soils is called phytoremediation. This can for

example be designed to encourage vegetation on contami-

nated sites, which decreases the potential migration of

contaminants through dust or through leaching, since it

changes the water balance. The increased microbial flora and

.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.022



b i om a s s an d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 9 6 9e9 8 1970

carbon content increase the soil quality andmay contribute to

increased degradation of contaminants [7]. Soil organicmatter

is a major sorbent for many contaminants and hence

increased soil organic matter can stabilise contaminants and

decrease the risk of spreading (phytostabilisation). On the

other hand, increased leaching of soil organic matter may

increase leaching of contaminants through complexation

reactions [9]. If soil is to be used for biofuel production, the

risks that the contamination constitute must be managed.

Contaminants may be enriched in the biofuel crop and thus

removed from the soil (phytoextraction), or crop choices and

clones can bemade that prevent take-up of contaminants [10].

Contaminants in a biofuel crop may cause problems for

grazing animals or in later steps of the biofuel production, and

the decision on whether crop uptake should be encouraged or

not must be made on a case-by-case basis.

When contaminated land is considered for use, remedia-

tion of the soil is always an issue to be considered. The net

environmental consequences of remediation are not always

positive. The cost to the environment and human health in

the form of increased greenhouse gas emissions, particle

emissions, use of limited resources etc may often outweigh

the gain obtained by soil remediation [11,12]. Biofuel cultiva-

tion has a good chance of a net positive effect: the use of bio-

energy in place of conventional fuels (or as an additive) results

undermany conditions in a net gain in the energy balance and

in greenhouse gases [13]. Other environmental aspects than

energy and impact on carbon dioxide (such as acidification,

human health aspects and ecotoxicity) are more uncertain,

less thoroughly researched, and possibly in favour of fossil

fuels when compared with biofuel grown on agricultural soil.

These impacts are mainly caused by harvesting and process-

ing [13], fertiliser, pesticides, and direct emissions [14]. These

impacts also occur when biofuel is grown on contaminated

land, but must be set off against the impact from traditional

remediation measures.

This study is concerned with a small site in Sweden where

Salix viminalis (willow) has been planted on contaminated

land. A life cycle assessment (LCA) has been done to compare

the impacts of remediation through Salix viminalis cultivation

with a traditional excavation-and-landfill remediation. The

LCA used the cultivation practices that have been applied to

the site during the first years, but other practical results from

the site were not yet available. The first objective was to

investigate the extend of the environmental benefit of

biomass production in comparison with the current Swedish

practice of excavation. The second objective was to identify

the processes that caused the major environmental impact,

since if those processes can be improved, this is most likely to

increase environmental efficiency.

2. Method

2.1. Site description

The site, a previous oil depot, was selected because Salix

viminalis cultivation had stared on the site, and data on

the used cultivation practices were available. The site is

small (5000 m2), and therefore biofuel cultivation is not

economically viable if the remediation effect is not included in

the economic valuation [15]. At the studied site, the harvest

was left on site to fertilise and increase the soil organic

content. It may be decided later to grind the cuttings, but also

the chippings will stay on site [16]. The Salix viminalis culti-

vation is expected to increase organic content andmicro-flora,

which in turn will increase the microbial degradation of the

organic contaminants [17].

The soil was contaminated to a depth of 1e1.5 m, with

a total contaminated volume of 6500 m3. The contamination

was from mineral oil: mainly organic aliphatic compounds,

with locally some aromatic compounds and BTEX. Total

contamination levels were around 5 g/kg(dw) for 25% of the

soil, and around 1 g/kg(dw) for the remaining 75% [16].

2.1.1. No actionIn the “No action” alternative the site would have been left as

it is. Natural degradation is likely to be very slow due to the

poor quality of the soil, so it must be expected that the soil

after 20 years will be contaminated to a similar level as today.

2.1.2. Biofuel remediationThe Salix viminalis cultivation has beenmanaged by personnel

from a nearby garden centre. The soil has been ploughed with

a tractor, and planted by hand with shoots transported from

Svalov in the south of Sweden. Fertilising (100 kg NPK-fertil-

iser), irrigation and weeding have been done by hand. The

Salix viminalis shoots have been cut twice so far, using a brush

saw. The Salix viminalis is expected to stay on the site for 20

years, with cuttings every four years. This necessitated in total

14 journeys of the garden centre personnel to the site, of 10 km

each.

The groundwater table is usually 0.5 m below the surface. 4

groundwater observation wells have been installed. Sampling

and observation of the wells have been done from Gothen-

burg, and 17 journeys have been planned in total [16].

2.1.3. Excavation and refillingExcavation, landfilling of the soil, and refilling with pristine

material were considered as the alternative option. Life cycle

assessment can be useful also to regard other alternative

treatments, but in this study we selected excavation and

refilling for two reasons: 1) it is the usual practice for smaller

contaminated sites in Sweden, and 2) it was considered as

alternative option in the discussions between site owner and

the competent authority and would have been used if

exploitation pressure on the site had been higher [16].

Excavation could have been accomplished with an exca-

vator in ca 40 days, and the excavated soil (6500 m3 or

11700 ton(ww)) likely be transported by truck to the nearest

landfill (Djupdalen), which is a sanitary landfill 22 km from the

site [18]. Treatment at the landfill by composting was not an

option: the organic content was so low that an unreasonable

amount of organic matter would have to be added. Refilling of

the site would likely have been done with pristine soil [16].

Excavation of contaminated oil depots commonly includes

at least one controller, who measures the contamination

levels in the excavated soil, in order to assess when the

excavation has reached the clean soil. Controllers are housed

locally during the week, but travel home on weekends.



b i om a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 3 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 9 6 9e9 8 1 971

2.2. Life cycle inventory

The life cycle assessment (LCA) was done in order to deter-

mine whether the actual remediation through biofuel

cultivation, or the possible alternative option of excavation-

and-refill was the environmentally preferable option and to

investigate strategies that would reduce impacts within each

system. The life cycle was cradle-to-gate: The LCA stops when

the remediation has led to a clean soil, except for the no action

alternative. This results in a 20 year land occupation for the

biofuel remediation and for no action, and a 40 day land

occupation for the excavation-and-refill remediation. The

assumption is that after a remediation the site ceases to pose

an environmental risk. The quality of the soil at the end points

will differ: after the biofuel remediation an agricultural soil

possible for any use, without any action the soil remains

contaminated, and after the excavation-and-refill remedia-

tion an organic-poor sand that would only be acceptable for

buildings (residential or other wise). The soil would need

further improvement if used for anything else after the

Table 1 e SimaPro model of biofuel remediation. Upperstructure processes are marked in bold.

Process Amount Unit

Salix cultivation,

site K/PaSa

5000 m2

Transformation,

from industrial area

5000 m2

Transformation,

to arable land

5000 m2

Occupation, forest,

intensive, short-cycle

5000a20 m2a

Tractor on road/PaSa dist_equip_siteb,a2 km

Tillage, ploughing/CH S 0,5 ha

Operation, van <3,

5t/RER S

482,7a2 km

Planting stocks,

shortrotation wood,

at field/p/RER U

14000a0,5 p

Ammonium nitrate,

as N, at regional

storehouse/RER S

20e5,38 kg

Potassium sulphate,

as K2O, at regional

storehouse/RER S

12 kg

Diammonium phosphate,

as P2O5, at regional

storehouse/RER S

13,75 kg

Diammonium phosphate,

as N, at regional

storehouse/RER S

13,75/46a18 kg

Transport, passenger

car/RER S

dist_equip_siteb,a14 personkm

Brush sawing /PaSa 5a6 hr

GW monitoring well/PaSa 8 m

Operation, lorry >32t,

EURO3/RER S

2adist_equip_siteb km


car/RER S

17a2a255 personkm

a Process created for this case study.

b Dist_equip_site is distance of equipment to site ¼ 10 km.

excavation-and-refill remediation. Similarly, removal of Salix

viminalis roots was not included for the biofuel remediation

alternative.

The assessment was done using the SimaPro software [19].

One site (5000 m2) was used as functional unit.

The ecoinvent database [20] was preferred for inventory

information since the data is often European and acceptably

updated. This insured that the inventory was consistent and

the processes comparable with each other. Some processes

were created for this study by the authors. Karlstad Salix

viminalis cultivation, excavated soil and refilled soil were

major process and are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The other

processes from outside the ecoinvent database were: tractor

on road, brush saw, and groundwater monitoring well. Data

for these processes is available as supplementary content. In

short, the process tractor on road used the diesel consumption

by a Swedish tractor, 0.35 l/km [21,22], as input to the process

“diesel used in tractor” from [23]. The brush saw was created

using the ecoinvent power-saw module and replacing CO,

NOx, HC and CO2 emissions with brush saw values from [24].

Table 2 e SimaPro model of excavation-and-refill. Upperstructure processes are marked in bold.

Excavated soil,

site K/PaSa

6500 m3

Occupation,

construction site

5000a20/365 m2a

Transformation,

from industrial area

5000 m2

Excavation,

hydraulic digger/RER S

6500 m3

Excavation,

skid-steer loader/RER S

6500 m3

Transport,

passenger car/RER S

20a3a10

6500asoil_densitycPersonkm

Transport, lorry >32t,

EURO3/RER S

a22a2 Tkm

Disposal, inert material,

0% water, to sanitary

landfill/CH S

6500asoil_densityc Ton

Refilled soil, site K/PaSa 6500 m3

Occupation, construction site 5000a20/365 m2a

Transformation, to urban,

discontinuously built

5000 m2

Sand, at mine/CH S 6500asoil_densityc

6500asoil_densitycTon

Transport, lorry >32t,

EURO3/RER S

adist_site_quarrd Tkm

Excavation, skid-steer

loader/RER S

6500 m3


car/RER S

20a2a10 Personkm

Operation, lorry >32t,

EURO3/RER S

2adist_equip_siteb,a4 Km


car/RER S

39a2a10 Personkm


car/RER S

3a2a255 Personkm

a Process created for this case study.

b Dist_equip_site is distance of equipment to site ¼ 10 km.

c Soil_density 1.8 t/m3.

d Dist_site_quarr is distance from site to quarry ¼ 30 km.



Table 3 e Field emissions for site K, 5000 m2. Adaptedfrom Ref. [28].

Emissions to air

Ammonia 26.2 kg

Dinitrogen monoxide 10.9 kg

Isoprene 386 kg

Terpenes 19.3 kg

Nitrogen oxides 2.29 kg

Emissions to water

Nitrate 177 kg

Phosphate 1.26 kg

Phosphate 7.14 kg

Phosphorus 0.129 kg

Emissions to soil

Copper �0.189 kg

Lead 0,0137 kg

Mercury �0.00117 kg

Nickel 0.00866 kg

Zinc �5.22 kg


The groundwater monitoring well combined HDPE pipes [20]

with drilling of a hole. Particulars of diesel use for ground-

water well drilling were taken from [25] and used for the

module “diesel burned in building machine” [20].

2.2.1. No actionThe “No action” alternative was LCA-modelled as occupation

of the site as an industrial area, Corine land class 121, [26]. The

Corine industrial land class 121 includes abandoned industrial

sites where buildings are still present [26]. An alternative

interpretation of the land classes is that since the site is small,

it should be included in the surrounding site land class, and be

classed as urban. Urban, industrial and dump site land classes

all have the same characterisation factors [27]. The occupa-

tion was assumed to last 20 years in order to be directly

comparable to the biofuel remediation.

2.2.2. Biofuel remediationThe LCAmodel of the biofuel remediation is shown in Table 1.

The site was transformed from industrial to arable, since free

agriculture should be possible on the site after the remedia-

tion. The tillage process included 0.5 km transport from farm

to site, but since the present site was 10 km from the supplier

of machines, the “tractor on the road” process was added to

account for the extra distance.

European average planting stock inventory was taken from

[28]. 14,000 pieces are commonly used per ha in Sweden [29].

The planting stocks were transported by van from Svalov to

the case site, a distance of 482.7 km [30]. The fertiliser

amounts in Table 1 add up to 100 kg NPK 20-3-5. The operation

of the lorry is to move the drilling rig for the groundwater

monitoring wells to the site. The upper structure process

“transport, passenger car” shows the 17 journeys of the

controller from Gothenburg. The passenger car within the

Salix viminalis cultivation process is to move the personnel

from the garden centre to the site and back.

2.2.3. Excavation-and-refillThe LCA model of the excavation-and-refill remediation is

shown in Table 2. Transport in the passenger car under

“excavated soil, site K” and refilled soil, site K” concerns the

daily movement of excavator, truck, and loading shovel

operators to the site. The same process in the top structure (in

bold in Table 2) concerns the controller, who is assumed to

travel home to Gothenburg for the weekends, 255 km, but to

stay locally during the weeks, 10 km. Lorry transport concerns

the transport of soil, while the lorry operation is to move the

excavator and the loading shovel to the site.

The refilling transformed the site into urban land use, since

the soil will not be suitable for other purposes without further

soil improvement.

2.2.4. OmissionsEmissions from the excavation itself (not the excavating

machine) such as dust particles and emissions to air as the

contaminants become more available have been excluded, as

have emissions and leaching of contaminants from the

contaminated soil under present conditions an and any

changes in leaching and emissions to air due to the Salix

viminalis cultivation.

Risk assessment and laboratory testing were not included.

The excavation alternative would have required analysis of

soil samples, while the biofuel remediation is conducted with

groundwater analyses.

The gross caloric value of the biomass and the uptake,

retention and possible reemission of CO2 by the biomass were

not included, because the yield of the Salix viminalis cultiva-

tion was unknown. The net effect of this omission is to

overestimate, possibly largely, the global warming impact of

the biofuel remediation [31].

2.3. Impact assessment methods

Two impact assessment methods were used in the evaluation

of the environmental impact: ReCiPe 2008 [27] and the envi-

ronmental product declaration (EPD, [32]). ReCiPewas selected

because land use is included and because of the high accep-

tance of the models it builds on, i.e. the Eco-indicator99 and

CML2001 [33]. The default ReCiPe endpoint method, hierar-

chist version was used. Normalisation values for Europe and

the average weighting set were used to arrive at single scores.

ReCiPe used three main damage categories: human health,

ecosystem and resources. Human health included climate

change-human health, ozone depletion, human toxicity,

photochemical oxidant formation, particulate matter forma-

tion, and ionising radiation (expressed in disability adjusted

life years, DALY). Ecosystems included climate change-

ecosystems, terrestrial acidification, freshwater and marine

eutrophication, terrestrial, freshwater andmarine ecotoxicity,

agricultural and urban land occupation, and natural land

transformation (expressed in species$yr). Resources included

metal depletion and fossil depletion, expressed in $ [27].

EPD is supported by the Swedish government and was

selected due to its special significance to Sweden. Character-

isation factors from version 1.0, 2008were used [32], except for

Gross Calorific Value (GCV). The SimaPro adaption of the draft

version EPD of June 2007 was used for the GCV because the

substances in the IEC report [32] were closer to application and



muinomma,Nsa,etartin

lanoigerta

,egallitC/ah/gnihguolp

H

,tropsnartregnessap

/mknosrep/rac

nav,noitarepoER/mk/t5,3< R

gnitnalp,skcots

noitator-trohs

gniwashsurb

leufoiBnoitaidemer

gnirotinomWGSaP/llew

daornorotcarT

xilaSetis,noitavitluc

SaP/K

Fig. 1 e Single score of environmental impact of biofuel remediation, ReCiPe. Processes contributing more than 0.1% are

shown (cut-off 0.1%). Contribution of planting stocks to Salix viminalis cultivation was positive to the environment.


further from raw materials, and therefore The EPD method

does not aggregate categories, so no weighting or normal-

isation was included. The EPD damage categories are global

warming (GWP, in kg CO2 eq), ozone layer depletion (in kg

CFC-11 eq), photochemical oxidation (in kg C2H4), acidification

(in kg SO2 eq), eutrophication (in kg PO4 eq) and gross caloric

values (in MJ eq) [32].

2.4. Sensitivity

Sensitivity analyses were performed by four alternations of

the base case scenario conditions:

� Excavated soil to an inert landfill instead of a sanitary

landfill

� Commercial fertiliser amounts instead of the low amount of

the case study

� Field emissions added to the Salix viminalis cultivation

� Land use transformation to short-cycle forest instead of

arable

The landfill dominated the environmental impact for the

excavation remediation (see results). In the base case the soil

was deposited on a sanitary landfill, the ecoinvent process

closest to the most likely destination for the excavated soil


H

nav,noitarepo<

RER/mk/t5,3

gnitnalp,skcots

noitator-trohs

daornorotcarT


SaP/K

Fig. 2 e Impact of biofuel remediation on human health,

from the case site. The analysis was repeated with landfilling

on an inert landfill instead of a sanitary landfill (also from the

ecoinvent database). However, if the material had shown

sufficiently low contamination for an inert landfill, it would

likely not have needed remediation. No settling and decom-

position is expected for the soil, and therefore data from

landfilling of an inert material was used, both for the sanitary

as well as for the inert landfill.

Fertiliser is often important for the environmental impact

[34e38], but was not so in this case, likely because the fertiliser

amount was so low (see results). Fertiliser amounts of 100 kg

N-fertiliser 15 times a year are usual in commercial Salix

viminalis cultivation in Sweden [15]. An impact assessment

wasmade with 1500 kg-N ammonium nitrate instead of 15 kg.

Field emissions, such as nitrate from fertilisation and

terpenes from the plants themselves, are often omitted from

LCA because of the difficulty of defining data, and are usually

uncertain. We chose to do the principal comparison without

direct field emissions. To determine the magnitude of the

consequences of this choice, field emissions of Salix viminalis

cultivation from [28] were added. Pesticide emissionswere not

included, since no pesticides were used in the case study. The

field emissions were adapted to the case by assuming that the

emissions were constant per ha. The resulting emissions for

the case site are shown in Table 3. This included also some


lanoigerta

muinommaidsa,etahpsohp

ta,5O2P

muissatopsa,etahplus

ta,O2K

,tropsnartregnessap

/mknosrep/rac

gniwashsurb

leufoiBnoitaidemer

WGllewgnirotinom

SaP/

ReCiPe. Impact on resources was similar. Cut-off 1%.




lanoigerta

muinommaidsa,etahpsohp

ta,5O2P


H

,tropsnartregnessap

/mknosrep/rac

nav,noitarepoER/mk/t5,3< R

yrrol,noitarepo,t23>

R/mk/3ORUE

gnitnalp,skcots

noitator-trohs

gniwashsurb

leufoiBnoitaidemer

WGllewgnirotinom

SaP/

daornorotcarT


SaP/K

Fig. 3 e Impact of biofuel remediation on ecosystems, ReCiPe. Cut-off 0.015%.


uptake of heavy metals from the soil [28] is concerned with

commercial Salix viminalis cultivation, with higher fertiliser

amounts and more mechanical processing of the land than

that of the case study here. Therefore the use of field emis-

sions from [28] may be regarded as considerably higher than

those occurring on the case site.

The biofuel remediation is expected to transform the land

from industrial to free use. The increased quality of the soil

could even make agriculture possible. Continuation of short

rotationwoodon the site is not likely, since the site is too small

to allow for financial profit from the Salix viminalis cultivation.

Since the land use caused the major impact (see results), the

effect of transformation to short rotation wood instead of to

arable was tested in the LCAmodel of the biofuel remediation.

3. Results

3.1. No action

Since the“noaction”alternativeonlyconsistedofoccupationof

an industrial area, there was no impact according to EPD 2008.

The impact according to ReCiPe 2008 was 4.42 � 103 points, all

of urban occupation, or 0.002 species$yr (potentially dis-

appearing species$years). Contaminated sites may, however,

develop high biodiversity if no action is taken [39], but in the

,egallit/ah/gnihguolp

HC

operation,vanRER/mk/t5,3<

plantinstocks

tor-trohs

norotcarTdaor

xilaScultivation

SaP/K

Fig. 4 e Impact of biofuel remediation on global warming, EPD.

were similar. Cut-off 0.85%.

present case the soil is of poor quality in addition to the

contamination. The ReCiPe therefore may be relevant as site

recovery is expected to take very long time if no actions are

taken.

3.2. Biofuel remediation

The single score (ReCiPe) of the biofuel remediation showed

that the Salix viminalis cultivation had the dominant envi-

ronmental impact in this alternative (Fig. 1). This was mainly

due to occupation of the land used for the Salix viminalis

cultivation (see supporting content). This had a damaging

impact of 3.5 � 103 points, or 0.0015 species$yr. The planting

stocks contributed a benefit to biodiversity, mostly through

the transformation of land to use for short-cycle forest. This

benefit was 0.71 � 103 points, or 0.0003 species$yr, which was

detracted to arrive at the total score. Other processes

contributed in a minor way, and the total impact according to

ReCiPe 2008 was in total 3.0 � 103 points, somewhat lower

than for the no action alternative. Biodiversity impact was

0.0012 species yr, also of the same magnitude but slightly less

than the loss of biodiversity and the industrial or urban use in

the “no action” alternative. Occupation of the site by short-

cycle wood resulted in less loss of biodiversity than the

industrial or urban use in the “no action” alternative, so the

impact of the biofuel remediation was slightly less .

ammonium,Nsa,etartin

lanoigerta

diammoniumsa,etahpsohp

ta,5O2P

transport,regnessap

/mknosrep/rac

operation,,t23>yrrolR/mk/3ORUE

g,

noita

brush sawing

Biofuelremediation

WGmonitoring

SaP/llew,site

Ozone layer depletion, acidification, and gross caloric value



diammoniumphosphate,as

ta,5O2P

tillage,/ah/gnihguolp

HC

transport,passenger

/mknosrep/rac

nav,noitarepo<

RER/mk/t5,3

plantingstocks,

noitator-trohs

brush sawing

Biofuelremediation

WGmonitoring

SaP/llew

Tractor onroad

xilaScultivation,

SaP/Ketis

Fig. 5 e Impact of biofuel remediation on photochemical oxidation, EPD. Cut-off 0.3%.


For remaining (other than land use related) impact cate-

gories, the cause of the impact was the Salix viminalis culti-

vation and the journeys by car of the controller, both of similar

magnitude. The groundwater observation wells were unim-

portant (Figs. 1e6). The extent of the controller’s journeys for

the biofuel remediation is highly case-specific: due to lack of

familiarity with biofuel growth on contaminated soil a distant

expert was preferred to a local controller.

Within the actual cultivation process, the operation of the

van for transporting the planting stocks, the cutting by brush

saw and the planting stocks were important contributors to

different environmental problems, and the phosphate fertil-

iser had an impact on eutrophication (Figs. 1e6). Ecosystem

damage in the ReCiPe assessment method was mainly con-

cerned with land use for the site itself and for the production

of planting stocks (Fig. 2). The planting stock had a negative

land transformation damage (i.e. positive to biodiversity)

because the transformation to short-cycle wood is expected to

increase the number of species compared to the reference,

woodland [33].

Salix viminalis cultivation generally has its highest impacts

in the fertiliser, harvesting, and the land use itself, if land use

is considered [34e38,40]. The results from the present data

were in agreement with this except for the influence of the

fertiliser. The fertiliser dose in the case study was low, since

,egallit/ah/gnihguolp

HC

nav,noitarepoRER/mk/t5,3<

plantingstocks,

tator-trohs

norotcarTdaor

xilaScultivation,

SaP/K

Fig. 6 e Impact of biofuel remediation o

the harvest will remain on site instead of being removed to an

application. Thus nutrients are kept on the site. This is further

discussed in the sensitivity analysis.

The need for controller journeys is specific to contami-

nated land. They may be significantly reduced when more

experience with Salix viminalis cultivation on contaminated

land is available. The specialist in the current case travelled

255 km per single journey in order to check up on the site and

take groundwater samples. This may be performed by local

personnel when Salix viminalis cultivation on contaminated

land is a more familiar process.

3.3. Excavation-and-refill

For the remediation process of excavation-and-refill, the

ReCiPe single score was dominated by landfilling of the soil

(disposal inert material on sanitary landfill, Fig. 7), which had

a large impact on human health (human toxicity, climate

change-human health and particulate matter in Fig. 9). The

landfill constituted more than half of the impact according to

EPD, but soil transport constituted a considerable impact as

well. Fig. 8 shows global warming; the other categories were

very similar.

Excavation as remediation method is often dominated by

transport of the soil [11,12,41,42], while the landfill has not

ammonium,Nsa,etartin

lanoigerta

diammoniumsa,etahpsohp

ta,5O2P

transport,passenger

/mknosrep/rac

rrol,noitarepo y,t23>

R/mk/3ORUE

noi

brush sawing

leufoiBremediation

WGmonitoring

SaP/llewsite

n eutrophication, EPD. Cut-off 0.3%.



ta,dnasHC/gk/enim

,noitavacxeciluardyh

RER/3m/reggid

,noitavacxereets-diks

RER/3m/redaol

,tropsnartregnessap

/mknosrep/rac

treni,lasopsid%0,lairetamot,retaw


RER/mk/3ORUE

yrrol,tropsnart,t23>

ER/mkt/3ORUE

noitavacxE

dnanoitavacxEllifer

noitaidemer

gnillifeR

Fig. 7 e Single score impact of excavation-and-refill, ReCiPe. Cut-off 0%.


previously been identified as dominant [11,12]. This may be

due to previous lack of data for landfills, which is now grad-

ually improving.

Controllers’ journeys were not important for the excava-

tion-and-refill remediation, in contrast to the biofuel reme-

diation (Figs. 7 and 8). The total length of the daily local

journeys of the excavation controller was about a quarter of

the total length for the biofuel controller.

3.4. Comparison of biofuel with excavation-and-refillremediation

Biofuel remediation caused lower damage to the environment

then the traditional excavation-and-refill remediation

according to both evaluation methods (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, Fig. 12).

Only the agricultural land use impact in ReCiPe was higher for

the biofuel remediation. The single score impact indicated

that the higher land use was well compensated by the lower

impact in the other impact categories (Fig. 12).

3.5. Sensitivity

When the sanitary landfill was replaced with an inert landfill,

environmental impact was decreased, especially with regard

excavation,hydraulic

RER/3m/reggid

,noitavacxereets-diks

RER/3m/redaol

,lasopsid,lairetam,retaw


RER/mkt/3ORUE

noitavacxE

oitavacxEllifer

remedia

Fig. 8 e Impact of excavation-and-refill remediation on globa

to human health impacts (Fig. 13). Contribution of the landfill

to the total environmental impact was now on a level with

transport of the soil and the effects of the sand mining

(Fig. 14). The excavation-and-refill remediation remained

more environmentally costly than the biofuel remediation

(Fig. 13).

The accepted doctrine is that transport of soil should be

minimised, both in order to minimise cost as well as envi-

ronmental impact. This has been found for the present case in

a previous study with older data as well [31]. The present

results suggest that an environmental gain may be achieved

using the most inert possible landfill even if the transport

distance is increased. A sanitary landfill requires more

resources for drainage, geotextiles, treatment of leaching

water etc; the increased control over the waste causes more

environmental impact. A decrease in such landfill-related

impacts may make some increase of transport-related

impacts acceptable.

When the actual fertiliser amount was replaced with the

amount necessary for commercial Salix viminalis cultivation

where the harvest is removed from the site, the environ-

mental impact was increased, but the main conclusion

remained unaffected (Fig. 13). The increased fertiliser nowhad

a considerably environmental impact, especially through the

ta,dnasHC/gk/enim

transport,passenger

R/mknosrep/rac

treni%0

ot


RER/mk/3ORUE

dnan

tion

Refilling

l warming, EPD. All other categories similar. Cut-off 0%.



Climate change Human Health Climate change EcosystemsOzone depletion terrestrial acidificationfreshwater eutrophication marine eutrophicationhuman toxicity photochemical oxidant formationparticulate matter formation terrestrial ecotoxicityfreshwater ecotoxicity marine ecotoxicityionising radiation agricultural land occupationurban land occupation natural land transformationwater depletion metal depletionfossil depletion

Excavated soil, site

Refilled soil, site K/PaS

Operation, lorry >32t

Transport, passenge

Transport, passenge

kPt

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fig. 9 e Contribution of impact categories to the single

score for excavation-and-refill remediation, ReCiPe.

ResourcessmetsysocEHuman Health

%

021

001

08

06

04

02

0

Fig. 11 e Comparison of impacts from biofuel remediation

(green) with excavation-and-refill (red), ReCiPe, normalised

damage. (For interpretation of the references to colour in

this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version

of this article.)

60

50

40


increased effect on climate change and depletion of fossil

resources (Fig. 15).

The inclusion of field emissions in the Salix viminalis

cultivation resulted in a small increase of climate change

related impact (Fig. 15).

The transformation of the site to forest instead of the

arable lead to a total negative impact in the ReCiPe single

score, i.e. the gains outweighed the costs to the environment.

Arable land has a low biodiversity since it is based on

measurements of monocultures, while forests, even short

rotation forests, have higher biodiversity. Biodiversity is the

main consideration in ReCiPe when considering the occupa-

tion and transformation of land [33]. But arable land as

a limited resource is closer to the issue when the increased

needs of land for biofuel production is discussed and the

competition of biofuel with food agriculture. The view on land

Globalwarmi

Ozonelayer

Photochemica

Acidifinoitac

Eutrophicatio

GrossCalorif

%

021

001

08

06

04

02

0

Fig. 10 e Comparison of impacts from biofuel remediation

(green) with excavation-and-refill (red), EPD. (For

interpretation of the references to colour in this figure

legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this

article.)

use has a major effect in the case of contaminated sites. Risk

assessment has prevented humans from exploiting sites with

low or intermediate contamination, leaving the way free for

redevelopment of nature. Remediation of the soil may there-

fore decrease biodiversity and at the same time increase the

limited land resources in the area.

4. Discussion

The excavation-and-refill remediation scored high in all

traditional impact evaluation categories, and the contribution

from different sub-processes was very similar. The impacts of

transport or landfilling were much the same on global

warming, fossil resources, acidification, ozone formation, etc.


Biofuel remediation

Excavation and refill remediation

tPk 30

20

10

0

Fig. 12 e Comparison of impacts from remediation by

excavation and Salix viminalis cultivation, single score

ReCiPe 2008.




Biofuel fertiliser

Biofuelf ield emi

Biofuel land tran

Biofuel remediati

E & r landfill inert

Excavation and

No action

tPk

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

Fig. 13 e Sensitivity analysis: environmental impact of LCA

models for biofuel, excavation and no action. Single score

ReCiPe results.


Biofuel remediation impacts varied somewhat over the cate-

gories, but global warming potential, ozone depletion poten-

tial, acidification and gross caloric value were very similar.

That left only photochemical oxidant formation and eutro-

phication to differ from the others. The many categories

contributed little to our understanding of the environmental

impact and the possibilities for improvement in this case

study.

These emerged clearer from the summarised damage

control of ReCiPe, where the impact categories have been

summarised to human health, ecosystem quality, and

resources (Fig. 11). The impacts of the two remediation alter-

natives were on very different environmental problems. The

excavation-and-refill remediation showed a primary impact

in the traditional categories of global warming etc. The biofuel

remediation showed large importance of land occupation and

biodiversity. Thus, in this comparison environmental effects

do occur on very different environmental problems. Inclusion

of land use issues is an active research area [43e45], and our

,noitavacxeciluardyh

ER/3m/reggid

excavation,reets-diksER/3m/redaol

,lasopsid5,etsaw

ot,retaw


R/mkt/3ORUE

nalr&Einert

ExcavatedotKetis,lios

inert landfill

Fig. 14 e Environmental impact for excavation-and-refill remed

0%. Comparable with Fig. 7.

results demonstrate again the importance of further devel-

opment in that area.

The similarities of the emerging impact patterns usingwell

established categories (Fig. 8)may be partly due to a bias in the

available inventory data. These focus on the emissions caused

by use of energy and by production of capital goods [20]. Due to

data difficulties we omitted ‘use-phase’ emissions for both the

biofuel remediation and the excavation-and-refill. For the

latter e.g. dust and contaminant emissions and noise were

excluded. These data depend more on conditions at the site

and are less well known than fossil fuel emissions. The issue

of field emissions for the biofuel remediation is addressed in

the sensitivity analysis. Dust emissions from contaminated

site excavation have been found not to lead to health risks in

children [46]. Occupational health risks were omitted for all

processes in the case study, including excavation.

The biofuel remediation has an impact on global warming

through the uptake of carbon dioxide in the Salix viminalis.

This carbon either contributes to the soil carbon pool, or is

reemitted through degradation. In either case carbon dioxide

is temporarily stored and reduces the global warming impact.

However, the flows of carbon cannot at present be accurately

estimated [47,48]. More research is required into the carbon

balance inventory of Salix viminalis cultivation if the effect on

global warming is to be assessed correctly.

In the present case study the harvested Salix viminalis

remained on site to improve soil conditions and accelerate

degradation of the remaining contamination. Other use of the

harvest was prevented by a number of barriers [7], which may

decrease in the future. Utilisation of the harvest would have

caused a further positive environmental effect, in that the

harvest from the contaminated site would partly replace

conventionally grown Salix viminalis. Cultivation on contami-

nated sites likely will improve the soil regardless of removal of

the harvest in the betterment of the micro fauna and organic

content due to fertilising and the crops themselves.

With biodegradable contaminants there is no conflict

between usefulness and treatment of the soil. Metal

contaminated soil necessitates a conscious balance between

usefulness now and cleaning effect. Metals cannot be

destroyed but the destination of metals may be controlled

through choice of Salix viminalis clones, which can be

ta,dnasHC/gk/enim

,tropsnartregnessap

/mknosrep/rac

treni%

treni

,noitarepo,t23>yrrolR/mk/3ORUE

Refilling

llifd

iation with inert landfill, ReCiPe 2008 single score. Cut-off




Biofuel fertiliser increase

Biofuel field emissions

Biofuel land transformati

Biofuel remediation

No action

tPk

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

Fig. 15 e Sensitivity analysis: environmental impact of LCA

models for biofuel and no action. Single score ReCiPe

results.


accumulating or non-accumulating, or be directed to selected

rest fractions such as fly ash [7].

There is a third option for the treatment of this contami-

nated site, No action. The site could be left as it is. The fence

would need some maintenance, but the environmental

impact would be very low. However, natural degradation is

likely to be very slow due to the poor quality of the soil, so it

must be expected that the soil after 20 years will be contam-

inated to a similar level as today. And during this time the site

would be occupied without further use to society.

5. Conclusion

The biofuel remediation affected the environment mainly

through the controller’s journeys, transport of planting

stocks, land use for Salix viminalis cultivation, and harvesting.

Fertilisers had aminor impact. The controller journeysmay be

reduced when familiarity with biofuel as a soil treatment

method increases. When land use was considered, ecosystem

quality dominated the impact categories. Depending on the

land use function and definition the impact could be either

negative or positive.

The excavation-and-refill remediation affected the envi-

ronment mainly through the landfill and the transport of soil

and backfill. The selection of the type of landfill was important

to the outcome. Excavation of soil should be avoided as far as

possible to minimize damage to the environment, since it

leads to both transport and landfilling.

The environmental impacts of the biofuel remediation

were negligible in comparison with the excavation-and-refill

impacts, except for land use. The higher land use was well

compensated by the other impacts of the excavation-and-

refill.

Transports were an important cause of impact in the

assessment. Transport of contaminated soil and backfill for

the excavation remediation, transport of the controller and

the planting stocks for the biofuel remediation. There may be

an effect of an inventory bias regarding transport: the

importance of transportation has been long known, emissions

are included in the databases and the impact assessment

methods.

The level of knowledge and the availability of data affect

the results. Inventory data for e.g. landfills need enlargement.

Further development of impact assessment methods is

necessary, especially with regard to biodiversity and land

surface as a limited resource.

In summary, the impacts of the two remediation alterna-

tives excavation-and-refill versus biofuel remediationwere on

very different environmental problems. The excavation-and-

refill remediation showed a primary impact in the traditional

categories of global warming etc. The biofuel remediation

showed large importance of land occupation and biodiversity.

Thus, in this comparison environmental effects do occur on

very different environmental problems and geographical

scales. Inclusion of land use issues is an active research area

and our results demonstrate again the importance of further

development in that area.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Sonja Blom for background infor-

mation regarding the case study, and for the Rejuvenate

project group for their discussions on biofuel as presented in

[10]. The study was initially financed through the project

Rejuvenate, under the umbrella of an ERA-Net Sustainable

management of soil and groundwater under the pressure of

soil pollution and soil contamination (SNOWMAN), by the

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the

Environment Agency (England), FORMAS (Sweden), SGI

(Sweden) and Bioclear BV (Netherlands), and throughout the

work process complementary and additional funding has

been received from the Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI).

Appendix. Supporting information

Supporting information associated with this article can be

found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.

022.

r e f e r e n c e s

[1] EEA. Progress in management of contaminated sites (CSI 015)- assessment published Aug 2007. EEA, EuropeanEnvironment Agency, http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131746/IAssessment1152619898983/view_content; 2007.

[2] Swedish EPA. Laget i landet - efterbehandling av fororenadeomraden. In: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,editor. Stockholm: Naturvardsverket, http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Laget-i-landeteefterbehandling/; 2009 (in Swedish).

[3] Commission of the European communities. Impactassessment. Document accompanying the package of



http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007131746/IAssessment1152619898983/view_content



http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Verksamheter-med-miljopaverkan/Efterbehandling-av-fororenade-omraden/Laget-i-landet%13efterbehandling/








implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climatechange and renewable energy for 2020. Proposals forDirective of the European parliament and of the councilamending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extendthe EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system.Commission staff; 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_ia_en.pdf.

[4] Rydberg T. Dagens analysmeteoder skapar overtro pabioenergy (Todays methods for assessing valuesoverestimates bioenergy). Formas Fokuserar 2007;137.

[5] Semelsberger TA, Borup RL, Greene HL. Dimethyl ether (DME)as an alternative fuel. J Power Sources 2006;156:497.

[6] Bardos P, Andersson-Skold Y, Keuning S, Pachon, Track T,Wagelmans, et al. Special session 1: Brownfields,Bioenergy and Biofeedstocks & Special session 2: GreenRemediation. ConSoil 2008. Milano, Italy: F&U confirm;2008, p. Sps 2.

[7] Andersson-Skold Y, Enell A, Blom S, Rihm T, Angelbratt A,Haglund K, et al. Biofuel and other biomass based productsfrom contaminated sites - potentials and barriers fromSwedish perspectives. Gothenburgh: Swedish GeotechnicalInstitute (SGI), www.swedgeo.se; 2009.

[8] Enell A, Wik O, Andersson-Skold Y. Arable area of potentialcontaminated sites in Sweden. Swedish GeotechnicalInstitute, www.swedgeo.se; 2009.

[9] Sparks DL. Elucidating the fundamental chemistry of soils:past and recent achievements and future frontiers.Geoderma 2001;100:303.

[10] Bardos P, Andersson-Skold Y, Keuning S, Polland M, Suer P,Track T. Rejuvenate - final research report, http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf;2009.

[11] Suer P, Andersson-Skold Y, Andersson J. Local gain, globalloss - the environmental cost of action. In: Singh A,Kuhad RC, Ward OP, editors. Advances in appliedbioremediation. Soil Biology, vol. 17. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag; 2009.

[12] Suer P, Nilsson-Paledal S, Norrman J. LCA for siteremediation: a literature review. Soil Sedim Contam Int J2004;13:415.

[13] von Blottnitz H, Curran MA. A review of assessmentsconducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a netenergy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycleperspective. J Clean Prod 2007;15:607.

[14] Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P.Life cycle assessment of energy products: environmentalimpact assessment of biofuels executive summary ofOkobalanz von Energiprodukten: Okologishe Bewertung vonBiotriebstoffe. Bern: Empa, http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00496/index.html?%20lang¼en&dossier_id¼01273; 2007.

[15] Gustafsson J, Larsson S, Nordh N-E. Manual for salixodlare.Orebro: Lantmannen Agroenergi AB/Salix; 2007.

[16] Blom S. Personal communication.[17] Spriggs T, Banks MK, Schwab P. Phytoremediation of

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in manufactured gasplant-impacted soil. J Environ Qual 2005;34:1755.

[18] Larsson P. Karlstads Energi AB. 2008-10-07. Personalcommunication.

[19] PRe Consultants bv. SimaPro 7. 7.1.8. In: PRe Consultants bv;2008.

[20] Ecoinvent Centre. Ecoinvent data v2.0. Dubendorf: SwissCentre for Life Cycle Inventories, www.ecoinvent.org; 2007.

[21] Lundborg M. Effects of speed and road conditions on fuelconsumption of agricultural tractor. Institutionen forlantbruksteknik. Uppsala: Swedish Agricultural Univeristy,http://www.bt.slu.se/lt_old/Meddelande/Me2003e04/Meddel.pdf; 2003 (in Swedish).

[22] Lindgren M, Pettersson O, Hansson P-A, Noren O. Engine loadpattern and engine exhoust gas emissions from off-roadvehicles and methods to reduce fuel-consumption andengine exhaust gas emissions. JTI Institutet for jordbruks-och miljoteknik; 2002 (in Swedish).

[23] Jungbluth N, Frischknecht R, Tuchschmid M, FaistEmmenegger M, Steiner R, Schmutz S. life cycle assessmentof btl-fuel production: final report. RENEW: renewable fuelsfor advanced powertrains. Uster, Switzerland, http://www.esu-services.ch/cms/index.php?id¼50; 2008.

[24] SMP. Jamforande emissionsmatningar av tvataktsbranslen.Svensk Maskingprovning AB; 2005 (in Swedsih).

[25] Landesanstalt fur Umweltschutz Baden-Wurttemberg.Umweltbilanzierung von Altlastensanierungsverfahren.Landesanstalt fur Umweltschutz Baden-Wurttemberg;1999.

[26] Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J. CORINE land cover techicalguide - addendum 2000. Copenhagen: EEA, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/tech40add; 2000.

[27] ReCiPe. ReCiPe 2008 method, version June 30th 2009. 2008.[28] Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Faist

Emmenegger M, et al. Life cycle inventories of bioenergy.Uster, CH: ESU-services, http://www.esu-services.ch/cms/index.php?id¼53; 2007.

[29] Bioenergiportalen 2008. www.bioenergiportalen.se.[30] hitta.se. 2009. www.hitta.se.[31] Suer P, Andersson-Skold Y, Blom S, Bardos PR, Track T,

Polland M. Environmental impact assessment of biofuelproduction on contaminated land - Swedish case studies.Swedish Geotechnical Institute, www.swedgeo.se; 2009.

[32] IEC. EPD - supporting annexes for environmental productdeclarations, EPD, version 1.0. The international EPDcooperation, http://www.environdec.com/pageId.asp?id¼163; 2008.

[33] Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A,Struijs J, van Zelm R. ReCiPe 2008-A life cycle impactassessment method which comprises harmonised categoryindicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I:characterisation. Ruimte en Milieu - Ministerie vanVolkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordeningn en Milieubeheer,http://www.lcia-recipe.net/; 2009.

[34] Goglio P, Owende PMO. A screening LCA of short rotationcoppice willow (Salix sp.) feedstock production systemfor small-scale electricity generation. Biosystems Eng 2009;103:389.

[35] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Volk TA. Life cycle assessment ofa willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenergy2003;25:147.

[36] Zah R, Boni H, Gauch M, Hischier R, Lehmann M, Wager P.Life cycle assessment of energy products: environmentalassessment of biofuels. Switzerland: Swiss Federal Instituteof Materials Science and Technology Research (EMPA), www.bioenergywiki.net/images/8/80/Empa_Bioenergie_ExecSumm_engl.pdf; 2007.

[37] Jungbluth N, Frischknecht R, Faist Emmenegger M, Steiner R,Tuchschmid M. Life cycle assessment of BTL-fuelproduction: life cycle impact assessment and interpretation.RENEW: renewable fuels for advanced powertrains. Uster,Switzerland, http://www.esu-services.ch/cms/index.php?id¼50; 2007.

[38] Borjesson P. Livscykelanalys av salixproduktion. IMES/EESS.Lund: Dept of Environmental and Energy System Studies,Lund University; 2006.

[39] Ravilious K. Despite mutations, Chernobyl wildlife isthriving. National Geographic News; 2006. April 26.

[40] Keoleian GA, Volk TA. Renewable energy from willowbiomass crops: life cycle energy, environmental andeconomic performance. Crit Rev Plant Sci 2005;24:385.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_ia_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_ia_en.pdf

http://www.swedgeo.se


http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf

http://www.snowman-era.net/downloads/REJUVENATE_final_report.pdf

http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00496/index.html?%2520lang=en%26dossier_id=01273





http://www.ecoinvent.org

http://www.bt.slu.se/lt_old/Meddelande/Me2003%1304/Meddel.pdf



http://www.esu-services.ch/cms/index.php?id=50



http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/tech40add

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/tech40add




http://www.bioenergiportalen.se

http://www.hitta.se


http://www.environdec.com/pageId.asp?id=163



http://www.lcia-recipe.net/

http://www.bioenergywiki.net/images/8/80/Empa_Bioenergie_ExecSumm_engl.pdf









[41] Ribbenhed M, Wolf-Watz C, Almemark M, Palm A,Sternbeck J. Livscykelanalys av marksaneringstekniker forfororenad jord och sediment. Stockholm: IVL: SvenskaMiljoinstitutet AB; 2002. p. 108.

[42] ScanRail Consult, HOH Water Technology, NIRAS,Revisorsamvirket/PKF. Environmental/economic evaluationand optimising of contaminated sites remediation -evaluation of demonstration projects. Copenhagen: DSB:Banestyrelsen and Miljøstyrelsen, Denmark; 2000. p. 99.

[43] Canals LMI, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF,Gaillard G, et al. Key elements in a framework for land useimpact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2007;12:5.

[44] Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Banse M, Mila i Canals L, Reenberg A.Global land use implications of biofuels: state-of-the-art

- conference and workshop on modelling global land useimplications in the environmental assessment of biofuels.Int J Life Cycle Assess 2008;13:178.

[45] Schenck RC. Land use and biodiversity indicators for lifecycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2001;6:114.

[46] Khoury GA, Diamond GL. Risks to children from exposure tolead in air during remedial or removal activities at superfundsites: a case study of the RSR lead smelter superfund site.J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2003;13:51.

[47] Rytter RM. Biomass production and allocation, includingfine-root turnover, and annual N uptake in lysimeter-grownbasket willows. For Ecol Manage 2001;140:177.

[48] de Neergaard A, Porter JR, Gorissen A. Distribution ofassimilated carbon in plants and rhizosphere soil of basketwillow (Salix viminalis L.). Plant Soil 2002;245:307.



biofuel or excavation? - life cycle assessment (lca) of soil remediation options

Documents