SHORT RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Evaluation of environmental impact produced by differenteconomic activities with the global pollution index

Carmen Zaharia

Received: 3 December 2011 /Accepted: 18 March 2012 /Published online: 25 April 2012# Springer-Verlag 2012

AbstractIntroduction The paper analyses the environment pollutionstate in different case studies of economic activities (i.e. co-generation electric and thermal power production, iron profilemanufacturing, cement processing, waste landfilling, andwood furniture manufacturing), evaluating mainly the envi-ronmental cumulative impacts (e.g. cumulative impact againstthe health of the environment and different life forms).Materials and methods The status of the environment (air,water resources, soil, and noise) is analysed with respect todischarges such as gaseous discharges in the air, final efflu-ents discharged in natural receiving basins or seweragesystem, and discharges onto the soil together with the prin-cipal pollutants expressed by different environmental indi-cators corresponding to each specific productive activity. Thealternative methodology of global pollution index (IGP

*) forquantification of environmental impacts is applied.Results and discussion Environmental data analysis permitsthe identification of potential impact, prediction of signifi-cant impact, and evaluation of cumulative impact on acommensurate scale by evaluation scores (ESi) for dischargequality, and global effect to the environment pollution stateby calculation of the global pollution index (IGP

*).

Conclusions The IGP* values for each productive unit (i.e.

1.664–2.414) correspond to an ‘environment modified byindustrial/economic activity within admissible limits, hav-ing potential of generating discomfort effects’. The evalua-tion results are significant in view of future development ofeach productive unit and sustain the economic production interms of environment protection with respect to a preventiveenvironment protection scheme and continuous measures ofpollution control.

Keywords Economic activity . Environmental indicator .

Impact . Evaluation score . Global pollution index . Qualityindex . Pollution state

1 Introduction

The diagnosis of the environmental impact of an industrialproductive activity continues to be the first step in theoverall assessment of the sustainability of a technologicalprocess or industrial operation. In general, the methodologyof environmental impact quantification relies on environ-mental indicators serving as criteria to evaluate whether theenvironmental objectives have been attained, consideringmainly the local impact (industrial impact) such as noise,odour, aesthetic effects, stress on different life forms (espe-cially the human body) but also regional impacts as acontribution to the pollution of the atmosphere (e.g. green-house and/or ozone depletion effect, acidic rainfalls, climatechanges), water resources (e.g. eutrophication and death offishes and other aquatic organisms in lakes or coastal areas),and soil/subsoil (e.g., extending of non-fertile soil area,erosion, soil acidification, etc.).

Over the years, different procedures in the evaluation ofenvironmental impact were implemented (e.g. qualitative

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

C. Zaharia (*)Department of Environmental Engineering and Management,Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Protection,‘Gheorghe Asachi’ Technical University of Iasi,73 Prof. Dr. docent D. Mangeron Blvd,700050 Iasi, Romaniae-mail: czah@ch.tuiasi.ro

C. Zahariae-mail: czaharia2003@yahoo.com

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455DOI 10.1007/s11356-012-0883-3

and quantitative impact evaluation systems, importancescale matrix, and combination of these) (Maa et al. 2009;Macoveanu 2005). In the last years, the integrated or strate-gic impact assessment tools (in economic, environmental,and social terms) were developed and provided a clearindication of both positive and negative impacts from whicheffective policies to reduce the negative impacts andstrengthen the positive ones have been developed (Chakeret al. 2006; Milner et al. 2005). Recently, there are proposedcumulative impact assessment (CIA) tools that evaluate aproposed action's cumulative environmental effects in thecontext of past, present, and future actions regardless of whoundertakes such actions (Maa et al. 2009). In general, CIA isthe process of systematic analysis and evaluation of cumu-lative effects, being an important component of a formalenvironmental review process, in which potential environmen-tal impacts of proposed projects or in-working economic ac-tivities are examined. The importance of CIA in environmentalplanning is recognized, but little information exists aboutenvironmental state policies, procedural requirements, or themethods and criteria used to assess cumulative impacts. Thepurpose of this study is to provide a CIA practice and identifythe potential for better CIA implementation into state environ-mental review frameworks (currently lacking) consideringmainly the following elements: (1) identification and qualita-tive/quantitative appreciation of cumulative environmentalimpacts by environmental data collection, prediction of poten-tial impacts, and quantification of the cumulative effect ofpredicted environmental impacts for all studied economic ac-tivities or projects; (2) comparison of CIA practice in allstudied processes/activities; (3) examination of the relationshipbetween CIA and the pollution state of the local environment;and (4) opportunities for improving environmental status andenvironmental impact assessment methodology.

In the majority of CIA studies, various scales, baselines,significance criteria, and coordination practices were adopted.In general, mixed methods were used for data collection andanalysis, and the qualitative methods were more prevalent thanquantitative methods. This study presents the author results inthe case of different CIA practices for different economicactivities (i.e. energy production into a co-generation electricand thermal power plant, iron profile manufacturing, cementprocessing, municipal waste landfilling, and wood furnituremanufacturing). The environmental impact assessmentmethodis a Romanian method based on the global pollution index(IGP

*) (i.e. a method of environmental impact assessment forcumulative effects). As all evaluation methods of cumulativeenvironmental impact, it involves the collection of baselinedata about the technological process; economic and socialrequirements; discharges into air, water resources, soil, andnoise in the local investigated site; prediction/identification ofpotential impacts; and evaluation of impacts on a commensu-rate scale using the alternativemethodology of global pollution

index (IGP*) (Grec et al. 2009; Popa et al. 2005; Zaharia 2010;

Zaharia and Murarasu 2009).

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Data collection—materials and analysis methodsof environmental quality indicators in different economicunits

Data collecting, sampling, and analyses of the potential envi-ronmental pollution state generated by different economicactivities were performed in accordance with the indicationsof the local environmental agency (i.e. compliance plan withthe imposed periodic analyses of some environmental qualityindicators in the air emission/emission, final effluents/waste-waters, soil, and noise) and achieved at the environmentalanalysis laboratory. The principal economic units investigatedin this study are: S1—a co-generation electric and thermalpower plant (Zaharia and Surpăţeanu 2006), S2—a plant ofiron profile manufacturing (Robu et al. 2005), S3—a unit ofcement processing, S4—a municipal waste landfill (Zahariaand Surpăţeanu 2007; Zaharia et al. 2007; Zaharia and Suteu2011), and S5—a unit of wood furniture manufacturing.

The principal environmental analysis was made for: (1)specific indicators of air quality (i.e. CO, SO2, NO2, volatileorganic compounds—VOC, PM10, settable solids), (2) spe-cific indicators of final effluent or ground water quality (i.e.pH, suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand—COD,biochemical oxygen demand—BOD5, chlorides, sulphates,total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total hardness, phosphates,nitrates, nitrites, sulphides and H2S, fixed residues, petro-leum products, extractible substances in organic solvents,heavy metals), (3) specific indicators of soil quality (i.e.active and potential pH, total organic carbon—TOC, oilcompounds, extractible substances in organic solvents,heavy metals), and (4) noise level.

For the large number of analyses had been used differentspecific analysers or multifunctional apparatus or differentcoupled advanced equipments (i.e. Oldham Plus analyser,HACH One-Laboratory pH meter, Sound Lever MeterHGL-1004, MeTechnik-Germany; DRELL DR/2000 spec-trophotometer, HACH Company; Agilent GC-gas chroma-tography, coupled Agilent gas chromatograph–Agilent massspectrometer—GC-MS; HPLC liquid chromatograph, etc.)and also different titrimetric, gravimetric internationally ap-proved analytical methods according to the standard norms.

All the chemical reagents were of analytical purity. Allanalysis methods were internationally approved. The pHadjustment was done with HCl 1 M and NaOH 1 M sol-utions. The sample mineralization was performed into awater or sand bath depending on the sample type or heatingoven and, respectively, the extraction and separation into

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455 2449

special dropping or separating funnels followed by passingthrough different columns filled with Al2O3 or Florisil andcollection into a special vessel for further analysis (Surpateanuand Zaharia 2002). There were duplicate analyses undertakenand international standard reference materials used. The col-lected samples were kept into specific conservation and stor-age conditions for more than 7 days for contradictoryverification and analysis validation later on. The methodsensibility is dependent on type, standard reference material,and apparatus used; the accuracy and precision of all analysesare good enough for soil, water, and air quality evaluation(0.01–0.00001 M; experimental analysis deviation limit ofmaximum±10 %).

2.2 Quantification methodology of environmental impact

The potential pollution sources on each emplacement ofeconomic unit were identified into production sectors anddeposits. The evaluation of local environmental impact gen-erated by each economic activity is performed by the appre-ciation of some specific quality indicators (EQi) of eachenvironmental component and after that, establishment ofcorrelations based on a graphical representation that allowsthe calculation of the global pollution index. For each envi-ronmental component are calculated a quality index and anevaluation score that quantifies the pollution state of theenvironmental component using an evaluation scale (Grecet al. 2009; Zaharia and Murarasu 2009). The minimum andmaximum value for the evaluation score is 1 (i.e. expressingan irreversible and major degradation state of the environ-mental component) and 10 (i.e. expressing a non-affectednatural state of the environment), respectively. The authorsof the alternative method of global pollution index followthe concentric circles graphical methodology, proposing thecalculation of the global pollution index as a ratio betweenthe geometric surface of a circle with the ray of 10 (Si, idealstate of the local environment) and the geometric surface ofa circle with the ray equal with the real evaluation score ofthe environment (Sr, real state of the local environment).After, the value of the global pollution index is correlatedwith the global state of the local environment pollution.

The application of an alternative methodology of the globalpollution index implies the following important steps:

1. Calculation of the specific quality index (EQi) and eval-uation score (ESi) for each quality indicator (i)

The values of the specific quality indicators wereused to calculate an index to express the quality of eachenvironmental component, EQi (Eq. 1) (i.e. consideringthe most important quality indicators for the dischargesinto air, water resource—final effluent or ground water,soil, noise) and also an evaluation score, ESi, expressedby a mark between 1 and 10 attributed basically

considering an evaluation scale (Table 1) (Grec et al2009; Popa et al. 2005; Zaharia 2010, 2011; Zaharia andMurarasu 2009) for each calculated value of the qualityindex considered for evaluation of the global pollutionstate of each environmental component (air, water, soil).

EQi ¼ Ci;measured=MACi ð1Þwhere i—identity of quality indicator, Ci, measured—the experimental value of the quality indicator, and

Table 1 Correlation scale between the quality index, evaluation score,and pollution level of each environmental component (evaluation scale)

Evaluationscore, ESi

Qualityindex, EQi

Effects on the environmentalcomponent and human health

10 0 The environmental component is notaffected by the economic activity.Environment state: natural.

9 (0.0–0.2] The environmental component is affectedby the economic activity. The effectcannot be yet quantified.

8 (0.2–0.7] The environmental component is affected,but under the maximum admissiblelimits—level 1. Alert level: potentialeffects.

7 (0.7–1.0] The environmental component is affected,but into maximum admissible limits—level 2. Intervention level: potentialeffects.

6 (1.0–2.0] The environmental component is affected,over the maximum admissible limits—level 1. The effects are pronounced.

5 (2.0–4.0] The environmental component is affected,over the maximum admissible limits—level 2. The effects are harmful.

4 (4.0–8.0] The environmental component is affected,over the maximum admissible limits—level 3. The harmful effects arepronounced.

3 (8.0–12.0] Degraded environmental component—level 1. The effects are lethal to theaverage exposure.

2 (12.0–20.0] Degraded environmental component—level 2. The effects are lethal at shorttimes of exposure.

1 >20.0 The environmental component isimproper for life.

Fig. 1 Graphical representationof the alternative methodologyof global pollution index (IGP

*)(i.e. Si—ideal state and Sr—realstate)

2450 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455

MACi—maximum admissible concentration of the qual-ity indicator according to the environmental legislationor limits imposed into the compliance plan by the localenvironmental agency.

2. Determination of the quality index and evaluation scorefor each environmental component (air, water, soil, noise)

For each environmental component (air, water, soil),the cumulative effects of the pollutants into each environ-mental component are expressed by the averagearithmetic value for all specific quality indexes,EQi,env.component (noted as EQair, EQwater, EQsoil,

EQnoise) or evaluation scores, ESi,env.component (notedas ESair, ESwater, ESsoil, ESnoise) to express the pol-lution state of the environment (air, water, soil).

3. Calculation of the global pollution index (IGP*)

For the quantification of environmental impact intoeach economic site, the global pollution index (IGP

*)is calculated as in Eq. (2), using the well-knownalternative methodology (Popa et al. 2005; Zaharia andMurarasu 2009):

I�GP ¼ SiSr

¼ 100 � nES1 � ESn þ

Pn�1

i¼1ESi � ESiþ1

¼ 100

ES2envð2Þ

where Si—geometrical surface of the non-affected naturalstate (ideal state of the environment, a circle with ray of 10),Sr—geometrical surface of the real environmental state (real

state, a circle with ray of (ESenv) or (ES2env )

1/2), n—thenumber of investigated environmental components (air,water, soil, noise), ESi—the evaluation score correspondingto i environmental component (i.e. ESair, ESwater, ESsoil,

ESnoise), and ES2env —average value of all values for

(ESi)·(ESj) (i01, 2, 3; j0 i+1 or n) that can finally expressthe global environment evaluation score (ESenv) (Fig. 1)(Macoveanu 2005; Popa et al. 2005; Zaharia 2010).

4. Correlation of global pollution index for each economicactivity with the environmental pollution state

Table 2 Correlation between IGP* value and environmental pollution

state in the Romanian alternative methodology of global pollution index

Values of IGP* Real situation of environment pollution state

IGP*01 Natural environment, not affected by economic

activities

1<IGP*<2 Environment modified by economic activities

within admissible limits

2≤IGP*<3 Environment modified by economic activities

generating discomfort effects

3≤IGP*<4 Environment modified by economic activities

generating distress to life forms

4≤IGP*<6 Environment modified by economic activities,

dangerous for life forms

IGP*≥6 Degraded environment, not proper for life forms

Table 3 Environmental quality status of a co-generation power plant site (S1)

M.A.C. maximum admissible concentration (Zaharia 2008)

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455 2451

The correlation between the global pollution index(I*GP), real environmental pollution state, and environ-mental impact of the assessed economic site is presentedin Table 2 (Popa et al. 2005; Zaharia 2010; Zaharia andSurpăţeanu 2006).

3 Results and discussion

The specific environmental quality indicators analysed onthe investigated industrial productive or economic site arepresented in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for air component (i.e.

Table 4 Environmental quality status of an industrial site for iron profile manufacturing (S2)

M.A.C. maximum admissible concentration (Zaharia 2008)

Table 5 Environmental quality status of an industrial site for cement processing (S3)

M.A.C. maximum admissible concentration (Zaharia 2008)

2452 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455

discharges in the air, average values of quality indicators indifferent locations on the production sector), final effluent or

ground water considered as water resource component (i.e.industrial wastewater from the final collector basin or

Table 6 Environmental quality status of a municipal waste landfill (S4)

M.A.C. maximum admissible concentration (Zaharia 2008)

Table 7 Environmental quality status of a wood furniture manufacturing site (S5)

M.A.C. maximum admissible concentration (Zaharia 2008)

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455 2453

ground water onto the waste landfilling area), soil compo-nent (i.e. 4–12 soil samples prelevated at depth of 5–10 cminto the investigated site, average value of specific qualityindicators), or noise (i.e. five to six measurements of noisein different locations on the investigated site, average valueof all noise values into unit emplacement). The specificquality indicators for each environmental component (air,water, soil) are the minimal obligatory indicators imposedby the local environmental authority for periodic analysis (inthe compliance plan) considering the type, raw materials,technological processes, and treatment facilities for eachstudied economic activity.

Considering the calculated values of quality indexes(EQi) and corresponding evaluation scores (ESi) from theevaluation scale (Table 1), the environment (air, water, soil,noise) as affected, under maximum admissible limits, withpossible effects on the health of life forms, is appreciated.

The air is affected, and the most important pollutants intothe discharges in the air that must be periodically monitoredare VOC, CO, CO2, SOx, and also the content of suspendedsolid particles in the investigated site. Considering the dis-charges of final effluents (potential water resources in con-ditions of water recycling, reuse, or discharging into anatural emissary) or ground water into the investigated area,the principal indicators that must be periodically monitoredare not only the suspended solids, pH, COD, BOD5, total P,and total N but also the extractible substances and heavymetal ions. The most important soil indicators that neededperiodic control are pH, TOC, total oil compounds, and alsosome heavy metal contents.

The quality indexes and evaluation scores for air, waterresource, soil, or noise are varying according to the type andmagnitude of economic activities per day/month/year andworking regime in the investigated site area (Table 8).

The evaluation scores for the studied economic activitiesare varying between 6.667 and 8.667 for air, 8.00–8.75 forwater resource, 4.00–6.857 for soil, and 6.25–6.50 for noise,respectively. The highest evaluation score is registered forthe quality of water resource and the lowest for the soilquality. The lowest environmental evaluation score of6.435 (ESenv) is appreciated for the cumulative effect of allactivities from a co-generation power plant, and the highestvalue of 7.753 is estimated for the cumulative effect of allactivities from a municipal waste landfill. In general, theevaluation scores for local environment quality into thestudied economic sites are varying (generally, between 6and 8), and the environmental pollution state is appreciatedas decreasing in the following order: municipal waste land-fill>iron profile manufacturing unit>wood furniture manu-facturing unit>cement processing unit>co-generation powerplant.

The final results of the application of this Romanianquantification methodology for a cumulative effect of envi-ronmental impacts using the global pollution index with acorrelation towards the environmental pollution state aresynthesized in Table 9.

The values of global pollution index (I*GP) are varyingbetween 1.664 and 2.414, and correspond to an ‘environ-ment modified by industrial activities within admissiblelimits’ (i.e. S2, S4, and S5 sites, having values of global

Table 8 The environment qual-ity indexes and evaluation scoresinto the investigated industrialunits (S1–S5)

Economic unit Quality index (EQi) and evaluation score (ESi)

Air Water Soil Noise

EQa ESa EQw ESw EQs ES EQn ESn

S1 0.8925 7.333 0.351 8.375 7.8965 4.000 – –

S2 0.730 7.800 0.481 8.000 1.959 6.857 – –

S3 1.782 6.667 – – 1.772 6.500 1.0375 6.25

S4 0.205 8.667 0.229 8.750 2.104 6.000 – –

S5 0.493 8.000 0.601 8.000 – – 1.033 6.50

Table 9 Values of environmental score (air, water, soil, noise) and global pollution indexes (IGP*)

No. Industrial unit ES2env ESenv I*GP Real global environment state

S4 A municipal waste landfill 60.113 7.753 1.664 ‘Environment modified by industrial activitieswithin admissible limits’S2 Unit of iron profile manufacturing 56.914 7.544 1.757

S5 Unit of wood furniture manufacturing 56.000 7.483 1.786

S1 Co-generation electric and thermal powerplant

41.415 6.435 2.414 ‘Environment modified by industrial activitiesgenerating discomfort effects’

S3 Unit of cement processing 41.876 6.471 2.388

2454 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455

pollution index in the interval of 1–2) or ‘environmentmodified by industrial activities generating discomforteffects’ (i.e. S1 and S3 industrial sites, having values ofglobal pollution index in the interval of 2–3). These resultssustain the economic productive activities in terms of envi-ronmental protection with respect to preventive protectionprogramme and continuous pollution control.

4 Conclusions

Five different economic units (i.e. a co-generation powerplant, a unit of iron profile manufacturing, cement process-ing, a solid waste landfilling, a unit of wood furnituremanufacturing) were assessed in terms of cumulative envi-ronmental impact using the Romanian alternative method-ology of global pollution index (I*GP). The results indicateda specific environmental pollution state for each investigat-ed site in comparison with the natural non-polluted environ-ment state (corresponding to a maximum evaluation score of10) (i.e. evaluation scores of 6.667–8.667 for air, 8.00–8.75for water resource, 4.00–6.986 for soil, and 6,25–6.50 fornoise). The values of global pollution index calculated foreach economic unit (1.664–2.414) correspond to an ‘envi-ronment modified by industrial activities within admissiblelimits, having potential of generating discomfort effects’.Periodic pollution control, preventive environmental protec-tion actions, and also minimization of all discharges into theenvironment are indicated.

References

Chaker C, El-Fadl K, Chamas L, Hatjian B (2006) A review ofstrategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. En-viron Impact Assess Rev 26:15–56

Grec A, Dumescu F, Maior C (2009) Assessment of the environmentalimpacts generated by rubber processing activity. Environ EngManag J 8(6):1533–1540

Maa Z, Beckerb DR, Kilgoreb MA (2009) Assessing cumulativeimpacts within state environmental frameworks in the UnitedStates. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29(6):390–398

Macoveanu M (2005) Methods and techniques of ecological impactassessment (in Romanian), 2nd edn. Ecozone Publishing House, Iasi

Milner SJ, Bailey C, Deans J, Pettigrew D (2005) Integrated impactassessment in the UK—use, efficacy and future development.Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:47–61

Popa C, Cojocaru C, Macoveanu M (2005) Geometrical correlationmethod for global estimation of the ecosystem state. Environ EngManag J 4(4):437–447

Robu BM, Zaharia C, Macoveanu M (2005) Environmental impactassessment for steel processing. Environ Eng Manag J 4(1):51–65

Surpateanu M, Zaharia C (2002) ABC—analysis methods for thequality of environmental factors (in Romanian). T Press, Iasi

Zaharia C (2008) Legislation for environmental protection (in Roma-nian). Politehnium Ed, Iasi

Zaharia C (2010) An environmental impact assessment applied for aunit of machine-tools manufacturing. In D. Nedelcu, L. Slati-neanu, S. Mazuru, O. Miloselic (eds.), Proceedings of ModTechInternational Conference, Slanic Moldova, Romania (pp. 691–694), Iasi, Romania: Politehnium Ed.

Zaharia C (2011) Assessing the impact of some industrial and transportactivities on soil by the global pollution index. Environ EngManag J 10(3):387–391

Zaharia C, Murarasu I (2009) Environmental impact assessment in-duced by an industrial unit of basic chemical organic compoundssynthesis using the alternative method of global pollution index.Environ Eng Manag J 8(1):107–112

Zaharia C, SurpăţeanuM (2006) Environmental impact assessment usingthe method of global pollution index applied for a heat and powerco-generation plant. Environ Eng Manag J 5(6):1273–1290

Zaharia C, Surpăţeanu M (2007) Comparative study of environmentalimpact assessment using the global pollution method applied inthe case of four Moldavian solid wastes landfills. Bulletin ofPolytechnic Institute of Iassy, series: Chemistry and ChemicalEngineering, tom LIII(LVII)(3–4):109–124

Zaharia C, Suteu D (2011) Analytical control of soil and ground waterquality on a Northern Romanian landfill. Environ Eng Manag J 10(11):1693–1701

Zaharia C, Surpăţeanu M, Macoveanu M (2007) Assessment of envi-ronmental impact generated by municipal waste deposition into aRomanian landfill. J Environ Prot Ecol 8(2):332–345

Environ Sci Pollut Res (2012) 19:2448–2455 2455