Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Application and adaptation of a scale-up framework for life cycle

assessment to resource recovery from waste systems
Nilay Elginoz a, b, *, Isaac Owusu-Agyeman a, Göran Finnveden c, d, Roland Hischier e,
Tomas Rydberg b, Zeynep Cetecioglu a
a
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Sweden
b
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Life Cycle Management, Sweden
c
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, Sweden
d
Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Circularity, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
e
Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Science and Technology, Technology and Society Laboratory, Lerchenfeldstrasse 5, 9014, St. Gallen, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Bruno Silvestre Prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) studies are widely used for evaluating emerging resource recovery sys­
tems. Simulations, engineering-based process calculations and stoichiometric methods are frequently used
Keywords: methods to generate life cycle inventory (LCI) in prospective LCAs. The engineering-based upscaling calculation
Upscaling is an efficient method for LCI generation requiring fewer resources than simulations. This study aims to test an
Laboratory-scale data: pilot-scale data
engineering-based upscaling method for LCI generation and adapt it to biochemical resource recovery processes.
Full-scale data
The method’s validity for biochemical resource recovery processes was tested using data for biogas generation by
Environmental sustainability
Life cycle inventory generation anaerobic digestion in laboratory, pilot, and full scales, and using a combination of lab-scale data and kinetic
Conceptual design equations. Biogas generation was chosen for two reasons: (1) there are several emerging technologies based on
anaerobic digestion with products other than biogas, and (2) data is available for different scales. The results
showed, a substantial difference between the methane production amount in actual and conceptual plants, is an
important cause of the variation in impact category results. Different estimations of fugitive emissions have an
important impact on the global warming potential results. Combination of lab-scale data and kinetic equations
approximates best with the actual plant for the abiotic depletion, eutrophication, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity,
global warming and photochemical ozone creation potentials. The results are sensitive to biogas generation
amount in several categories.

engineering calculations (using mass and energy balances with process

1. Introduction
Introducing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the design stage enables
the determination of hotspots in emerging technology and may lead to
process improvements (Ögmundarson et al., 2020). LCA is a
well-established methodology (Rebitzer et al., 2004) but due to its na­
ture, detailed information about material and energy flows is needed.
Unlike mature technologies, full-scale plant data is not yet available for
emerging technologies that are at low technology readiness levels (TRL),
and this lack of data availability is one of the major challenges of
early-stage LCAs (Hetherington et al., 2014; Moni et al., 2020).
In the absence of plant-based data, process simulation (using process
simulators to model full-scale plants in virtual environment), process
calculations) and stoichiometric approaches are methods that can be
applied to generate inventory data in prospective LCAs (Parvatker and
Eckelman, 2019). Using process simulation tools for life cycle inventory
(LCI) generation gives similar results compared to plant-based data
(Parvatker and Eckelman, 2019), however, this method requires much
more time and expertise compared to engineering-based process calcu­
lations (Yao and Masanet, 2018).
Upscaling based on laboratory data using detailed process calcula­
tions is widely used to generate LCIs for emerging technologies (Mor­
gan-Sagastume et al., 2016; Tsoy et al., 2020). There are however only a
few studies testing the engineering process calculations based LCI gen­
eration methods using data of a mature technology in different scales.
After reviewing prospective LCAs, Tsoy et al. (2020) reported that

* Corresponding author. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Life Cycle Management, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: nilay.elginoz.kanat@ivl.se (N. Elginoz), isaacoa@kth.se (I. Owusu-Agyeman), goran.finnveden@abe.kth.se (G. Finnveden), roland.hischier@
empa.ch (R. Hischier), tomas.rydberg@ivl.se (T. Rydberg), zeynepcg@kth.se (Z. Cetecioglu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131720
Received 17 June 2021; Received in revised form 11 March 2022; Accepted 8 April 2022
Available online 15 April 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
N. Elginoz et al.
Abbreviations
TRL Technology readiness level
LCA Life cycle assessment
LCI Life cycle inventory
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
AD Anaerobic digestion
LCIA Life cycle impact assessment
CML Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen
ADP Abiotic depletion potential
AP Acidification Potential
EP Eutrophication Potential
FAETP Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
prospective LCA results were most of the time not validated after
application of the assessed technologies at industrial scale, and they
recommended validation of these results in order to analyse the effi­
ciency of the upscaling methods. Few examples investigated such vali­
dation. Fernandez-Dacosta et al. (2019) compared early-stage
assessments, prospective LCA and LCA based on commercial scale data
using lactic acid production as a case study. Tsalidis and Korevaar
(2022) compared LCAs of torrefaction technology based on data in
different scales (bench scale, lab scale, process simulations, pilot scale
and commercial scale).
There are several suggested upscaling frameworks in the literature.
Shibasaki (2009) proposed a method for upscaling from pilot to full
scale. A weakness of this method is the need for the technology in
question to be in a higher TRL compared to laboratory scale. Piccinno
et al. (2016) and Simon et al. (2016) proposed frameworks for upscaling
from lab to full scale based on engineering process calculations and Tsoy
et al. (2020) proposed another framework. The framework proposed by
Simon et al. (2016) consists of three steps which are analysis of (1)
functions, (2) dimensions and (3) similarities. In the first step, labora­
tory procedures are resembled to industrial processes, in the “analysis of
dimensions” step, production of the new material is quantitatively
described, and in the last step, analogies with large scale processes are
analysed. The framework published by Tsoy et al. (2020) has also three
steps; first the technology developer designs a conceptual scenario for
the new technology, second LCA and technology experts develop a flow
chart for LCA and finally they estimate data for unit processes. The core
idea in these frameworks is to design a conceptual upscaled system for
the new technology based on similar existing industrial processes.
However, validation and verification of these scale-up frameworks is the
common weakness.
The upscaling framework tested in the current article is from Pic­
cinno et al. (2016). It is for upscaling of chemical processes from lab to
full scale and has been applied in four different case studies in the
literature (Piccinno et al., 2016, 2018; Elginoz et al., 2020a, 2020b). The
framework starts with a laboratory protocol covering all the steps in the
lab-scale. A conceptual simple plant is designed based on the lab pro­
tocol, and then each step is scaled-up separately. LCA is conducted after
linking process steps. The framework is developed for chemical pro­
cesses and in the scope of this study, the framework’s validity for
biochemical resource recovery processes is tested using an established
biochemical process. Biogas generation by anaerobic digestion (AD) is
used to test and adapt the framework for emerging biochemical pro­
cesses. This is relevant since AD is adapted for the production of bio­
diesel, bioethanol, volatile fatty acid (VFA), Polyhydroxyalkanoates
(PHA), biohydrogen and long-chain fatty acids, respectively, from waste
streams.
Bio-based chemicals are often seen as a more sustainable option
compared to their fossil-based counterparts. But it is important to
evaluate and, as far as possible, reduce their environmental impacts
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
GWP Global Warming Potential
HTTP Human Toxicity Potential
MAETP Marine Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
ODP Ozone Layer Depletion Potential
POCP Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential
TETP Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential
SR Sensitivity ratio
DM Dry material
TS Total solids
VS Volatile solids
HRT Hydraulic retention time
VFA Volatile Fatty Acid
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
along their entire life cycle to avoid burden-shifting. When the biomass
used for the biochemical production is agricultural feedstock, land-use
impacts are much higher than for petrochemicals (Ögmundarson
et al., 2020). Thus, recovering resources to obtain bio-products from
waste streams seems a promising option for producing bio-based ma­
terials. However, the consumption of energy and chemicals during the
various production and separation steps of such resource recovery
routes leads to environmental impacts that need to be assessed. This
assessment then enables a comparison of these emerging technologies
with their incumbent counterparts.
The current study aims to test and adapt the framework proposed by
Piccinno et al. (2016) to resource recovery technologies by comparing
LCI and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results based on actual
plant-based data with results based on up-scaled data. Biogas generation
from wastewater sludge data was collected from laboratory experi­
ments, a pilot plant and an actual full-scale AD plant. The main inno­
vation point of this study is the validation of LCI and LCIA results
generated by the chosen up-scaling framework for a bio-chemical
resource recovery system. The second innovation point of this study is
the adaptation of the framework to such systems.
The specific objectives addressed in the study include:
1) Applying the upscaling framework from Piccinno et al. (2016) to
assess potential environmental impacts based on lab-scale experi­
mental results and pilot plant data;
2) Comparing the results obtained by this upscaling framework with
actual data from an industrial plant; and
3) Refining the upscaling method for biochemical resource recovery
processes, as a result of this comparison.
2. Material and method
2.1. Modelling approach
LCA studies of four biogas production pathways from wastewater
sludge are performed for four scenarios: (S1) Full-scale system using
measured data, (S2) Calculated conceptual up-scaled system based on
laboratory data, (S3) Calculated conceptual up-scaled system based on
pilot-scale data, (S4) Calculated conceptual up-scaled system based on a
combination of laboratory data and kinetic equations.
For S1, plant-based data was collected from the sludge line of Hen­
riksdal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which includes AD re­
actors for biogas generation. S2 is based on an AD system that has been
set up to produce biogas using batch reactors in the laboratory and run
until maximum biogas production is reached. The influent of this
laboratory-scale system was collected from the Henriksdal WWTP
sludge line at the same time when plant data was collected. For S3,
sludge line data from Hammarby Sjöstadsverket pilot plant, which is a
model version of Henriksdal WWTP where new processes or changes in
N. Elginoz et al.
the processes are applied first, was collected. For S4, the biogas forma­
tion rate was calculated based on experimental data and kinetic equa­
tions. For the second, third and fourth LCAs three conceptual AD plants
were designed, following the upscaling procedure in Piccinno et al.
(2016). The applied procedure is explained in detail in sections 2.4 to
2.7 and the scenarios are summarized in Table 1.
All LCAs were performed in line with the ISO 140040-series (Inter­
national Organization for Standardization, 2006a; 2006b), using the
GaBi software version 9 (Thinkstep, 2020). Background data are mainly
taken from the Ecoinvent database version 3 (Wernet et al., 2016).
Chosen Ecoinvent datasets and the reasons for these choices are given in
supplementary material (Table S1). The functional unit of all four LCAs
is management of 1 ton of sludge in dry basis (1 tonDM). The investi­
gated system boundaries for the AD plant are described in Fig. 1. Sludges
enter the system using the zero-burden approach (c.f. Finnveden, 1999)
similar to waste management studies. System boundary includes
collection of sludges from different parts of the WWTP, biogas genera­
tion in AD reactors, upgrading the biogas, dewatering the sludge,
transportation and incineration of the dewatered digestate. system
boundary is expanded to include avoided heat production due to
incineration of the digestate and avoided diesel production replaced by
biogas. Construction of the facility is excluded from the system due to
the uniqueness of Henriksdal WWTP. The facility was constructed un­
derground by blasting and excavation of rocks. Rock sides are also used
as walls for the AD reactors. This unique construction makes it hard to
collect construction data and less relevant in relation to the aim of the
study.
2.2. Impact assessment
For the comparison of full-scale data and up-scaled data, both LCI
and LCIA results are used. For the LCIA step, the January 2016 version of
the so-called CML-method 2001 (Guinée et al., 2002) is used, as
implemented in GaBi. The considered CML impact categories are the
abiotic depletion potential (ADP) the acidification potential (AP), the
eutrophication potential (EP), the freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity po­
tential (FAETP), the global warming potential (GWP), the human
toxicity potential (HTP), the marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential
(MAETP), the ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), the photochemical
ozone creation potential (POCP) and the terrestrial ecotoxicity potential
(TETP).
2.3. Contribution and perturbation analysis
Contribution analysis was performed using LCIA results to assess the
Table 1
Summary of the implied scenarios and their main characteristics.
Scenarios Main characteristics
S1 – Actual, full scale system in Two 7000 m3 and five 5000 m3 AD
Henriksdal WWTP reactors
Commercial scale collected data
collected
431.4 Nm3 biogas generation per 1 ton
DM
S2 – Conceptual system based on One 5500 m3 AD reactor
laboratory data Lab-scale data upscaled to full-scale
59.74 Nm3 biogas generation per 1 ton
DM
S3 – Conceptual system based on pilot- One 5500 m3 AD reactor
scale data Pilot-scale data upscaled to full-scale
307.64 Nm3 biogas generation per 1 ton
DM
S4 – Conceptual system based on One 5500 m3 AD reactor
laboratory data and kinetic equations Lab scaled data coupled with kinetic
equations upscaled to full scale
343.83 Nm3 biogas generation per 1 ton
DM
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
major and minor contributors to the total burdens and the effect of
avoided burdens on the impact category results. Perturbation analysis
was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainties on the
LCIA results following Clavreul et al. (2012). In this analysis, for each
analysed parameter impact category results are recalculated for +10%
and − 10% variation of the initial parameter amount. Sensitivity ratios
(SR) for each parameter are calculated for each impact category using
Equation (1). If SR value of one parameter is 2, it means that the 10%
variation in the parameter cause a 20% change in the total impact
category result (Clavreul et al., 2012).
Δresult
SR = initial result
(1)
Δparameter
initial parameter
2.4. Scenario 1 – actual, full scale biogas generation in Henriksdal
WWTP
Henriksdal WWTP, operated by the Stockholm Water and Waste
Company, is located in Stockholm, Sweden. All data for the Henriksdal
WWTP is collected through personal communications. The WWTP treats
approximately 250 000 m3 of municipal wastewater per day using me­
chanical, chemical and biological processes. The sludges from treatment
processes are fed into AD reactors to produce biogas. The digesters of
Henriksdal, consist of two 7000 m3 and five 5000 m3 anaerobic reactors,
which are continuously operated under mesophilic conditions
(35–37 ◦ C). The sludge line of the WWTP also covers centrifuges for
thickening excess sludge from secondary clarifiers and for dewatering
digested sludge and sludge tanks. Biogas upgrading is operated by
Scandinavian Biogas in the premises of the WWTP.
The AD reactors were fed by 91.3 × 104 m3 sludge in total during
2018. 81% of this total sludge was primary sludge from primary clari­
fiers, 14% was thickened secondary sludge from secondary clarifiers, 5%
was grease separator sludge. Dry material (DM) content of the input
sludge (total solids, TS %) was 4.03% in 2018, hence total mixed sludge
has a DM content of 37.9 × 103 ton, considering the density of mixed
sludge is 1030 kg/m3 59.4 × 102 tons crude glycerol was added to the
sludge.
The sludge line consumed 10 GWh of electricity, which is withdrawn
from the grid, and 22 GWh of heat energy during 2018. 98% of heat
consumption was supplied from district heating, and the rest was sup­
plied internally from heat transfer and boilers. Chosen background
datasets for energy inputs are explained in the supplementary material
(Table S2). 16.3 × 106 Nm3 biogas with 63% methane content was
generated in the digesters. 97.6% of the generated biogas was used as
fuel in biogas busses after upgrading. Excessive biogas sent to the torch
was 2.1%, and 0.3% of biogas was used in boilers. For simplification it is
assumed that all generated biogas is upgraded to replace diesel.
Generated biogas amount to upgraded biogas ratio is 1.86, and ac­
cording to Swedish Gas Technology Centre (SGC, 2012) 1 Nm3 upgraded
biogas corresponds to 0.99 L diesel. Fugitive methane emission from the
sludge line was estimated as 5.7% of the generated biogas.
Digested sludge sourced from ADs was dewatered in centrifuges with
196.5 tons of polymer addition and stored in tanks before transferring
for land reclamation and other purposes. The total amount of drained
digestate was 61.9 × 103 tons. Dry material content of the dewatered
digestate was 28.3% TS, hence 17.5 × 103 ton DM. Dewatered digestate
from WWTPs can be disposed in several ways like land reclamation,
incineration, spreading on agricultural areas etc. Here it is assumed that
the digestate is transported to a nearby incineration plant, which has a
12 km distance from Henriksdal WWTP. The recovered heat is calcu­
lated as 0.523 MJ per 1 kg digestate based on the Ecoinvent process used
(treatment of digester sludge, municipal incineration) and it is assumed
that it will replace district heating. Reject water from the centrifuges
goes back to primary clarifiers. The studied system is described in Fig. 1.
N. Elginoz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720

Fig. 1. System boundary of Henriksdal WWTP sludge line under investigation. Red dotted line depicts investigated system and black dotted line depicts expanded
system boundaries. Solid boxes are the processes which are included in the system boundary and dashed boxes are the excluded ones. The green box covers avoided
burden processes.

2.5. Scenario 2 – conceptual biogas generation system based on

laboratory data

Lab-scale experiments for biogas generation were conducted, at the

Hammarby Sjöstadsverk, which is run in collaboration by Swedish
Environmental Research Institute and Royal Institute of Technology.
Primary, secondary and fat sludge was collected from Henriksdal WWTP
and a 1000 ml mixture was prepared following the ratios 81%, 14%, 5%
respectively in line with the year 2018 amounts. 6.5 g glycerol was
added to the mixture. The volatile solids (VS) content of primary sludge,
secondary, fat, and seed sludges were 8.47, 27.12, 36, and 15.21 g/L
respectively. The experiment was performed with an automatic methane
potential test system (AMPTS II, Bioprocess Control) with glass bottles
(3 triplicate) connected to a CO2-capturing unit as previously described.
To each 500 ml batch reactor, 320 ml sludge mixture as substrate and
130 ml seed sludge as inoculum were fed. The batch reactors were Fig. 2. Average CH4 accumulation in batch reactors.
placed in a hot water bath to control the temperature at 35 ◦ C (similar to
the full-scale reactors). Accumulated CH4 was continuously measured (HRT) is assumed to be 20 days because the accumulated CH4 reached
for 40 days using a gas volume measuring device. The average CH4 its equilibrium on the 20th day of the experiments. The flow rate of the
accumulation time series of the three reactors is given in Fig. 2. Ac­ influent to the digester was calculated as 250 m3/day. Methane pro­
cording to the experimental results, the specific methane production in duction of the conceptual system was calculated as 391 m3 CH4/day
the batch reactors was 54.5 ml CH4/g VS. based on the average volatile solids (VS) amount of the actual sludge
The upscaling framework proposed by Piccinno et al. (2016) was influent and specific methane production value obtained in the experi­
followed to upscale lab-scale biogas generation to a conceptual full ments. Daily biogas production was calculated as 620.5 m3 considering
scale. The first step of the framework is the lab protocol of the investi­ 63% of the biogas is methane.
gated system which is defined in the paragraph above. Second, a con­ For third and fourth steps in the framework, each process is scaled up
ceptual plant flow chart is designed. This conceptual system includes a separately, and then they are linked by inputs and outputs of each
centrifuge for thickening secondary sludge, an AD reactor with 5000 m3 process. The details of each process and the flow amounts between each
reaction volume, a dewatering centrifuge for digested sludge, and stor­ unit were calculated and given in the supplementary material in detail.
age tanks similar to the actual plant. The Hydraulic Retention Time Energy and material consumption and fugitive emissions from the

4
N. Elginoz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720

conceptual system were calculated using engineering-based equations. chain fatty acids.
Energy for heating (Qreact ), stirring (Estir ), and pumping (Epump ) was The relationship between the substrate (S) utilization rate and the
calculated using Equations (2)–(4) (Piccinno et al., 2016). Energy for product (P) formation rate is expressed as (Manchala et al., 2017):
thickening and dewatering per ton dry material was estimated as 10
dP dS
kWh (Piccinno et al., 2016). Lubricating oil and fugitive CO2 and CH4 =− %YP/S (5)
dt dt
amounts were calculated using the amounts in the AD process in
Ecoinvent 3 database. The polymer amount used for dewatering the dS 1 dP
digestate was estimated as 4.6 g/kg TS. TS contents of all sludge flows − = % (6)
dt YP/S dt
within the system are given in supplementary material.
YP/S is the product yield coefficient which is the ratio between the
Cp × mmix × (Tr − T0 ) + A × ksa × (Tr − Tout ) × t change in product and change in biomass
Qreact = (2)
ηheat
ΔP
YP/S =
3
Np × ρmix × N × d × t 5 ΔS
Estir = (3)
ηstir Microbial growth is given by
dX
m × g × Δh = μX (7)
Epump = (4) dt
ηpump
In these equations Cp, mmix and ρmix are specific heat capacity, mass X = the biomass concentration [g/L]
and density of the sludge and Tr, T0 and Tout are reaction, starting and μ = specific growth rate [d− 1]
outside temperatures, respectively. A is the surface area of the reactor, ka
and s are the thermal conductivity and thickness of the insulation ma­ And items of the rate of substrate utilization and microbial growth
terial. Np and d depict the power number and diameter of the impeller, N
is the stirring velocity, t is the reaction time, g is gravitational acceler­ −
dS 1 dX
= % (8)
ation, Δh is the pumping height and η stands for efficiency of the device. dt Y dt
The conceptual design of the processes and energy calculations are given
in detail in the supplementary material.
Biogas upgrading and digestate incineration facilities are external
Y is the growth yield coefficient;
facilities and are not included in the laboratory protocol. Therefore, they
were not upscaled to full scale using the upscaling framework. They are
where Y = ΔX
assumed to function similar to S1 in all scenarios and in the LCA model ΔS
Specific growth rate μ is given by:
they were integrated to the conceptual upscaled system as full-scale
processes using relevant Ecoinvent datasets. S
μ = μmax (9)
Ks + S
2.6. Scenario 3 – conceptual biogas generation system based on pilot-scale
data μ = Specific growth rate
μmax = maximum specific growth rate [d− 1]
The pilot plant is operated continuously. It was constructed in 2013 S = substrate concentration [g/L]
for research and development of Henriksdal WWTP’s planned mem­ Ks = half-saturation constant [g/L]
brane bioreactors, and in 2017, the sludge line was added to the pilot
plant for investigation of digestion processes (Andersson et al., 2020). The growth rate and the rate of substrate utilization can therefore be
The sludge treatment line of the pilot plant processed mixed sludge given by
varying between 30 and 80 L/h during the year 2018. The average
dX SX
specific gas production in the pilot plant (280.7 ml CH4/g VS) was = μmax (10)
dt Ks + S
calculated based on measurements in weekly reports of the plant.
Methane production of the conceptual system in S2 was calculated as dS SX
2013 m3 CH4/day based on specific gas production of the pilot plant and = − km (11)
dt Ks + S
VS content of the sludge. For S3, the conceptual design explained in
section 2.5 was updated using methane production value. Combining equations (4) and (9), the product formation rate is given
as:

2.7. Scenario 4 – conceptual biogas generation system based on dP

= YP/S km
SX
(12)
laboratory data and kinetic equations dt Ks + S

km = maximum specific substrate utilization rate [d− 1]

The methane production per input amount of sludge varies consid­
Based on Equation (12), the formation of a bio-product (in this case
erably between the three preceding scenarios (431.4, 59.7 and 307.6
biogas) depends on factors such as product coefficient (YP/S) and
Nm3 CH4/ton DM sludge, respectively). For S4, we use a combination of
maximum substrate utilization rate (km). In order to estimate the rate of
theoretical production yield equations and experimental data for
product formation, each step of the AD process needs to be considered
biochemical resource recovery processes instead of using experimental
leading to the final stage. The substrates utilization rate depends on rates
data alone. In this section, equations are proposed for calculating pro­
of the various steps of the AD process including the rate of disintegra­
duction yield in AD processes in the upscaling procedure. Combining
tion, hydrolysis, uptake of monomers, update of volatile fatty acids and
these equations with experimental data, the production amount in
hydrogen which depends on the kind of substrate and the intermediate
conceptual cases can be estimated more precisely. The kinetic equations
products. The rate equations and suggested parameter values are given
which are given below can be used to calculate production yield and
in the AD model no.1 (ADM1) (Batstone et al., 2002). It is noteworthy to
amount for bioprocesses that produce items such as biodiesel, bio­
mention that parameters such as maximum specific substrate utilization
ethanol, VFA, Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), biohydrogen and long-

5
N. Elginoz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720

rate and yield coefficients depend on the operating temperature and
reactor type. The given equations (5)-(12) can be used to calculate the
product yield based on experimental data. The coefficients which are
needed in the equations can be found in the literature. For example, the
coefficients for productions of biohydrogen by dark fermentation,
methane, and VFA can be obtained from ADM1 (Batstone et al., 2002)
and other recent literature (Aldin et al., 2011; Arudchelvam et al., 2010;
Momoh et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2021). Also, coefficients could be
retrieved from literature for PHA production (Chakravarty et al., 2010;
Fortela et al., 2019; Gujer et al., 1999), biodiesel (Surendhiran et al.,
2015), as well as for bioethanol (Srimachai et al., 2015).
From the lab scale experiments (Fig. 2), the product yield coefficient,
YP/S is 54.634 mLCH4/g.
S = 15 g/L
X = 6.0 g/L
Ks = 0.16 g/L
From Fig. 2, the maximum production rate was obtained at t = 0.125
h, Thus for km calculation, dP
dt = 11.87 mLCH4/h. Therefore km can be
calculated as 2 d− 1. In the conceptual full-scale, using the calculated km
and Ks , full-scale parameters below:
S = 33 g/L
X = 21 g/L
Ks = 0.16 g/L
YP/S = 0.22 LCH4/g
− 1 − 1
The rate of product formation, dP dt is calculated as 9.0 L CH4 L d
3 3
which corresponds to 2250 m CH4/day and 343.8 Nm CH4/ton DM
sludge in the conceptual full-scale design. For S4, the conceptual design
explained in section 2.5 was updated using this production amount.
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of LCI results
LCIs of actual and conceptual cases are summarized in Table 2 per 1
ton of sludge in dry basis (1 ton DM) and compared in Fig. 3 by
normalizing the input/output amounts in S2-4 against S1. In all four
Table 2
Inventory data per management of 1 ton of sludge in dry basis (1 ton DM) for
actual plant (S1) and conceptual cases (S2-4).
Inputs and outputs Unit S1 S2 S3 S4
cases, the sludge and glycerol input ratios are the same as explained
above, therefore they have the same amounts per FU. Between the
conceptual scenarios, the differing parameter is the generated biogas
amount, therefore calculated electricity, district heating, polymer,
digester sludge incineration and transportation amounts are the same
since the calculations are based on sludge input. The biogas related
parameters (biogas upgrading and avoided diesel) are different amongst
all scenarios. Avoided heat amount is the same in S2-4 since it is
correlated to dewatered digestate amount. The results for all parameters
are discussed below.
Calculated electricity consumption (11.72 kWh/1 ton DM), is much
less than the collected amount (267.47 kWh/1 ton DM). In the con­
ceptual cases electricity consumption was calculated for pumping, stir­
ring, thickening and dewatering. For solid-liquid separation processes
(thickening and dewatering) 10 kWh per ton DM is used, which is listed
as an upper limit by Piccinno et al. (2016). In the actual case, the
electricity consumption in the sludge line is given as a summation of all
electricity-consuming processes, therefore it is hard to detect where the
difference is sourced.
Heating energy for the conceptual cases is more than twice the
amount used for the actual plant. It is calculated in two parts, Qheat and
Qloss, Oheat is the energy needed to increase the temperature of the re­
action to a certain level and Qloss is for compensating the energy loss
from the reactor surface. In this case, 46.4% of the calculated energy is
Qloss. In the Qloss calculation, the reactor is considered to be in direct
contact with air, having a glass fibre insulation material with a thickness
of 75 mm and the ambient temperature is estimated as 7 ◦ C which is the
yearly average temperature in Stockholm. However, as mentioned
above, ADs in Henriksdal have a different design and they are sur­
rounded by rock. This might be preventing heat losses, and this can
therefore cause the difference between the conceptual and actual cases.
Polymer dosage to the dewatering centrifuge is calculated as 4.6 g
polymer per kg TS and the calculated amount is 58% of the actual
amount. Therefore, a higher amount of polymer is suggested to be used
in the future upscaling applications. Biogas send to upgrading is the
lowest in S2 and highest in S1, and there is a substantial difference be­
tween all scenarios. The possible causes of this difference is discussed in
detail in the discussion section. Calculated dewatered digestate amount
in S2-4 is 80% of the actual case.
In the actual case, fugitive emissions are estimated as 5.7% of biogas
production (personal communication), in the conceptual case 0.047 kg
abiotic CO2 (from abiotic sources such as detergents in the wastewater)
and 0.022 kg biotic CH4 per 1 m3 biogas is estimated as fugitive emis­
sions based on the Ecoinvent dataset.
3.2. Comparison of LCIA results

Grease separator sludge m3/FU 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13

The LCIA results of all scenarios are explored in this section (Fig. 4).
Thickened excess sludge m3/FU 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34
Primary sludge m3/FU 19.60 19.60 19.60 19.60 The results are normalized against the actual case. For the ADP ele­
Glycerol kg/FU 156.00 156.44 156.44 156.44 ments, FAETP, GWP and POCP categories, results of S4 approximates
Electricity kWh/ 264.47 11.72 11.72 11.72 best with the actual plant case, and the result of S2 has the widest gap.
FU
For the AP category, the result of S2 is only 7% higher than S1, and S4 is
District heating kWh/ 570.62 1318.22 1318.22 1318.22
FU 17% higher than the actual case. For the EP and TETP categories, results
Polymer kg/FU 5.18 2.99 2.99 2.99 of the conceptual scenarios have insignificant differences (1–6%) when
Biogas to upgrading Nm3/ 431.40 59.74 307.64 343.83 compared to the actual case, and for the HTP category, S3 and S4 fits
FU very well with the actual case. ADP fossil and ODP, which are the cat­
Digester sludge kg/FU 1633.09 1299.67 1299.67 1299.67
egories that are affected most by the avoided burdens have a different
incineration
Fugitive CH4 emissions kg/FU 10.32 1.34 1.34 1.34 pattern. In both categories, the actual case has the highest environ­
Fugitive CO2 emissions kg/FU – 2.80 2.80 2.80 mental gain, followed by S4 and S3 but in S2 the avoided burdens could
Lubricating oil kg/FU 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 not compensate the burdens. The total LCIA results for all categories are
Digester sludge t.km/ 19.60 15.60 15.60 15.60
given in supplementary material.
transportation FU
Biogas upgrading Nm3/ 231.94 32.12 165.40 184.85
FU 3.3. Contribution analysis
Avoided heat kWh/ 237.25 188.81 188.81 188.81
FU In S1, glycerol is the most important contributor in 5 out of 10 impact
Avoided diesel kg/FU 187.14 25.91 133.45 149.15
categories (ADP elements, AP, EP, FAETP and TETP) and an important

6
N. Elginoz et al.
Fig. 3. LCIs of all scenarios normalized to S1. Fugitive CO2 emissions are excluded from the graph since there is no data for S1.
Fig. 4. Comparison of CML 2001 impact category results of all scenarios. All scenario results are normalized to S1.
contributor for the rest of the categories, see Fig. 5. Biogas upgrading is
also an important contributor and it surpasses the avoided burdens
provided by biogas replacing diesel in all categories except ADP fossil
and ODP. In these two categories total impacts are negative showing that
the gain due to avoided diesel is higher than the burdens of the system.
District heating is a minor contributor in 8 out of 10 categories and for
ADP elements and TETP, its contribution is insignificant. Incineration of
digester sludge is an important contributor only for the EP and FAETP
categories and avoided heat has an insignificant impact in all categories.
The fugitive emissions are significant for the GWP results.
In S2, glycerol is the biggest contributor for the ADP elements, AP,
EP, FAETP, HTP, ODP and TETP categories, see Fig. 6. For the ADP fossil,
GWP and POCP categories, the impact of glycerol is close to the impact
of district heating which is also an important contributor. The positive
impact of avoided diesel and the negative impact of biogas upgrading
are less in this scenario compared to S1. Since the generated biogas in S2
is only 14% of S1, this is an expected result.
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
Scenarios 3 and 4 (see Figs. 7 and 8), which produce similar amount
of biogas (307.6 and 343.8 Nm3 per FU respectively) have very similar
contribution patterns. Glycerol, district heating and biogas upgrading
are important contributors in 8 out of 10 impact categories. For the ADP
fossil and ODP categories the gain provided by diesel replacement is
higher than the burdens hence total impact category results are
negative.
Taking a closer look at GWP, which is an important impact category,
and assessing the source of variation between the conceptual cases and
the actual case, is useful. The total impact of scenario 1 is 472 kg CO2-eq
higher than scenario 2. 47% of this difference is caused by the difference
in fugitive emission estimations and the rest is due to the higher amount
of biogas upgrading in S1. The GWP results of scenarios 3 and 4 are
closer to the actual case since the biogas generation are closer and hence
the biogas upgrading amount, compared to S2. If the fugitive emissions
in the conceptual cases would have been estimated closer to the actual
case, the GWP of S4 would be 5% higher than actual case instead of
N. Elginoz et al.
Fig. 5. Contribution analysis of S1 CML 2001 LCIA results.
Fig. 6. Contribution analysis of S2 CML 2001 LCIA results.
being 13% lower. The emissions from the avoided diesel use plays a
limited role in all scenarios (Figs. 5–8).
3.4. Perturbation analysis
The results of perturbation analysis, which are plotted for each
impact category in Fig. 9, show that ADP elements, AP, GWP, HTP and
POCP categories are sensitive to biogas upgrading amount. When
increasing the amount of biogas upgrading by 10%, in mentioned cat­
egories SRs are 0.4–0.7. The ADP fossil and ODP categories are highly
sensitive to avoided diesel, 10% increase in the parameter results in SRs
of 2.4 and 1.9. The GWP category results are also sensitive to fugitive
CH4 emissions and district heating amount (0.2 and 0.12) since SR
values higher than 0.1 are considered significant here.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
4. Discussion
4.1. Biogas production amount and influent characterization
The difference between the biogas yields from the lab-scale experi­
ments and the full-scale reactor can largely be attributed to the different
reactor configurations. The lab-scale experiment was done in a batch
mode of operation whereas the full-scale reactor is operated in a
continuous mode. It is known that batch reactors result in more product
and substrate inhibitions than continuously stirred tank reactors. In the
batch reactors, products (such as VFAs) that have inhibitory properties
stay within the reactor for a much longer time, whereas in a continuous
reactor, they are continuously removed with the effluents. In terms of
kinetics, it is known that continuous reactors are more efficient in
operating close to the steady-state than batch reactors. For instance, the
rate of disintegration and hydrolysis of substrates are known to be
higher in continuous reactors than batch reactors. It is estimated that
during digestion of primary sludge, the protein hydrolytic rate constant
N. Elginoz et al.
Fig. 7. Contribution analysis of S3 CML 2001 LCIA results.
Fig. 8. Contribution analysis of S4 CML 2001 LCIA results.
in a batch reactor is only 0.2 d− 1 whereas in a continuous reactor at a
steady-state, it is 0.58 d− 1 (Batstone et al., 2002).
Another important point for resource recovery systems is the varia­
tion in the lab-scale experiments’ results. As an example, AD is applied
to a wide range of waste streams or combinations of waste streams,
including food waste, wastewater sludge, agricultural waste, industrial
wastewater with high organic loads, etc. Waste streams can be charac­
terized by TS and VS contents and other parameters like chemical oxy­
gen demand. Due to high variations in waste compositions, production
amounts should be determined as specific production amounts per VS or
other characterization parameters rather than per mass or volume.
Although the wastes with the same VS amount do not provide the same
amount of product due to variations in environmental and operational
conditions and the variation in the biodegradability of organic matter
content, it approximates better to the reality than volumetric amounts. If
the waste samples in the lab experiments do not reflect long-term vari­
ations in the waste composition, the specific production per related
characterization parameter obtained in the experiments should be
coupled with the long-term characterization of the waste stream in the
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
conceptual design. For example, in this study, the specific biogas pro­
duction amount (54.5 ml CH4/g VS) obtained in the experiments and 5-
year average VS value of Henriksdal WWTP sludge line influent were
used to calculate potential biogas production of the conceptual plant for
S2.
In the industrial biotechnology applications of resource recovery
from waste, the inoculum is typically sourced from waste and therefore
it contains a mixture of organisms. This also leads to a large variation in
results. For example, VFA recovery from waste streams is an emerging
technology in the research phase. According to the literature (Atasoy
et al., 2020a, 2020b) even with the same operating conditions and same
substrate, production yield varies based on different microorganism
compositions in the influent sludge.
During the research phase of new biotechnology, batch experiments
are normally conducted first to optimize operational and environmental
conditions. For the best conditions, continuous long-term experiments
are then conducted. If the full-scale plant shall be designed as a
continuous reactor, the results of this second group of experiments
should be used for conducting LCA calculations instead of batch
N. Elginoz et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720

Fig. 9. Parameter sensitivity ratios with respect to impact categories for S1.

experiments. line. However, due to the abovementioned variations in the conditions,

In the present study, the laboratory scale experiments were con­ the specific biogas production in the experiments did not match the
ducted for forty days in triplicate batch reactors for the same substrate, actual biogas production. Taking weekly composite samples and con­
which was collected as a grab sample from the Henriksdal WWTP sludge ducting the experiments for a year (if possible) would give closer results

10
N. Elginoz et al.
Fig. 9. (continued).
to an industrial plant’s potential production.
4.2. Comparison with previous studies
There are a few studies comparing different LCI inventory generation
methods. According to Parvatker and Eckelman (2019) a process-based
method combined with advanced calculations approximates best with
the plant-based data for GHG emissions, although they overestimated
the emissions. After comparing 18 impact category results, they suggest
that an engineering-based LCI generation method should be used only
for two impact categories: GWP and cumulative energy demand. How­
ever, according to the results of this study, the ratio between LCIA re­
sults based on calculated data and plant data is quite close for the EP and
HTP categories (Fig. 3). In this study, TETP category also gives very
similar results in all scenarios but it is caused by the sole contributor
being glycerol in this category. Tsalidis and Korevaar (2022) claim that
for the torrefaction process, the difference between GWP results based
on pilot scale and commercial scale data is negligible, according to this
study, the GWP based on upscaled pilot scale data is 17% lower than
commercial scale LCA. According to Fernandez-Dacosta et al. (2019)
except for freshwater ecotoxicity and land use categories, results of LCA
based on commercial data is notably lower than LCA based on pre­
liminary process design in TRL 5–6. This shows the importance of con­
ducting such validation studies for different kinds of processes and
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
different kinds of data (pilot scale, upscaled pilot scale, data on different
TRLs etc.).
5. Conclusion
The transition to using waste streams as valuable sources leads to a
great deal of scientific research on resource recovery processes and there
is a need for an established method to assess their sustainability. An
engineering-based upscaling framework for chemical processes devel­
oped by Piccinno et al. (2016) was tested. Application of this framework
to a biochemical case showed that the main difference between
plant-based data and upscaled experimental data is sourced from the
difference in the production yield. It is suggested that the framework
developed by Piccinno et al. (2016) is further developed so that pro­
duction yields are calculated using kinetic equations and experimental
data. For future studies, validation of upscaling methods using a wide
range of case studies and data in different scales is suggested.
Additionally, in future studies, it is recommended to study the effect
on the LCA results of using long-term batch and continuous experiment
results instead of short-term batch experiment results.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nilay Elginoz: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
N. Elginoz et al.
Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Visualization. Isaac
Owusu-Agyeman: Investigation, Formal analysis, Resources. Göran
Finnveden: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Roland Hischier: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Su­
pervision. Tomas Rydberg: Project administration, Supervision. Zey­
nep Cetecioglu: Conceptualization, Resources, Project administration,
Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank; Sofia Andersson and Andreas
Carlsson from Stockholm Vatten och Avfall for providing data for Hen­
riksdal WWTP and answering continuous questions without hesitation,
Mayumi Narongin from IVL for sharing all requested information for the
pilot plant at Hammarby Sjöstadsverk and finally Christian Baresel and
Klara Westling from IVL for kindly helping to make arrangements for
reaching the people and data needed. This study is funded by the
Swedish Research Council Formas as part of a project entitled “Meth­
odology for environmental sustainability assessment in the early design
stage of a resource recovery system” (MENToR) 2018-01297.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131720.
References
Aldin, S., Nakhla, G., Ray, M.B., 2011. Modeling the influence of particulate protein size
on hydrolysis in anaerobic digestion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50, 10843–10849.
Andersson, S.L., Westling, K., Karlsson, J., Narongin, M., Andersson, S., Persson, G.,
2020. Longterm Trials with Membrane Bioreactor for Enhanced Wastewater
Treatment Coupled with Compact Sludge Treatment, Pilot Henriksdal 2040, Results
from 2018. IVL, Stockholm, Sweden. Report 2388.
Arudchelvam, Y., Perinpanayagam, M., Nirmalakhandan, N., 2010. Predicting VFA
formation by dark fermentation of particulate substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 101,
7492–7499.
Atasoy, M., Eyice, Ö., Cetecioglu, Z., 2020a. Volatile fatty acid production from semi-
synthetic milk processing wastewater under alkali pH: the pearls and pitfalls of
microbial culture. Bioresour. Technol. 297, 122415.
Atasoy, M., Eyice, Ö., Cetecioglu, Z., 2020b. A comprehensive study of volatile fatty acids
production from the batch reactor to anaerobic sequencing batch reactor by using
cheese processing wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 311, 123529.
Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., Pavlostathis, S.G., Rozzi, A.,
Sanders, W.T., Siegrist, H., Vavilin, V.A., 2002. Anaerobic digestion model No 1
(ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 45, 65–73.
Chakravarty, P., Mhaisalkar, V., Chakrabarti, T., 2010. Study on poly-hydroxyalkanoate
(PHA) production in pilot scale continuous mode wastewater treatment system.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 2896–2899.
Clavreul, J., Guyonnet, D., Christensen, T.H., 2012. Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-
modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 32, 2482–2495.
Elginoz, N., Atasoy, M., Finnveden, G., Cetecioglu, Z., 2020a. Ex-ante life cycle
assessment application of volatile fatty acid production from dairy wastewater.
J. Clean. Prod. 269, 122267.
Elginoz, N., Khatami, K., Owusu-Agyeman, I., Cetecioglu, Z., 2020b. Life cycle
assessment of an innovative food waste management system. Front. Sustain. Food
Syst. 4. Article 23.
Fernandez-Dacosta, C., Wassenaar, P.N.H., Dencic, I., Zijp, M.C., Morao, A., Heugens, E.
H.W., Shen, L., 2019. Can we assess innovative bio-based chemicals in their early
development stage? A comparison between early-stage and life cycle assessments.
J. Clean. Prod. 230, 137–149.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 355 (2022) 131720
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid
waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 26, 173–187.
Fortela, D.L.B., Farmer, K., Zappi, A., Sharp, W.W., Revellame, E., Gang, D., Zappi, M.,
2019. A methodology for global sensitivity analysis of activated sludge models: case
study with activated sludge model No. 3 (ASM3). Water Environ. Res. 91, 865–876.
Gujer, W., Henze, M., Mino, T., van Loosdrecht, M., 1999. Activated sludge model No. 3.
Water Sci. Technol. 39, 183–193.
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Oers, L.,
Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, J.A., van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to
the ISO Standards. In: Series: Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Hetherington, A.C., Borrion, A.L., Griffiths, O.G., McManus, M.C., 2014. Use of LCA as a
development tool within early research: challenges and issues across different
sectors. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19 (1), 130–143.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006a. International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006, second ed. 2006-06,
Geneva.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006b. International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) Environmental Management - Life Cycle
Assessment - Require-Ments and Guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; First edition 2006-07-
01, Geneva.
Manchala, K.R., Sun, Y., Zhang, D., Wang, Z.-W., 2017. Chapter two - anaerobic digestion
modelling. Adv. Bioenergy 2, 69–141.
Momoh, O.L.Y., Anyata, B.U., Saroj, D.P., 2013. Development of simplified anaerobic
digestion models (SADM’s) for studying anaerobic biodegradability and kinetics of
complex biomass. Biochem. Eng. J. 79, 84–93.
Moni, S.M., Mahmud, R., High, K., Carbajales-Dale, M., 2020. Life cycle assessment of
emerging technologies: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 52–63.
Morgan-Sagastume, F., Heimersson, S., Laera, G., Werker, A., Svanström, M., 2016.
Techno-environmental assessment of integrating polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)
production with services of municipal wastewater treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 137,
1368–1383.
Ögmundarson, Ó., Herrgård, M.J., Forster, J., Hauschild, M.Z., Fantke, P., 2020.
Addressing environmental sustainability of biochemicals. Nat. Sustain. 3, 167–174.
Parvatker, A.G., Eckelman, M.J., 2019. Comparative evaluation of chemical life cycle
inventory generation methods and implications for life cycle assessment results. ACS
Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7, 350–367.
Piccinno, F., Hischier, R., Seeger, S., Som, C., 2016. From laboratory to industrial scale: a
scale-up framework for chemical processes in life cycle assessment studies. J. Clean.
Prod. 135, 1085–1097.
Piccinno, F., Hischier, R., Seeger, S., Som, C., 2018. Predicting the environmental impact
of a future nanocellulose production at industrial scale: application of the LCA scale-
up framework. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 283–295.
Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T.,
Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B., Pennington, D., 2004. Life cycle assessment
Part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and application.
Environ. Int. 30, 701–720.
SGC, 2012. Basic data on biogas. Serviceförvaltningen i Lunds kommun, Lund.
Shibasaki, M., 2009. Methode zur Prognose der Okobilanz einer Großanlage aufBasis
einer Pilotanlage in der Verfahrenstechnik: ein Beitrag zur
GanzheitlichenBilanzierung [PhD thesis]. Univ Stuttgart, Stuttgart (DE) [German].
Simon, B., Bachtin, K., Kilic, A., Amor, B., Weil, M., 2016. Proposal of a framework for
scale-up life cycle inventory: a case of nanofibers for lithium iron phosphate cathode
applications. Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 12 (3), 465–477.
Srimachai, T., Nuithitikul, K., O-thong, S., Kongjan, P., Panpong, K., 2015. Optimization
and kinetic modeling of ethanol production from oil palm frond juice in batch
fermentation. Energy Proc. 79, 111–118.
Sun, H., Yang, Z., Zhao, Q., Kurbonova, M., Zhang, R., Liu, G., Wang, W., 2021.
Modification and extension of anaerobic digestion model No.1 (ADM1) for syngas
biomethanation simulation: from lab-scale to pilot-scale. Chem. Eng. J. 403, 126177.
Surendhiran, D., Vijay, M., Sivaprakash, B., Sirajunnisa, A., 2015. Kinetic modeling of
microalgal growth and lipid synthesis for biodiesel production. 3 Biotech 5,
663–669.
Thinkstep, A.G., 2020. Leinfelden-Ecterdingen GaBi Software-System and Database for
Life Cycle Engineering 1992-2020 ©.
Tsalidis, G.A., Korevaar, G., 2022. Environmental assessments of scales: the effect of ex-
ante and ex-post data on life cycle assessment of wood torrefaction. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 176, 105906.
Tsoy, N., Steubig, B., van der Giesen, C., Guinee, J., 2020. In: Upscaling methods used in
ex ante life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: a review, 25, pp. 1680–1692.
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21 (9), 1218–1230.
Yao, Y., Masanet, E., 2018. Life-cycle modelling framework for generating energy and
greenhouse gas emissions inventory of emerging technologies in the chemical
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 768–777.