An Integrated Computer Aided System for Generation and Evaluation of Sustainable Process Alternatives

  • Niels Jensen
  • Nuria Coll
  • Rafiqul Gani


This paper presents an integrated system for generation of sustainable process alternatives with respect to new process design as well as retrofit design. The generated process alternatives are evaluated through sustainability metrics, environmental impact factors as well as inherent safety factors. The process alternatives for new process design as well as retrofit design are generated through a systematic method that is simple yet effective and is based on a recently developed path flow analysis approach. According to this approach, a set of indicators are calculated in order to pinpoint unnecessary energy and material waste costs and to identify potential design (retrofit) targets that may improve the process design (in terms of operation and cost) simultaneously with the sustainability metrics, environmental impact factors and the inherent safety factors. Only steady state design data and a database with properties of compounds, including, environmental impact factor related data and safety factor related data are needed. The integrated computer aided system generates the necessary data if actual plant or experimental data are not available. The application of the integrated system is highlighted through a number of examples including the well-known HDA-process.


Design Variable Path Flow Global Warming Potential Integrate Computer Potential Environmental Impact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anastas PT, Lankey RL (2002) Sustainability through green chemistry and engineering. ACS Symposium Series, 823: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen NK (2002) An Indicator Based Retrofit Design Method. MSc-Thesis, department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cabezas H, Bare J, Mallick S, (1999) Pollution Prevention with Chemical process Simulators: The Generalized Waste Reduction (WAR). Algorithm, Computers Chemical Engineering, 23 (4–5): 623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crook EH, McDonnel RP, McNulty JT, (1975) Removal and recovery of phenols from industrial waste effluents with Amberlite XAD polymeric adsorbents. Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod.Res.Dev, 14: 113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox CR (1978) Plant uses prove phenol recovery with resins. Hydrocarbon Process, 11: 269–273Google Scholar
  6. Hartwig TA, Xu A, Nagy AB, Pike RW, Hopper JR, Yaws CL (2000) A prototype system for economic, environmental, and sustainable optimisation of a chemical complex. Session 18008 Tools for Sustainability, AIChE Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, Nov 1217, 2000Google Scholar
  7. Heikkilä A-M (1999) “Inherent Safety in Process Plant Design — An Index-based Approach”. Ph.D-Thesis, VTT Automation, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Hilaly AK, Sikdar SK (1994) Pollution Balance: New Methodology for Minimizing Waste production in Manufacturing Processes. J Air & Waste Management, Association, 44: 1303–1310Google Scholar
  9. Hostrup M, Harper PM, Gani R (1999) Design of Environmentally Benign Processes: Integration of Solvent Design and Process Synthesis. Computers & Chem Eng., 23: 1394 1405Google Scholar
  10. ICAS Documentations (2002) CAPEC Internal Report. PECO2-23, Technical University of Denmark, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  11. Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Constable DJC, Curzons AD, Cunningham VL (2002) Developing GSK’s Green Technology Guidance: Methodology for Case-Scenario Comparison of Technologies. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 4 (1): 44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Juang RS, Shiau JY (1999) Adsorption Isotherms of Phenols from Water onto Macroreticular Resins. Hazardous Mater, 70: 171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kharbanda OP, Stallworthy EA (1988) Safety in the Chemical Industry: Lessons form Major Disasters. Heinemann, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Koller G, Weirich D, Brogli F, Heinzle E, Hoffmann VH, Verduyn MA, Hungerbuhler K (1998) Ecological and economic objective functions for screening in integrated development of fine chemical processes.2. Stream allocation and case studies, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 37 (8): 3408–3413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lange JP (2002) Sustainable development: Efficiency and recycling in chemical manufacturing. Green Chemistry, 4 (6): 546–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marrero J, (2002) ProPred User’s Manual. PECO2–15, CAPEC, Technical University DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  17. PRO-II Users Guide (2002) SimSci an Invensys Company, Brea CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  18. Seider WD, Seader JD, Lewin DR (1999) Process Design Principles, Chapter 3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Tallis B (2002) Sustainable Development Progress Metrics. IChemE, Sustainable Development Working Group, IChemE, Rugby, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Uerdingen, E., 2002, Retrofit design of continuous chemical processes for the improvement of production cost-efficiency. PhD-Thesis, ETH-Zürich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  21. Uerdingen E, Gani R, Fisher U, Hungerbuhler K (2003) A New Screening Methodology for the Identification of Economically Beneficial Retrofit Options for Chemical Processes. AIChE Journal (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Young D, Scharp R, Cabezas H (2000) The Waste Reduction (WAR) Algorithm: Environmental Impacts, Energy Consumption and Engineering Economics. Waste management, 20: 605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels Jensen
    • 1
  • Nuria Coll
    • 1
  • Rafiqul Gani
    • 1
  1. 1.CAPEC, Department of Chemical EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations