poldes

Environmental Management

CEP June 2007 www.aiche.org/cep 53

During the past few decades, pollution preventionand control has assumed a prominent role in thechemical engineering profession. Its study hasbecome part of chemical engineering curricula throughoutthe world, and a new section on waste treatment has beenadded to Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook.

The major responsibility for an operating plants clean-liness falls on its operators, final designers, contractorsand maintenance personnel, but its inherent cleanliness isdefined before construction. Preliminary designers donthave the time or budget to fully scope a waste system andsecure permits, but they can radically improve processcleanliness by devising ways to recycle or reuse streamsand minimize or eliminate end-of-pipe remedies.

The three types of emissions are fugitive, native andengineered emissions. Fugitive emissions (1) are the diffi-cult-to-find, -control or -capture leaks from pipe joints,storage tank vents, and static or rotating seals. Theyinclude leaking gases, dripping lubricants and evaporatingsolvents. Final designers and contractors are charged withpreventing their escape. Operators and maintenance peopleare responsible for finding and eliminating them.Preliminary designers can do little to prevent fugitiveemissions other than to specify materials and equipmentthat will contain process streams responsibly.

Native emissions are discharges from equipment suchas furnaces, cooling towers and other devices that burnfuels or generate a utility stream. Process designers mustusually accept whatever emissions are defined by avail-able fuels and prevailing technology.

A predesigners major concern is engineered emissions that is, those from process vessels, reactors and separa-tors, where engineering can influence the nature and quan-tity of effluent streams. The aim of this article is to helpbudding process analysts reduce or eliminate engineeredemissions in projects that they influence.Principles of pollution prevention and waste minimization (36)

Noxious byproducts that leave a process module mustbe treated by end-of-pipe techniques before they can bedischarged to the environment. This is costly, both eco-nomically and politically. Ideally, the goal of pollution pre-vention, or P2, is not simply to reduce noxious emissions,but to avoid creating them in the first place. In this regard,safety expert Trevor Kletzs famous adage, What youdont have, cant leak can be aptly rephrased and appliedto environmental protection: What you dont emit, cantpollute. This premise leads to the following hierarchy ofpollution-prevention/waste-minimization rules (5):

1. Source reduction. Faced with a serious emissionsproblem, consider alternative processes or different feed-stocks that do not create noxious byproducts. If completeelimination of a pollutant is not feasible, modify theprocess to reduce its quantity.

Many chemical processes employ choride-containingfeedstocks, for instance, where non-halogenated substancesmight be used instead. The latter can often be converted tonatural substances like water and carbon dioxide, whereaschlorides are not easily transformed to a non-polluting form.

A plants intrinsic cleanliness is determined during the predesign stage.

This article provides guidance for makingcritical decisions during preliminary design.

Gael D. UlrichPalligarnai T. VasudevanUniv. of New Hampshire

Predesign for Pollution

Prevention and Control

54 www.aiche.org/cep June 2007 CEP

Coal, abundant and cheap in the U.S., also contains sulfurand ash. Burning coal responsibly requires several expensiveend-of-pipe operations. Most of these can be avoided bysubstituting natural gas that contains only carbon and hydro-gen. (This is more easily said than done, since natural gas isusually more expensive or may be unavailable.)

2. Recycle. Look for ways to take an otherwise wastestream and recycle it as a raw material, solvent or washfluid. Aqueous operations gain when clean water from filtra-tion, cell harvesting, etc. can be recirculated to the feed. Rawmaterial costs, wastewater quantity, and biological oxygen

demand (BOD) are all reduced. This reflects abyproduct of pollution prevention: steps taken toreduce or eliminate waste often save money.

3. Treat. This alternative, when source reductionand recycling are impractical or incomplete, ismeant to bring a plants effluent to near-natural con-ditions. Examples include incineration, biologicaloxidation, filtration and various other procedures.

4. Dispose. As a last resort, waste is placedsomewhere in permanent isolation.

These four steps are illustrated by the evolution inmunicipal waste disposal over the past few decades.Unlike the days when garbage was simply dumped ina remote area, people are now encouraged to reduce atthe source by buying or consuming in ways that mini-mize packaging and other wastes. Useful materialslike glass, metal, plastic and paper are extracted fromwaste and recycled to decrease trash volume andreduce the need for virgin raw materials. (Other formsof recycling include composting, trash-to-energyschemes such as burning waste to generate electricityor process steam, and methane recovery from anaero-bic decomposition of landfill garbage.) Effluents likeflue gases or leachates are treated or neutralized. Andresidues, reduced in volume, are deposited in securelandfills or other permanent storage sites.

Steps for pollution prevention predesignWith pollution prevention and waste minimization in

mind, a pioneer process designer must first identify prob-lem streams and then eradicate, minimize or isolate thosestreams (Table 1).

1. IdentifyIdentification begins with a good process flow diagram

(PFD). From a hydrocarbon process PFD, for instance, typ-ical potential pollutants such as off-gases, aqueous residuesand heavy impurities are easily identified as streams other


Table 1. Predesign for pollution prevention involves four basic steps.

Step Tools Experimental and Analytical Resources

1. Identify 1. Well-executed process flow diagram Equilibrium calculations2. List of pollution-related properties Mass balances 3. Stream hazard chart (on flowsheet) BOD and other analytical testing 4. Permissible emissions chart Reactor design calculations

2. Eradicate 1. Consider alternative processs Equilibrium calculations(PP rules 1 and 2: 2. Explore conversion efficiency improvements Mass balancesprocess substitution, 3. Check internal recycle possibilities BOD and other analytical testingsource reduction, reuse, recycle) 4. Consider marketable disposal of wastes Reactor design calculations

3. Minimize 1. Tables 3 and 4; Figures 1, 2 and 3 Sound chemical engineering analytical (PP rule 3: treat) and computational skills

4. Isolate 1. Table 4 Sound chemical engineering judgment,(PP rule 4: ultimate disposal) responsible legal advice, and common sense

Table 2. Relevant pollution-related properties of acrylonitrile.

Property Data Comments

Formula C3H3N Clear, colorless liquid at room Molecular Weight 53 temperature with a faintly Boiling Point 77.3C pungent odorFreezing Point 83.5C Density @ 20C 806 kg/m3

Vapor Pressure 0.115 bar(a) High vapor pressure at room @ 20C temperature; air pollution risk

Vapor Density 1.8 Unlike hydrogen, vapors will not (Air = 1) dissipate in air; leaks can produce

pockets of high pollution levels

Solubility in 6.07.5 wt.% Severe potential for pollution; Water @ 20C all wastewater will require

careful treatment

Viscosity 3.4 104 Pa-s Viscosity is about one-third that@ 25C of water; anticipate pollution

from seal leakage

Hazard Details:

Acute Effects: Acrylonitrile is highly toxic if ingested, moderately toxicwhen inhaled, extremely irritating and corrosive to skin and eyes, readi-ly absorbed through the skin, carcinogenic and mutagenic. Averageallowable 8-h exposure in the U.S. is 2 ppm; 10 ppm maximum for nomore than 15 min. Acrylonitrile can burn to produce HCN, a deadly gas.

Biodegradable in water, converted to innocuous CO2, H2O and N2.


than product or byproduct leaving the process at the rightmargin. From a typical biomanufacturing process, problemstreams like vent gases and wastewater would be obviousas they exit the right margin of the PFD.

The next step is to compile pollution-related propertiesfor each substance in all of the problem streams. Table 2 isa compilation of such for acrylonitrile (an example dis-cussed in our previous article on safety (2)). Similar tablesfor all relevant compounds in a process are used to preparea stream hazard chart, such as the partially completedexample for the acrylonitrile process in Table 3.

By combining information from the PFD and streamhazard charts, one identifies problem streams and definestheir pollution intensity. Consider a wastewater stream, forexample. Suppose, according to the stream hazard chart,that some contaminants in the effluent are noxious, but thatthe stream is more than 99% water otherwise. How cleanmust it be for discharge to the environment? One must notonly identify the problem compounds, but also the concen-trations above which they impact the environment.

In most jurisdictions, acceptable emissions levels areestablished by federal and state or provincial governments.Federal pollution-control agencies like U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) post detailed regulatory standardson their websites. Clearly, the designer must know some-thing about regulations in the region where a prospective

plant is to be located. References listed under FurtherReading at the end of this article provide such information.(Table 11.3 in Ref. 7 [www.ulrichvasudesign.com/T11.3.pdf]is a convenient compilation.)

Consider wastewater from a hypothetical acrylonitrile(ACN) plant that contains 7,700 ppm contaminants inwater. Of this, 7,400 ppm, or 96%, is ammonium sulfate;100 ppm is mixed organics and 200 ppm is dissolved car-bon monoxide and carbon dioxide gases. Based on Table11.3 in Ref. 7, the stream can be discharged to naturalwater if organics are reduced to 30 ppm or less BOD, andammonium sulfate (dissolved solids) is lowered to a con-centration of less than 250 ppm (limits prescribed by U.S.drinking water standards).

2. EradicateTo achieve this, one should, according to the pollution

prevention hierarchy and Table 1, first consider ways toeliminate pollutants by: substituting processes or opera-tions; reducing waste at the source; recycling; and reusing.

Acrylonitrile was originally manufactured fromhydrogen cyanide and either ethylene oxide or acetylene.Synthesis from ammonia and propylene emerged in the1960s and, for safety and economic reasons, this routehas prevailed. Process substitution is an unlikely optionfor a mature technology like this. Certain operations

Table 3. Stream hazard chart.

Melting Flash Boiling Liquid Molecular Point, Point, Point, Density Deadly

Compound Weight C C C kg/m3 Flammability Poision? Toxin? Irritating? Corrosive?

C3H6 42 High Suffocation No NoHazard

NH3 17 Moderate Yes Strongly Moderately

O2 32 Powerful No SometimesOxidant

N2 28 Nonflammable Suffocation No NoHazard

C3H3N 53 83 0 77 806 High Yes Deadly

HCN 27 14 26 700 Yes Deadly

C2H3N 41 88 5 82 786 High Yes

CO 28 High Yes Deadly No No

CO2 44 Nonflammable Suffocation No NoHazard

H2SO4 98 Powerful Yes Strongly StronglyOxidant

(NH4)2SO4 132

Other factors to consider are whether the stream is carcinogenic or causes genetic damage.


within an existing process might be reconsidered, howev-er. More than 90% of the wastewater originates as waterfed to the scrubber (see ulrichvasudesign.com/ACN.pdf,pp. 512515 of Ref. 7). This suggests several routes forsource reduction:

1. Recycle some of the wastewater to replace processwater.

2. Use a refrigerated heat exchanger to separate streamsby condensation and eliminate the scrubber.

3. Replace the scrubber with a distillation column hav-ing a refrigerated condenser.

All of these alternatives could eliminate wastewateror reduce its quantity. Process economics for eachoption can be evaluated by conventional techniques (7,8). Costs thus obtained can be compared with costs forwaste treatment. A method for obtaining the latter isillustrated below.

3. MinimizeAs mentioned previously,

the hypothetical wastewaterwill meet standards for dis-charge to a natural waterwayif the sulfate level is reducedto less than 250 ppm and themixed organics to non-toxicBOD levels below 30 ppm.

The decision tree in Figure1 can be used to help definetreatment protocols for liquids.(Figures 2 and 3, for gases andsolids, appear at the end of thearticle.) For the ACN waste-water stream, the answers tothe questions in Figure 1 are:radioactive? no; major water?yes; solids removal only? no;elements other than C, H, Nand O? yes; major water? yes;toxins? no. This leads to terti-ary waste treatment.

Since detailed design ofwaste treatment facilities isimpractical in a study estimate,a short-cut method to estimatecosts is needed. The followingsimple and quick technique,originally derived to calculateutility costs, can be used tocalculate the cost of tertiarytreatment for the wastewaterstream described above.

Utility and waste treatment costs depend on twocoefficients, a capital cost multiplier, a, and an energymultiplier, b (7, 9). These coefficients are listed inTable 4.

The unit cost of treating 1 m3 of wastewater is given by:

Ct,ww = a(CEPCI) + bCf (1)

where CEPCI is a capital cost index (Chemical EngineeringPlant Cost Index) that adjusts for inflation and Cf is the pre-vailing price of fuel in $/GJ. (Historical values of CEPCIand Cf can be found at ulrichvasudesign.com/CEPCI.pdfand ulrichvasudesign.com/FP.pdf.)

Based on a waste stream flowrate of 0.026 m3/s, coeffi-cient a, from Table 4 for tertiary wastewater treatment, is:

a = 0.001 + (2 104)q0.6 = 0.0028


Is this waste radioactive? Yes Custom treatment procedure Consult with specialist

Is water the major

component of this liquid?

No

No Is this liquidcombustible?

Yes Is heating value> 7 MJ/kg?

No YesNo

Dispose of as hazardous or toxic waste*

* See Table 4 for costs

Does this liquid containelements other than

C, H, N, O, or particles at concentrations that

on burning would createa non-conformingexhaust plume?

No

Use as fuel for steam or electric

power generation*

Yes


power generation

with flue gas

treatment*

YesIf only solidsare removed,

will the stream meet

emissionsstandards?

Yes

Primary treatment*

No

Does this liquid contain elements

other thanC, H, N, O,

or solids at concentrations that would exceed emissions limits?

Yes Is water concentration

> 90%?No

No

Are contaminants biodegradable?

Yes

Secondarytreatment*

No

Tertiary treatment*

Yes

Does this liquid contain toxins at concentrations

that exceed emissions limits?

No

Evaporate or otherwise

concentrate

Treat as outlined in Figure 2

Vapors

Residue

Specialized techniques Follow guidelines in Ref. 7, Fig. 4-28 or consult with specialist

Yes

n Figure 1. Decision tree for selecting among alternatives for waste treatment and disposal of liquids.


and b is 0.1. Using a cost index of500 and an energy price of $7/GJ(approximate current values), the unittreatment expense is estimated to be:

Ct,ww = 0.0028(500) + 0.1($7/GJ) = $2.1/m3

Assuming an operating factor of0.92, the annual treated volume is750,000 m3/yr. The annual treatmentexpense is, therefore, $1,600,000.This provides a basis on which tocompare some of the options identi-fied in Step 2.

This estimate can undoubtedly beimproved given more familiaritywith the process. The wastewaterrate of 0.026 m3/s is small comparedto that of standard tertiary treatmentsystems, which have capacities up to10 m3/s. If this stream were blendedwith another one going to a largertreatment plant, its capital share(coefficient a) would be less and unittreatment cost smaller. This suggestssearching for another similar effluentto which this waste could be added.For example, if the wastewaterabove were part of a larger streamflowing at 1 m3/s, the unit treatmentcost would be $1.30/m3 and theannual treatment expense for theoriginal fraction becomes $980,000,a reduction of more than one-third.For more on economics of waste-water treatment, see Ref. 10.

4. IsolateTo discharge only compounds that exist in nature, such

as oxygen, nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide and minerals, isan ideal that is seldom achieved. (In the past, CO2 was nota problem compound, but with increasing concern aboutits contribution to the greenhouse effect, projects emittinglarge amounts of carbon dioxide must deal with it.) Whenobjectionable materials contained in gas or liquid streamscannot be eliminated, the next best alternative is to convertthem to a marketable byproduct, even when doing so costsmoney (see box on next page). Otherwise, wastes are usu-ally converted to solids and stored in special secure terres-trial sites under the control of licensed specialists.

Assume that a heavy liquid organic waste stream fromthe hypothetical acrylonitrile process is about 25% waterand 75% mixed acrylonitrile and acetylnitrile, and it isflowing at a rate of 4 g/s. Also assume that the answers tothe questions in Figure 1 are: radioactive? no; major watercontent? no; combustible? no. Thus, this stream must bedisposed of as a toxic waste.

Based on Table 4 and using the same CEPCI and ener-gy price as before, the unit treatment cost is:

Ct,ww = a(500) + b($7GJ) = $1.25/kg

At 4 g/s, the annual disposal cost is $150,000/yr.

Table 4. Coefficients for calculating waste treatment costs.

a b

Wastewater Treatment, $/m3 * 0.01 < q < 10 m3/s

Primary 0.0001 + 2107q1 0.002Secondary 0.0007 + 2106q1 0.003

0.0003 < q < 10 m3/sTertiary 0.001 + 2104q0.6 0.1

Membrane Processes, $/m3

Concentration of dissolved solids in feed 0.001 < q < 1 m3/s20,00040,000 ppm 0.0015 + 6105q0.6 0.135,00020,000 ppm 0.0015 + 5105q0.6 0.08Up to 5,000 ppm 0.0015 + 4105q0.6 0.02

Liquid/Solid Waste Disposal, $/kg

Conventional solid or liquid wastes 4.0104 Toxic or hazardous solids and liquids 2.5103 By combustion 1 < m HHV < 1,000 MJ/s

As supplemental fuel 3.0x105 (HHV)0.77m0.23 5104 (HHV) with flue gas cleaning 5.0x105 (HHV)0.77m0.23 4104 (HHV)

Gas Emissions Treatment, $/Nm3 #

0.05 < q < 50 Nm3/sEndothermic flaring 1106q0.23 0.004Thermal or catalytic incineration 1105q0.23 0.002

with flue gas cleaning 1.5105q0.23 0.003By combustion 1 < q lhv < 1,000 MJ/s

As supplemental fuel 3.0105 (lhv)0.77q0.23 6104 (lhv)with flue gas cleaning 5.0105 (lhv)0.77q0.23 5104 (lhv)

* q is total water capacity, m3/s. Primary treatment consists of filtration, secondary treat-ment is filtration plus activated sludge processing, and tertiary treatment is filtration, acti-vated sludge processing and chemical processing. q is total water capacity, m3/s. In many cases, the concentrated effluent from a mem-brane separation unit must be treated by secondary or tertiary methods as well. In thesesituations, membrane separation is not an ultimate waste treatment method. Its viabilitydepends on the value of the purified stream and on savings available from reducing thevolume of concentrated waste requiring subsequent treatment. Use these numbers advisedly. Waste disposal costs depend on local public attitude andother political factors that are capricious and location sensitive. See Ref. 5, page 25-101for typical U.S. regional variations. m is the wastes flowrate, kg/s, and HHV is its higher heating value, MJ/kg. Note that b isnegative in these cases, because waste burning as a supplementary fuel returns a credit. # q is the total treatment system flowrate in normal (273 K, 1 atm) cubic meters per sec-ond, Nm3/s and lhv is the lower (or net) heating value in MJ/Nm3. Note that b is negativein these instances, because waste burning as a supplementary fuel returns a credit.


Alternatively, one might explore combining this dischargewith the larger wastewater stream. This would increase thelatters BOD by 35 ppm with negligible increase in flow.

Air pollutionThe above examples demonstrate how liquid effluents

might be handled in pioneer design. Similarly, vapor andgas streams, depending on combustibility and toxicity, canbe treated by the various alternatives listed in the terminiboxes of the decision tree in Figure 2. Costs are estimatedusing the appropriate coefficients from Table 4. The fol-lowing example illustrates the disposal of the gaseous ventstream from the hypothetical acrylonitrile process.

Consider a waste gas composed primarily of nitrogen withsome water, propylene, acrylonitrile, acetonitrile, ammonia, atrace of cyanide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Fig-ure 2 poses the question of combustibility. The streams com-

posite lower heating value (lhv),calculated from composition andnet combustion enthalpies given inRef. 5 (Table 2-221, page 2-199)is 2.2 MJ/Nm3. The streamflowrate is 3.76 Nm3/s.

According to Figure 2, this gasstream is borderline, a candidatefor either incineration or use as asupplemental fuel.

The cost of thermal or catalyticincineration (from Table 4) is:

Ct,t/ci = a(500) + b($7/GJ)= $0.018/Nm3

At a flowrate of 3.76 Nm3/s,the annual incineration expenseis $2,000,000.

For supplemental fuel use:

Ct,sf = [(3.0 105) (lhv0.77q0.23)(500)]+ [(6 104)(lhv) ($7/GJ)]= $0.011/Nm3

At $0.011/Nm3, disposal assupplementary fuel costs$1,200,000/yr.

Because this off-gas stream is solarge (a large amount of nitrogenis introduced with reagent air), itsdisposal is a major expense. In this

situation, a predesigner would report both cost figures andmost likely recommend energy recovery, but emphasize thatspecial precautions must be observed to handle vent gasessafely in the steam plant. Alternatives and their relative safetywill be debated by the HAZOP team and others later if andwhen this project progresses to final design. Closing thoughts

From an ethical standpoint, pollution prevention is nodoubt the best route to follow in preliminary design.Society, through fines or financial incentives, often makes itthe most economic path also. When options like deep-wellinjection or contract removal are most economical, otherfactors should be considered. A manufacturing cost summa-ry displays short-term economics. With deep-well injectionor contract removal, waste sometimes returns to haunt afirm. Federal law often holds a generator legally and finan-


Can any major vapor components

be condensed at moderately

low temperatures?YesNo Consider condensation to remove liquid

for disposal as outlined in Figure 1;

Return to beginning of this decision tree for

remaining gasesIs this gas streamcombustible?

No

Custom techniques (see Ref. 7,Fig. 4-28b)

OR Is lower heating value< 2.2 MJ/Nm?

Is flow continuous?

No

Thermal or catalytic incineration with flue gas treatment*

YesEndothermic

flaring*

Thermal or catalytic incineration*

YesNo

Yes No

Yes

Does this gas contain elements

other than C, H, N, O, or

particles at concentrations that on burning would create a non-conformingexhaust plume?

Yes

No

Yes

Use as supplemental fuel in process or for steam or electric power

generation*

Use as supplemental

fuel in process or for steam or electric

power generation

with flue gas cleaning*







Yes No No

* See Table 4 for costs 0.31.0-s residence time at 7001,000C (thermal), 300500C (catalytic)

Is lower heating value< 7.5 MJ/Nm?

n Figure 2. Decision tree for selecting among alternatives for waste treatment and disposal of gases.


cially responsible even when acontractor has been paid to dis-pose of the waste.

Public attitude, not easilymeasured in dollars or euros,can easily sabotage a projectthrough startup delays, regula-tory barriers and unexpectedlegal fees. Public image canalso influence sales volumeand price, either of whichaffects the bottom line. Re-sponsible pollution control andprevention in predesign is important to assure that thepublics first impression, shaped largely by the designreport, is positive.

Is this waste radioactive? Yes Custom treatment procedure Consult with specialist

Is water the major

component of this solid?

No

No Is this solidcombustible?

Yes Is heating value> 7 MJ/kg?

No YesNo

* See Table 4 for costs

Does this solid containelements other than

C, H, N, O, or particles at concentrations that

on burning would createa non-conformingexhaust plume?

No


power generation*

Yes

Use as fuel for steam or electric power generation

with flue gas treatment*

Yes

Yes No

Does this solid contain elements other than C, H, N, O at concentrations

that would exceed emissions limits?

Is water concentration

> 90%?

Yes

No

Does this solid contain toxins at concentrations that

exceed emissions limits?

No

Yes

Filter or otherwise

concentrate(see Ref. 7, Chapter 4)

Treat as outlined

in Figure 2

Filtrate

Concentratedsolids

Dispose of as conventional solid or liquid waste*

Dispose of as hazardous or toxic waste*

Dispose of as conventional

solid or liquid waste*

n Figure 3. Decision tree for selecting among alternatives for waste treatment and disposal of solids.

Finding a New Market

Faced with disposal of abyproduct acid, one companyfound that there was a marketfor the acid alone, but thismaterial was a concentratedscrubber liquid that containedmineral sludge. The sludgewas inert and non-toxic, butits presence made the acidoff-spec. Creative marketingpeople learned that the liquidmatched the composition of apopular toilet bowl cleaner,and the sludge improved itsperformance by increasing vis-cosity, which resulted in betteradherence to the bowl. Thus,the waste byproduct wassuccessfully wholesaled to thedistributor of the cleaner.

GAEL D. ULRICH is professor emeritus of chemical engineering at the Univ. ofNew Hampshire (E-mail: [email protected]), where he has been afaculty member since 1970. Prior to pursuing a teaching career, he workedat Atomics International Div. of North American Aviation and Cabot Corp.He has consulted for a number of corporations and presided over a smallcontract research firm for ten years. The material in this article wasextracted from Chemical Engineering Process Design and Economics, aPractical Guide, 2nd edition, published with coauthor P. T. Vasudevan in2004. He holds BS and MS degrees from the Univ. of Utah and an ScDfrom the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all in chemicalengineering, and is a member of The Combustion Institute.

PALLIGARNAI T. VASUDEVAN is a professor of chemical engineering at theUniv. of New Hampshire (E-mail: [email protected]), where he has beena faculty member since 1988. Before that, he worked in a major petro-chemical company for seven years. His research at UNH focuses oncatalysis and biocatalysis. He is currently collaborating with researchersin Spain in the areas of hydrodesulfurization and enzyme catalysis. Heholds a BS from Madras, India, an MS from the State Univ. of New York atBuffalo, and a PhD from Clarkson Univ., all in chemical engineering, and isa member of AIChE.

Literature Cited1. Allen, D. T., and K. S. Rosselot, Pollution Prevention for

Chemical Processes, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (1997). 2. Ulrich, G. D., and P. T. Vasudevan, Predesign with Safety in

Mind, Chem. Eng. Progress, 102 (4), pp. 2737 (July 2006). 3. Freeman, H., ed., Industrial Pollution Prevention Hand-

book, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1995). [Collection ofarticles by various authors. Chapter 32 by Evanoff and Chap-ter 36 by Osantowski et al. provide useful standards data.]

4. Higgins, T. E., ed., Pollution Prevention Handbook, LewisPublishers, Boca Raton, FL (1995).

5. Perry, J. H., D. W. Green, and J. O. Maloney, ChemicalEngineers Handbook, 7th ed., pp. 25-13 to 25-22, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1997).

6. Theodore, L., and Y. C. McGuinn, Pollution Prevention,Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY (1992).

7. Ulrich, G. D. and P. T. Vasudevan, Process Design andEconomics A Practical Guide, 2nd ed., ProcessPublishing, ulrichvasudesign.com (2004).

8. Vatavuk, W. M., How to Estimate Operating Costs, Chem.Eng., 112 (7), pp. 3337 (July 2005).

9. Ulrich, G. D. and P. T. Vasudevan, How to EstimateUtility Cost, Chem. Eng., 113 (4), pp. 6669 (April 2006).

10. Dalan, J. A., Things to Know about Zero Liquid Discharge,Chem. Eng. Progress, 96 (11), pp. 7176 (Nov. 2000).

CEP

Article continues with Further Reading on next page



Further ReadingMany excellent books and articles have been written on the subject of this article. The literature is wider than it is deep, however. It contains interestinghistoric, encyclopedic and qualitative information that all chemical engineers can profit from, but that is not required for process design. The followingcitations have been selected as primary sources of quantitative information for inexperienced process designers.

Predesign for Pollution Prevention and Control continued from p. 59

www.aiche.org/cep or Circle No.127

Benitez, J., Process Engineering and Design for Air PollutionControl, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1998).

Cheremisinoff, N. P., Handbook of Pollution Prevention Practices,Marcel Dekker, New York, NY (2001). [General reference includingeconomics with discussion geared to 25 specific industries.]

Colls, J., Air Pollution An Introduction, Chapman & Hall,London (1997). [Contains some useful air standards data.]

DeZuane, J., Handbook of Drinking Water Quality, Van NostrandReinhold, New York, NY (1990).

Doolittle, C., J. et al., Managing Emissions During Hazardous-WasteCombustion, Chem. Eng., 109 (12), pp. 5057 (Dec. 2002).

Edwards, V. H., VOC-Control Options During WastewaterTreatment, Chem. Eng., 107 (9), pp. 105108 (Sept. 2000).

Hocking, M. B., ed., Handbook of Chemical Technology and PollutionControl, Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1998). [General discus-sion of air/water quality measurement and pollution control, plusencyclopedic treatment of salts, bases, chlorine, sulfur, phosphorous,ammonia, and the aluminum, copper, iron, paper, petroleum, petro-chemical, polymer and fermentation industries.]

Kimbro, D. F., et al., Hazardous-Waste Incinerators: MeetingCompliance Challenges, Chem. Eng., 108 (9), pp. 115120 (Sept. 2001).

Kirk-Othmer Encylopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 1, p. 352, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (1991).

Longhurst, J. W. S., et al., Air Quality Management, Witt Press,Southampton, U.K. (2000). [European environmental standards.]

Patrick, D. R., ed., Toxic Air Pollution Handbook, Van NostrandReinhold, New York, NY (1994). [One of many detailed compre-hensive references on air pollution.]

Peirce, J. J., et al., Environmental Pollution and Control, 4th ed.,Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA (1998). [Excellent basic treat-ment and general reference; colorfully written e.g., Thesemicroorganisms are the prima donnas of wastewater treatment.]

Rao, C. S., Environmental Pollution Control Engineering, Wiley,Hoboken, NJ (1991).

Ray, B. T., Environmental Engineering, PWS Publishing, Boston, MA(1995). [Contains useful standards and quantitative information.]

Valsaraj, K. T., Elements of Environmental Engineering, 2nd ed.,Lewis Publishers, Boco Raton, FL (2000). [For some reason, atypographical error perhaps, emissions standards in one printingappear to be off by a factor of 1,000.]

Wark, K., et al., Air Pollution Its Origin and Control, 3rd ed.,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA(1998). [A comprehensive completereference on air pollution.]

Wentz, C. A., Hazardous Waste Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1995).

poldes

Documents