From Compliance to Sustainability: Rethinking VOC Abatement with LCA & CBA

Going Beyond Emission Reduction: A Multi-Criteria Sustainability Perspective

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) play a significant role in air quality and public health. Industrial facilities are increasingly required to reduce VOC emissions, often through the installation of abatement technologies such as Regenerative Thermal Oxidisers (RTO), activated carbon filters or scrubbers.

However, reducing one emission does not automatically mean reducing overall environmental impact. At RDC Environment, we specialize in applying multi-criteria Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the full environmental implications of VOC abatement strategies and, when relevant, extending the analysis to societal cost-benefit assessments.

Two recent studies on VOC reduction illustrate our expertise and the importance of a comprehensive sustainability perspective.

Study 1: Comparing Multiple VOC Abatement Techniques Through LCA

The first study assessed the environmental impacts of reducing pentane emissions from polyurethane foam production. Several abatement techniques were compared to a business as usual scenario:

• Regenerative Thermal Oxidiser (RTO)
• Activated Carbon (AC) filter
• Wet scrubber

Key Findings

The dominant environmental issue associated with pentane emissions is photochemical ozone formation (summer smog). However, when abatement systems operate continuously, they introduce new environmental burdens, including climate change, acidification, fossil energy use & resource consumption.

Our LCA demonstrated in particular that:

• Operating abatement technologies only during ozone peak days (approx. 5 days/year) can significantly reduce the relevant environmental impact (summer smog) while limiting additional burdens.
• Operating abatement year-round ensures regulatory compliance but generates substantial additional environmental impacts.
• In some scenarios, not installing an abatement technique at all could be environmentally preferable when evaluated across multiple impact categories.

This study clearly showed that a narrow focus on a single emission can lead to burden shifting, where solving one environmental problem worsens others.

Study 2 – From LCA to Societal Cost-Benefit Analysis

The second study focused on a single technique: installing an RTO to reduce isobutane emissions from a plastics processing facility.

Isobutane is a VOC contributing primarily to photochemical ozone formation. The proposed RTO would fully oxidise isobutane, reducing VOC emissions but generating:

• CO₂ emissions (from oxidation of carbon atoms)
• NOₓ emissions (from oxidation of nitrogen in combustion air)
• Electricity and natural gas consumption 

Beyond Environmental LCA

In this project, we went further than environmental LCA alone. We conducted a societal cost-benefit analysis incorporating:

• Environmental impacts (via LCA)
• Economic costs (investment and operation)
• Social aspects (e.g. employment effects)

Key Insights

While the RTO reduces isobutane emissions and lowers photochemical ozone formation, it introduces significant environmental costs due to CO₂ and NOₓ emissions. When monetised:

• The environmental cost of operating the RTO exceeds the benefit of avoided isobutane emissions.
• The net societal impact is negative. More than half of the total societal cost is driven by environmental impacts, mainly CO₂ and NOₓ emissions.
• Depending on the assumed carbon price, the societal cost ranged in the order of several euro’s per kg of isobutane avoided.

This case illustrates a critical point:

A technology that improves performance in one impact category may still generate a net societal cost when all environmental, economic and social dimensions are considered.

Why Multi-Criteria LCA Matters

Multi-criteria LCA allows the comparison of fundamentally different environmental issues within a consistent framework. When combined with monetisation methods and cost-benefit analysis, it enables informed sustainability decisions grounded in both environmental science and economic reasoning.

This allows us to answer questions such as:

• Are we shifting impacts from local air quality to global climate change?
• How do the environmental impacts weigh up to economic and social impacts?
• How do different pollutants (e.g. CO₂ vs. VOC vs. NOₓ) compare in overall impact?

Our work demonstrates that sound environmental decision-making requires looking beyond a single indicator and embracing a multi-criteria, life cycle and societal approach.