Citation
Quantifying phosphorus sources, sinks, flows and footprints

Material Information

Title:
Quantifying phosphorus sources, sinks, flows and footprints incorporating phosphate rock, mineral impurities and natural inputs
Creator:
Knight, Joshua Nathanial ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
electronic file (172 pages). : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Phosphorus ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This research is the first to include phosphorus as impurities in quantifying total phosphorus flows at the U.S. and global scale (Ch. 2) At the global scale, including mineral impurities, phosphate rock and natural inputs, we found 52 Trigram (Tag) inputs to the world in 2009 and 9 Tag to the I.S. in 2010, of which mineral impurities contributed 13% (world) and 7% (U.S.), proving impurities a significant resource which should not be overlooked. Of the 52 Tag of phosphorus inputs globally, 48 Tag goes to sinks, with 25 Tag to wastewater and waterways 14 Tag to landfills, 1 Tag lost to stock in concrete, and 8 Tag being recycled to farms. For the U.S., 9 Tag of phosphorus were input in 2010, with 7 Tag going to sinks, with 4 Tag to sewer and waterways, 2 Tag to landfills, and 1 Tag being recycled back to farms. Embodied phosphorus inputs were then mapped to U.S. economic demand, and the phosphorus intensity of final demand was found for 440 sectors of the U.S. economy (Ch. 3). This showed that food and fertilizer understandably comprise the most intense demander's of phosphorus (MT P/M$), but that construction, utilities and government also comprise intense phosphorus demand on inputs. This research developed new mathematical methods to model phosphorus sources, sinks and flows in an economy (Ch. 4) to analyze direct, upstream and downstream phosphorus flows with economic data and a method to evaluate phosphorus flow production- and demand-based interventions. This showed that food understandably comprises the most intense demander's of phosphorus sinks (mt P/M$), but that textiles, construction, and wood also comprise intense phosphorus demand on sinks, even more so than fertilizer and government, unlike the inputs of Ch. 3. This research proved to be a useful method to quickly evaluate the mitigation possibilities in an economy through just economic data, readily available at city, regional state, country, and global levels (Ch. N5). It was found that mitigation solutions could quickly be estimated from sinks found in Ch. 4, with an average 76% recoverable at the world level and 79% in the U.S., using currently available best-management practices. Of the total mitigation possible, 9% was attributable to a demand-based strategy (reduced consumption), with the remaining attributable to production-based strategies.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Department of Civil Engineering
Statement of Responsibility:
by Joshua Nathanial Knight.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
891589845 ( OCLC )
ocn891589845

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
QUANTIFYING PHOSPHORUS SOURCES, SINKS, FLOWS AND FOOTPRINTS:
INCORPORATING PHOSPHATE ROCK, MINERAL IMPURITIES AND NATURAL
INPUTS
by
JOSHUA NATHANIAL KNIGHT
B.S., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998
M.E., University of South Carolina, 2001
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Civil Engineering
2013


2013
JOSHUA KNIGHT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by
Joshua Nathanial Knight
has been approved for the
Department of Civil Engineering
by
Arunprakash Karunanithi, Chair
Anu Ramaswami, Advisor
Angela Bielefeldt
Jason Ren
Jo Ann Silverstein
November 8, 2013
iii


Knight, Joshua Nathanial (Ph.D., Civil Engineering)
Quantifying Phosphorus Sources, Sinks, Flows and Footprints;
Incorporating Phosphate Rock, Mineral Impurities and Natural Inputs
Thesis directed by Professor Anu Ramaswami
ABSTRACT
This research is the first to include phosphorus as impurities in quantifying total
phosphorus flows at the U.S. and global scale (Ch. 2). At the global scale, including
mineral impurities, phosphate rock and natural inputs, we found 52 Teragram (Tg) inputs
to the world in 2009 and 9 Tg to the U.S. in 2010, of which mineral impurities
contributed 13% (world) and 7% (U.S.), proving impurities a significant resource which
should not be overlooked. Of the 52 Tg of phosphorus inputs globally, 48 Tg goes to
sinks, with 25 Tg to wastewater and waterways, 14 Tg to landfills, 1 Tg lost to stock in
concrete, and 8 Tg being recycled to farms. For the U.S., 9 Tg of phosphorus were input
in 2010, with 7 Tg going to sinks, with 4 Tg to sewer and waterways, 2 Tg to landfills
and 1 Tg being recycled back to farms. Embodied phosphorus inputs were then mapped
to U.S. economic demand, and the phosphorus intensity of final demand was found for
440 sectors of the U.S. economy (Ch. 3). This showed that food and fertilizer
understandably comprise the most intense demanders of phosphorus (mt P/M$), but that
construction, utilities and government also comprise intense phosphorus demand on
inputs. This research developed new mathematical methods to model phosphorus
sources, sinks and flows in an economy (Ch. 4) to analyze direct, upstream and
downstream phosphorus flows with economic data and a method to evaluate phosphorus
flow production- and demand-based interventions. This showed that food understandably
IV


comprises the most intense demanders of phosphorus sinks (mt P/M$), but that textiles,
construction, and wood also comprise intense phosphorus demand on sinks, even more so
than fertilizer and government, unlike the inputs of Ch. 3. This research proved to be a
useful method to quickly evaluate the mitigation possibilities in an economy through just
economic data, readily available at city, regional, state, country and global levels (Ch. 5).
It was found that mitigation solutions could quickly be estimated from sinks found in Ch.
4, with an average 76% recoverable at the world level and 79% in the U.S., using
currently available best management practices. Of the total mitigation possible, 9% was
attributable to a demand-based strategy (reduced consumption), with the remaining
attributable to production-based strategies.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Dr. Anu Ramaswami
v


DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my wife and children, who have given generously to papa in order
to finish this hard work, and they deserve many hours of love and attention to make up
for my absence during this hard but meaningful road. Pie, now go sign up for more yoga
classes, retreats and Bible classes, because now its in print, Ill take care of the kids!
vi


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is only possible because of the assistance, support and advice of
many more than I could name in this space. Below are some of those who have made
this work possible, but there are many more not specifically here listed, but I thank you
all for your contributions.
Before all I must give praise and glory to almighty God for giving me strength,
perseverance, a loving and caring family, a wonderful advisor, a balance with work that
made all of this possible. He has and continues to bless me in so many ways. Praise to
You, Lord Jesus Christ, for making this happen!
I would like to thank the Ramaswami Research Incentive Award, MIG, Inc.,
Golden Key International Honor Society Pillars of Excellence, the American Water
Works Association, MWH, the Ford Foundation, the Bernhardt Family, the University of
Colorado Denver Engineering School and Dean and Metro Wastewater Reclamation
District and their Scholarship Programs for providing the funding to carry out this
research. Many thanks are due to my advisor, Dr. Anu Ramaswami, for expecting the
absolute best from me, which has strengthened me personally and professionally. She
was also key in deriving the new Phosphorus Sink equations, providing strategic
direction and critical quality assurance and quality control of my methods and numbers,
driving this work the to highest quality possible! Dr. Angela Bielefeldt started me on
towards this dissertation early on in inviting and mentoring me to complete my
undergraduate senior thesis. Dr. JoAnn Silverstein instilled in me the appreciation for
nutrient recovery in and outside her wastewater class. Dr. Jason Ren and Dr.
Arunprakash Karunanithi have been open to discussion, advice and approval along this
Vll


long hard path. Dr. Bruce Janson has been much more available and helpful and quick to
further this particular students process along than is expected of the chair of any
department. Dr. Abel Chavez provided great review, guidance and encouragement
during the entire dissertation process. Dr. Krista Nordback provided guidance and
templates for completing this dissertation paper. Support has also come from many of
my fellow class mates and friends, including Josh Sperling, Elliot Cohen, Zac Coventry,
Dr. Leslie Miller Robbie and Dr. Heather Bechtold.
The following organizations and their dedicated employees also deserve thanks.
MIG, Inc. (IMPLAN) gave generously their monetary flow data for multiple cities, states
and the entire U.S. economy. Dr. Jenny Thorvaldson and Dr. Doug Olson specifically at
MIG overcame amazingly high hurdles to assist me early on in getting inputs and outputs
to match through the U.S. economy, absolutely critical for making this dissertation
possible. Metro Wastewater worked with us from the beginning to conceptualize
solutions to the phosphorus resource and eutrophication problems. The U.S. Census
Bureau and Department of Transportation provided inter-community commodity flow
data.
vm


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1 Introduction...............................................................17
1.1 Background...............................................................17
1.2 Rationale Literature Review............................................17
1.2.1 Phosphorus: Scarce, Expensive............................................17
1.2.2 Phosphorus: Waterway Pollutant...........................................20
1.2.3 Phosphorus as a Mineral Impurity.........................................22
1.2.4 Limited Tools to Quantify Flows, Sources and Sinks in an Economy.........23
1.2.5 Economic Input-Output Models for other items, not Phosphorus.............23
1.3 Unique Contributions of Research.........................................24
1.4 Objectives...............................................................24
2 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S.
Phosphorus Flows................................................................26
2.1 Abstract.................................................................26
2.2 Introduction.............................................................26
2.3 Method...................................................................29
2.4 Results..................................................................31
2.5 Discussion...............................................................39
2.6 Supporting Information...................................................40
3 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S.
Phosphorus Flows................................................................44
3.1 Abstract.................................................................44
3.2 Introducti on............................................................44
3.3 Method...................................................................47
3.3.1 Overview.................................................................47
3.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors......................................48
3.3.3 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors.....49
3.3.4 Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PIIFp............50
3.3.5 Demand-based Phosphorus Footprint Economic Input-Output LCA...........51
3.3.6 Data Challenges..........................................................53
3.4 Results..................................................................54
IX


3.4.1 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors..54
3.4.2 Demand-based Phosphorus Use Footprint - Economic Input-Output LCA.....57
3.5 Discussion............................................................60
4 Using Economic Input-Output to Calculate Phosphorus Sources, Sinks and Flows in
the U.S. Economys Production and Consumption...................................62
4.1 Abstract..............................................................62
4.2 Introduction..........................................................63
4.3 Method................................................................65
4.3.1 Overview..............................................................65
4.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors and Final Fate....................66
4.3.3 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors and
Final Fate......................................................................67
4.3.4 Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of Production, PSIFprod......69
4.3.5 Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint - Economic Input-Output LCA....69
4.3.6 Data Challenges.......................................................72
4.4 Results...............................................................73
4.4.1 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors.73
4.4.2 Demand-based Phosphorus Use Footprint - Economic Input-Output LCA.....76
4.5 Discussion............................................................85
5 Quantifying Phosphorus Footprint Mitigation Strategies in The U.S...........86
5.1 Abstract..............................................................86
5.2 Introduction..........................................................87
5.3 Method................................................................88
5.3.1 Overview..............................................................88
5.3.2 Production-Based Strategies...........................................89
5.3.3 Demand-Based Strategies: Diet Changes.................................89
5.4 Specific Mitigation Strategies........................................92
5.4.1 Wastewater Recovery Struvite........................................92
5.4.2 Steel Slag Recovery...................................................93
5.4.3 Fly Ash Recovery......................................................93
5.4.4 Diet Changes..........................................................94
5.4.5 Landfill Barriers.....................................................94
5.4.6 Household Changes.....................................................94
x


5.5 Data Challenges.........................................................94
5.6 Results.................................................................95
5.6.1 Overall Strategies......................................................95
5.6.2 Diet Changes............................................................97
5.7 Discussion.............................................................102
6 Conclusions..............................................................104
6.1 Contributions to Literature............................................104
6.2 Future Research........................................................104
6.2.1 Incorporation of Full Input-Output Models..............................104
6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis...................................................105
6.2.3 New Area Levels........................................................105
6.2.4 New Time Periods.......................................................105
6.2.5 Infrastructure F ootprint..............................................106
6.2.6 Mitigation Strategies: Production-Based................................106
6.2.7 Mitigation Strategies: Demand-Based Diet...............................106
References....................................................................107
Appendix A....................................................................Ill
1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Input Datasets..........................Ill
1.1 Phosphorus Input Datasets..............................................Ill
1.2 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors... 112
1.3 Demand-Based Complete Inventory........................................119
1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions...........................................138
Appendix B....................................................................140
1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Sink Datasets...........................140
1.1 Phosphorus Sink Datasets...............................................140
1.2 Phosphorus Sink Footprint Inventory from 24 Core Production Sectors...141
1.3 Demand-Based Complete Inventory........................................146
1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions...........................................171
xi


LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1. Phosphorus Substance Flow Analysis studies done at the global and national levels.
...............................................................................28
2-2. Global phosphorus flows in 2009, as well as U.S. flows in 2010. Calculation source
listed.......................................................................32
2-3. Detailed Global phosphorus flows in 2009. Calculation source listed....40
2- 4. Detailed U.S. Phosphorus flows in 2010. Calculation source listed....42
3- 1. Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the
U.S., 2010...................................................................55
3- 2. Demand-based Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S., 2010............58
4- 1. Phosphorus Inputs and Sink Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U.S.,
2010.........................................................................74
4-2. Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010.........77
4- 3. Input and Sink Intensity Factor of Production Vector breakdowns, by Input/Sink
Category, US, 2010...........................................................83
5- 1. Phosphorus Mitigation Strategios for the US. All units are Tg P.......96
5-2. U.S. Nutrient Recommendations...........................................98
5-3. U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including two reduced consumption diets.
2009. FAO (2012)............................................................100
5-4. U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including Octo-Lavo and Strict
Vegetarian diets. 2009. FAO (2012)..........................................101
5-5. Effects of diet changes in the U.S. on phosphorus footprint and cost...102
A-l-1. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Crops and Forestry in the U.S.,
A-l-2. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010
..........................................................................116
A-l-3. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Goods in the U.S., 2010.117
Xll


A-l-4. Complete 440-Sector Demand-based Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S.,
2010.................................................................120
A-1-5. IMPLAN Codes included in each Demand Group..........................139
B-l-1. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Crops and Forestry in the U.S.,
2010.......................................................................142
B-l-2. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010
...........................................................................143
B-l-3. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production of Goods in the U.S., 2010.144
B-l-4. Complete 440-Sector Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010
...........................................................................147
xm


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1. Previous rock production peak prediction. Source: Cordell et al., 2009.... 18
1-2. History of World Phosphate Production.....................................18
1-3. Data on worldwide phosphate reserves, about 67,000 Teragrams...............19
1-4. Historical U.S. Phosphate Fertilizer Price. Data Source: USDA (2013)......19
1-5. Global Mined-Phosphate Rock Intermediate Use in 2010 (24 Tg). Data Source:
This Study......................................................................19
1-6. Losses along the phosphorus chain. Source: Schroder et al., 2009...........20
1-7. U.S. Applied Fertilizer Fate, 2010 (2 Tg). Data Source: this research......21
1- 8. Three examples of waterway eutrophication, shown as a greenish hue on top of the
water...........................................................................22
2- 1. Major world phosphorus flows in 2009, including impurities in the bottom left
corner..........................................................................34
2-2. Major U.S. phosphorus flows in 2010, including impurities in the bottom left comer.
................................................................................35
2-3. World Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in
resources. Data Source: this research...........................................37
2- 4. U.S. Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in
resources. Data Source: this research...........................................37
3- 1. Benchmarking phosphorus flows in US......................................56
3-2. Phosphorus Sources, US, 2010, 8.6 Tg Total. Abbreviations: Imp: Impurities; P:
Phosphate.......................................................................57
3- 3. Phosphorus Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. Note, hatching indicates indirect use
of phosphorus. Scale is logarithmic.............................................59
4- 1. Phosphorus Sinks, US, 2010, 6.7 Tg Total.................................76
4-2. US 2010 Phosphorus Sinks assigned to endpoints.............................78
4-3. Phosphorus Sinks, Removed by Recycling, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010....79
4-4. Phosphorus Sinks to Waterways, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010.............79
xiv


4-5. Phosphorus Sinks to Sewers, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010............80
4-6. Phosphorus Sinks to Landfill, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010..........80
4-7. Phosphorus Sinks to Stocks, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010............81
4- 8. Phosphorus Sinks, Sum, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010...............81
5- 1. Struvite formation in a sewer pipe...................................93
xv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Avg. Average
Hr. Hour
CO Colorado
DAP Diammonium phosphate
F Fahrenheit
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FAOSTATS Online statistical database of the FAO
Gg Gigagram (1 x 109 grams = 1000 metric tonnes)
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GIS Geographic Information System
IFA International Fertilizer Industry Association
IFADATA Online statistical database of the IFA
K Potassium
MAP1 Monoammonium phosphate
MFA Material Flows Analysis
MT Million metric tonnes
N Nitrogen
NO A A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
P Phosphorus
PM Afternoon
SFA Substance Flows Analysis
St. Dev. Standard Deviation
Tg Teragram (1 x 1012 grams = 1 million metric tonnes)
TSP Triple Superphosphate
UCD University of Colorado Denver
UN United Nations
US. United States of America
USGS US Geological Survey
WHO World Health Organization of the United Nations
WTO World Trade Organization
1 Struvite is also referred to as MAP (magnesium-ammonium-phosphate), but in order to avoid confusion,
the common name struvite is used here.
xvt


1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Phosphorus (P) is a vital building block for all life. It has proved to be a
matchless key in the agricultural system, as no substitute exists for its being a necessary
ingredient in animal feed and fertilizer. Currently waste and losses along each step of the
phosphorus life cycle gives concerns both about future supplies and pollution to water
and soils. With better management, big steps can be made towards the sustainable use of
phosphorus, making reserves available for future generations to use.
1.2 Rationale Literature Review
1.2.1 Phosphorus: Scarce, Expensive
Several factors drawn together show that phosphorus supply and use should be
monitored. First, phosphorus is a finite, limited resource, and reserves are decreasing, as
seen in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. Dery and Anderson (2007) believed peak phosphorus was
reached in 1990, as shown in Figure 1-1. As seen from Figure 1-2, reality has proved this
estimate of peak phosphorus to not be true. However, as a finite resource, there will
ultimately be a peak to phosphorus availability, which is currently estimated at 2035
(Cordell et al., 2009). Second, while the U.S. historically had large amounts of
phosphorus reserves, these have been depleted, and now the U.S. is no longer among the
top five phosphorus reserve nations, as seen in Figure 1-3. Third, there has been recent
price volatility, as seen in Figure 1-4, with a 400% increase in price in 2008. Fourth,
there is very little change that can be made to make other phosphorus uses available for
fertilizer, because, along with waste and losses, fertilizer already uses about 90% of the
total mined phosphate rock (with attributed losses), as seen in Figure 1-3. Fifth, as seen
17


from Figure 1-4, the high amounts of losses along the phosphorus supply chain point to
the great potential for savings through closing these losses. Increasing the use of
recycled phosphorus in the U.S. and globally could help save the supply of this critical
element and encourage a more even distribution of phosphorus regionally and world-
wide. Economically, diversifying the supply of phosphorus to U.S. manufacturers and
sectors that depend on it would improve their resilience when faced with future price
instability and import issues.
Figure 1-1. Previous rock production peak prediction. Source: Cordell et al., 2009
Figure 1-2. History of World Phosphate Production.
Figure Note: 2012 (210) and 2013 (256) are USGS estimate and prediction, respectively.
Data Source: USGS (2013)
18


Morocco
China
Algeria
Syria
Jordan
Figure 1-3. Data on worldwide phosphate reserves, about 67,000 Teragrams
Figure note: (1 Teragram, Tg = 1012 grams, or 1 million metric tons). Data Source:
(Jasinski, 2013)
Qi r
N O
:= -c
£ a
a 9
ro to
^ 3
Q. ..
(/) QJ
O U
-c -c
Q- O.
Figure 1-4. Historical U.S. Phosphate Fertilizer Price. Data Source: USDA (2013)
Fertilizer
Losses
Detergents
Other Uses
Figure 1-5. Global Mined-Phosphate Rock Intermediate Use in 2010 (24 Tg). Data
Source: This Study.
19


SufTiciont
concentration (%P>)
t *#t
P CONSUMED IN FOOD
BY GLOBAL POPULATION
- 3 X 10A TONNES P/YR
Figure 1-6. Losses along the phosphorus chain. Source: Schroder et al., 2009
Additionally, the environmental benefits of improving efficiency and decreasing
losses would be significant. Currently, phosphorus use is inefficient along the whole life
cycle, which causes problems with water pollution and wasted energy, water and other
resources related to phosphorus use. Contaminants found in phosphate ore like cadmium
and uranium can also cause health and environmental issues. Not even looking at the
total resources available or security concerns, the environmental benefits alone could
justify action being taken to use this resource more efficiently and begin to recycle more.
Synergistic benefits from better phosphorus management can be had. For example, better
soil management can have climate and biodiversity benefits as well as saving phosphorus
losses at the farm.
1.2.2 Phosphorus: Waterway Pollutant
Much work can be done in the field of phosphorus conservation and management.
As seen from Figure 1-7, about half of the phosphorus mined for fertilizer ends up in the
20


crops it was intended for, with the remaining lost to waterways and crop residues (and
further losses occurring during crop processing and going to final consumption).
Crops
Waterways
Crop
Residues
Figure 1-7. U.S. Applied Fertilizer Fate, 2010 (2 Tg). Data Source: this research
These issues are difficult to address. While several regions around the U.S. are
tending towards a stabilization in soil phosphorus levels, farms continue to rely on
mineral phosphorus fertilizers for crop production (USGS, 2012). Additionally,
excessive phosphorus is usually applied, being a main cause for loading of phosphorus to
waterways. Industrial phosphorus pollution also adds to these problems. Soil erosion
carries a large amount of soil-bound nature-derived phosphorus into surface waters. JRC
(2012.) completed a model of soil erosion showing large amount of soil being lost yearly.
Lastly, manure can end up in waterways either by runoff from pastures or from intensive
feeding operations. All of these losses lead to excessive phosphorus levels in fresh
waters, and some studies have concluded the planetary capacity to handle phosphorus in
natural waters has been exceeded (Carpenter & Bennett, 2011). This phosphorus still
works as fertilizer in waterways, growing plants and algae, and leads to eutrophication, or
aging of waterways (OConnor & Chinault, 2006). Algal blooms can give a bad taste and
21


odor to the water. Large floating blooms like those in Figure 1-8 get concentrated by
wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition
gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides
eutrophication, P can stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan,
2002). Therefore many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P
discharge limits (Litke, 1999).
1.2.3 Phosphorus as a Mineral Impurity
Due to the high price, regionalized sources and imminent decline of phosphate ore
which provides phosphorus, researchers are looking at novel ways to close the
phosphorus loop. While a few researchers have looked at the recovery of phosphorus
22


from steel (Matsubae-Yokoyama, Kubo, Nakajima, & Nagasaka, 2009) or from coal fly
ash (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971) on a regional scale, no one has looked at the opportunity
of using phosphorus present as impurities as a potential resource globally, nor for these
resources combined. This is the first study to include all three inputs, from phosphate
rock, nature and impurities at the global level.
1.2.4 Limited Tools to Quantify Flows, Sources and Sinks in an Economy
Several authors have reviewed phosphorus flows within an urban or regional area,
tracking the phosphorus as an element as it flows through fertilizer, food, etc. These
types of studies have been called either Material Flow Analyses (MFAs) or Substance
Flow Analyses (SFAs). These include a handbook for doing MFA analyses in general
(Brunner and Richardson, 2004), the Twin Cities Watershed (Baker, 2011), global food P
(Cordell et al., 2009), and scaled up phosphorus flows from the household level in
Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota (Fissore et al., 2011). These studies can work well at
the global and national level with gross trade flow data, but have difficulty when focusing
at a regional or urban area. They can focus on household consumption and flows which
are scaled up to the regional level, but this is difficult, requires assumptions which dont
reflect reality, and can incorporate scale-up errors. Also, these studies focus on scaled
consumption and flow data, but dont use input-output data to track phosphorus in
regional or urban economics, with the capacity to show sources, sinks, stock, recycle and
exports from economic data.
1.2.5 Economic Input-Output Models for other items, not Phosphorus
Researchers have seen the power of the Economic Input Output Life Cycle
Assessment, and have begun to create environmental vectors to review both
23


Environmental Burdens and Resource Intensity Factors for use with economic data.
These types of vectors include water use (Blackhurst, 2011), land use (Costello, 2009),
carbon (Singh and Bakshi, 2013), nitrogen (Singh and Bakshi, 2013), and eutrophication
(Joshi, 2000, Mattila et al., 2010; Sleeswijk et al., 2008). These vectors work great for
their intended use. The problem is simply that there has never been one created before
for phosphorus. This is a data gap thats going to be filled by this research.
1.3 Unique Contributions of Research
This study is providing several contributions to the general body of research.
This is the first research to include mineral impurities as a phosphorus resource
evaluated at global scale (Ch. 2).
Secondly, this is the first study to compute embodied and direct phosphorus
intensity of final demand in the U.S. incorporating phosphorus from nature,
phosphate rock and phosphorus in mineral impurities (Ch. 3).
Thirdly, this research develops new mathematical methods to model embodied
phosphorus into the economy, sinks from the economy, and flows through an
economy (Ch. 4).
Lastly, this is the first study to utilize demand-based strategies for phosphorus
mitigation, and quantifying their effect on phosphorus through the economy (Ch.
5).
1.4 Objectives
This dissertation included specific objectives that were met within each chapter to
follow this introduction, as outlined below. In Chapter 2, both global and U.S.
phosphorus flows will be tracked, with specific attention paid to phosphorus found as
24


impurities in infrastructure materials. Chapter 3 will focus on calculating the phosphorus
intensity of U.S. final economic demand. Chapter 4 will look closely at phosphorus
flows in the U.S. economy and separating Inputs and Sinks. Chapter 5 will quantify
phosphorus management strategies, reviewing both production- and demand-based
strategies. Lastly, Chapter 6 will conclude with insights overall, contributions to the
research and future research.
25


2 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S.
Phosphorus Flows
2.1 Abstract
Phosphorus is an element critical for food and proteins thats becoming scarce.
As a vital nutrient for growth, its found in fertilizer, plants, food and supplements. Its
also found as an impurity in other products, and significant phosphorous flows are found
in infrastructure materials (steel, concrete and coal). To date, global and U.S. phosphorus
flow studies have not included a holistic review of all phosphorus flows. Specifically,
current studies only include information on phosphorus related to food or industrial
activity, while missing phosphorus in impurities. This project comprises an inclusive
review of world-wide phosphorus flows including significant impurity flows. Phosphorus
inputs to the world economy were 52 Tg in 2009 and to the US were 9 Tg in 2010.
Flows of phosphorus as impurities are 13% of total input flows for the world and 7% of
input flows for the US. They are also 35% of the worlds phosphate rock inputs and 15%
of the U.S. phosphate rock input, showing that they could be a valuable resource in the
future. Impurity flows are comparable to those that go to wastewater. This study shows
that important phosphorus flows from impurities should be included for global, national
and regional phosphorus flow studies.
2.2 Introduction
Phosphorus (P) is a vital resource, necessary for all plants, animals and humans.
The source for the great majority of phosphorus used today is phosphate rock, a finite and
non-renewable resource. Fertilizer is now too expensive for half the worlds people
(Bufe, 2011). Since its discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, P04-
3) has increased over the years to meet rising demand (USGS, 2013). Phosphate rock is
26


estimated to run out in 60 (Dery & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010)
years at current mining rates. Although the estimated available phosphate rock is
uncertain, growing prices and diminishing reserves show the need to better manage this
critical, non-renewable resource.
The quality of P ore has gone down (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) and phosphate
rock is increasingly contaminated with toxic metals, taking more energy to remove
(Driver, Lijmbach, & Steen, 1999). As visible in Figure 1-3, the worlds P reserves are
located in very few places, making future availability of P at competitive prices less
reliable (Kelly, Matos, Buckingham, DiFrancesco, & Porter, 2013); (Van Kauwenbergh,
2010)).
Phosphorus leads to eutrophication in water bodies because P is often the limiting
nutrient in water ways ((Elliott & OConnor, 2007); (OConnor & Chinault, 2006)).
Excess nutrients in water cause eutrophication, or aging, accompanied by algal blooms.
As alga blooms die and decompose, it gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels
for marine species. For this reason many countries wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) are working to decrease their P discharges (Schindler, 2006).
Because this elements importance is increasing, phosphorus flow studies have
been done at the city, regional, country and global levels. These studies include
environmental assessments (life cycle assessments, ecological footprints, etc.) and
material and substance flow analyses (MFAs and SFAs). Table 2-1 gives a review of
national and international phosphorus flow studies, building upon the review completed
by Cordell et al. (2011). Global and national phosphorus flow studies have been done on
a production basis (Villalba et al., 2008, for industries and fertilizer) or in specific sectors
27


(Food in the world Smil, 2000; Cordell et al., 2009, etc.). To date only one study has
reviewed phosphorus as impurities, except (Matsubae-Yokoyama et al., 2009), who has
only done it at the national level, and they didnt include food in their study. This is the
first study to include all three inputs, from phosphate rock, nature and impurities at the
global and U.S. levels.
Table 2-1. Phosphorus Substance Flow Analysis studies done at the global and
national levels.
P Flow Study Study Area Time Frame Sectors
Mining & Fertilizer Agriculture Food Production Household Waste Pollution & Inefficiencies Impurities
This Study Global 2009 X X X X X X X
Bouwman et al. (2011) Global 1970- 2050 - X - - - X -
Cordell et al. (2009) Global 2005 X X X X X X -
Liu et al. (2008) Global 2005 - X X - X X -
Villalba et al. (2008) Global 2004 X - - - - X -
Smil (2000) Global Mid- 1990s - X - - X X -
Schroeder et al. (2010) EU 2006- 2007 - X - X X X -
Suh & Yee (2011) USA 2007 X X X X X - -
Senthilkumar et al.(2011) France 1990- 2006 - X X - - X -
Cordell & White (2010) Australia 2007 X X X X X X -
Smit et al. (2010) Netherlands 2004 - X X X X X -
Matsubae- Yokoyama et al. (2009) Japan 2002 X X - X X X X
Seyhan(2009) Turkey, Austria 2007 - X - X X X -
28


This research analyzes the phosphorus flows for the world in 2009 and the U.S. in
2010. We review both the natural and engineered infrastructure systems to include a
holistic understanding of the global and U.S. phosphorus metabolisms. This is done with
a balanced substance flow analysis (SFA) methodology, which is utilized to characterize
physical substance flows through natural and human systems (Brunner and Richardson
(2004) provide a basic SFA methodology). We examine three major inputs of
phosphorus: from phosphate rock, from nature and from impurities. We also include
recycle flows, which ultimately find the source from nature or phosphate rock. We give
special attention to impurities and waste flows, in order to point out opportunities for
phosphorus recovery.
2.3 Method
To calculate global and U.S. phosphorus flows, the following methodology was
used: first, the literature was reviewed for all significant phosphorus flows. For this
research, significant phosphorus flows are those that are at least 1% of global phosphate
rock flows. Sources included global, national and regional phosphorus flow studies, as
well as case studies on phosphorus.
Next, the flows of phosphorus-containing items were identified using
international and national data collection and trade organizations, as well as mass
balances. For agricultural items (including fertilizer) the Food and Agriculture
Organizations FAOSTAT database was used. Specifically, the Commodity Trade
Balance database was utilized, as commodity flows were homogenized into similar units
of mass and flows mostly balanced. Slight inconsistencies between production and trade
flows, as well as within agricultural usage groups were normalized. Coal flows were
29


found from EIA (2013). Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al.
(2010). Cement and lime flows were found from USGS (2013).
Last, material flows were converted to phosphorus flows by identifying the
phosphorus content of the materials using published content values, as well as mass
balances. Plant phosphorus content is calculated on a dry basis. Liu et al. (2008) was
utilized for conversion of fresh weight to dry weight for most crops. Cotton moisture was
averaged from USDA (1977), and wood moisture was from Trapp (2007). Smil (2000)
provided crop and residue phosphorus contents for most crops. Phosphorus content in
cotton was averaged from Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robinson (1986) and Hocking
and Meyer (1991); wood phosphorus came from Lamlom and Savadge (2003) and
Williams and Da Silva (1997). Coal phosphorus content was found from Bertine &
Goldberg (1971). Soap and detergent phosphorus content wasnt necessary, as
phosphorus flows were estimated directly based on Villalba et al. (2010). Cement and
lime phosphorus content were found from Hossain (2007) and Matsubae-Yokoyama et al.
(2009).
Additionally, flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that
had minimal phosphorus flows (like tobacco, trees and lime) in order to have a complete
picture of the flows within agriculture and concrete (concretes main ingredients are
cement from limestone, water, and aggregate). Significant phosphorus flows were
researched from the literature and international data and trade organizations for the years
2000-2009.
The boundary for this study was set as the anthrosphere, that area of the world
that humans have an effect on the flow of phosphorus. Therefore, Inputs are considered
30


inflows from either mining, Mining, or another environmental source, Nature, as well
as recycled flows from each of these sources, called Recycled. Also, Sinks are
defined as the areas where humans no longer change the phosphorus flow. These sinks of
phosphorus could be to landfills, to waterways, sewers, Stock (such as the phosphorus
contained in cement, which simply remains there in the finished concrete), and even to
Item P which may be held in inventory for that your or sent to Other Uses. For U.S.
flows, there are also trade flows, including imports and exports.
2.4 Results
Summarized results for the global and U.S. phosphorus flows are given in Table
2-2. Details for all flows are given for the world in Figure 2-1 and for the U.S. in Figure
2-2. Detailed pie charts for categories of flows are given for the world in Figure 2-3 and
for the U.S. in Figure 2-4.
Table 2-2 shows major global 2009 and U.S. 2010 flows of phosphorus,
categorized by flow types, and Figure 2-1 (world) and Figure 2-2 (US) display those
same flows using STAN software, building on the naming conventions from Suh and Yee
(2011). A pie chart of phosphorus inputs is given in Figure 2-3 for the world and for the
U.S. in Figure 2-4. Table 2-3 shows all global phosphorus flows, Table 2-4 list U.S.
phosphorus flows, along with detailed calculation sources.
31


Table 2-2. Global phosphorus flows in 2009, as well as U.S. flows in 2010.
Calculation source listed.
Global US
Flow Flow Level TgP TgP Source
Input Input 52 9 1,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
Sink Sink 48 7 2,3,6,7
Item P Item P 57 10 2,3,4,8
In-Out Difference: 4.123 1.936
Sum, Categories World phosphorus flows in 2009
Flow Category TgP TgP Source
Input Ph Rock 20 4 1,3,5
Input Nature 17 3 3,6,7
Input Recycle 8 1 3,7
Input Impurity 7 1 9,10,11,12,13,14,15
Sink Recycle 8 1 7
Sink Waterway 21 3 6,7
Sink Sewer 4 0 7
Sink Landfill 14 2 2,3,6,7
Sink Stock infr 1 0 3
Item P Trade Flow 4 2 3,4
Item P Internal 47 7 2,3,4,8
Item P Other Use 5 1 2,4,8
Trade/ltem Flow 4.123 1.936
In/Out &Trade/ltem: 0.000 0.000
Data Source & Reference:
1 IFA (2013)
2 Villalba etal. (2010)
3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work
4 FAO (2013)
5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010
6 Liu et al. (2008)
7 Suh &Yee (2011)
8 EU (2013)
9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production
10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971)
11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics
12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics
13 Matsubae-Yokoyama et al. (2009)
14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook
15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P205 in Cement. 43.62% P in P205
The first thing to note from the above table is that the mass balances, as it should,
with all phosphorus inputs equal to outputs when flows to all uses are included. Other
uses flows are also the reason that the sinks are lower than the inputs, because some
32


phosphorus leaves the economy as net exports (US) or to other useful purposes (for both
the U.S. and the world). Note the impurities found in infrastructure materials are
emboldened, and are almost twice that of flows to wastewater and almost as much as
current recycling of phosphorus. Internal flows are circular and are the largest overall
flows, showing that the circular flows of phosphorus are many from when it first enters
the economy to its final fate.
33


Import: 48Tg/a
Export: 47Tgfa
40W^
J ) 43Cement
USPSFA
Flows [Tg/a]
Stocks [Tg]
Figure 2-1. Major world phosphorus flows in 2009, including impurities in the
bottom left corner.
Note for figure: Boxes indicated major processes. Arrow sizes correspond to relative
flow rates. Numbers close to arrows correspond to the Flow Numbers given in Table 2-3.
Numbers in ovals correspond to phosphorus flow amounts in Tg. Red inputs are from
mining. Black arrows indicate internal flows and other uses. Green Inputs are from
Nature. Blue outputs are potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery. The purple
arrows show organic recycling to crops. Abbreviations: a: annual cycle; Atm:
Atmosphere; dStock: Change in Stock; E: Export; Er: Erosion; FdAn: Animal Protein
Feed; I: Import; Mfr: Manufacturing; MtDairy: Meat & Dairy; Org: Organic; P:
Phosphorus; PRock: Phosphate Rock; Rec: Recycle; SFA: Substance Flow Analysis;
Suppl: Supplement; Tg: Teragram; W: Waste; Wtr: Weathering.
34


Figure 2-2. Major U.S. phosphorus flows in 2010, including impurities in the bottom
left corner.
Note to figure: Boxes indicated major processes. Arrow sizes correspond to relative flow
rates. Numbers close to arrows correspond to the Flow Numbers given in Table 2-4.
Numbers in ovals correspond to phosphorus flow amounts in Teragrams (1 Tg =
1,000,000 metric tons). Red inputs are from mining. Black arrows indicate internal
flows, other uses and exports. Green Inputs are from Nature. Blue and Orange Sinks are
potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery. Blue Sinks go to sewers and waterways,
while Orange Sinks go to landfills. The purple arrows show organic recycling to crops
and animals. Abbreviations: a: annual cycle; Atm: Atmosphere; dStock: Change in
Stock; E: Export; Er: Erosion; I: Import; Mfr: Manufacturing; MtDairy: Meat & Dairy;
Org: Organic; P: Phosphorus; Ptn: Animal Protein Feed; PRock: Phosphate Rock; Rec:
Recycle; SFA: Substance Flow Analysis; Suppl: Supplement; Tg: Teragram; W: Waste;
Wtr: Weathering.
Note that for global flows in Figure 2-1 as well as U.S. flows in Figure 2-2, red
inputs are from mining, which includes both phosphate rock and impurities. Black
35


arrows indicate internal flows and other uses, and are significant and many. Green Inputs
are from Nature, and comprise some of the largest flows, comparable to phosphate rock
mining. Blue and orange outputs are potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery, with
blue arrows going to wastewater and waterways, and orange arrows going to landfills.
The purple arrows show organic recycling between crops, farms and households, and
show that there is already a great deal of internal recycling of phosphorus occurring.
From reviewing Table 2-2 and Figure 2-1 (World) and Figure 2-2 (US), it is
visible that Sinks are very large, equivalent to all the phosphorus Inputs minus the few
that go to other uses. It should be noted that this model is a simplification, and assumes a
steady state system. All wasted phosphorus is assumed to be an opportunity for savings.
While this is true, it is obvious that some areas of savings will be easier than others. For
instance, saving phosphorus wasted from mining and transportation isnt possible except
for the mines actually producing the phosphate ore and the companies transporting it.
However, this article is meant to highlight areas of possibilities for future phosphorus
sources. The possible amount of savings of phosphorus is much higher than that input
from mining because so much is added by nature.
36


Impurity Inputs
Ph Rock
Nature
Recycle
Coal
Steel
Concrete
Figure 2-3. World Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as
impurities in resources. Data Source: this research
Figure 2-4. U.S. Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities
in resources. Data Source: this research
As seen from Figure 2-3 for global and Figure 2-4 for U.S. phosphorus inputs,
there is a very significant amount of phosphorus available in basic infrastructure items
like cement, coal and steel. This is the first study to include all three inputs, from
phosphate rock, nature and impurities at the global level.
37


As may be expected, phosphate rock provides a large amount (about one third) of
phosphorus inputs. As many studies review just phosphate rock, its visible that they are
missing major phosphorus flows. Nature inputs of about one-quarter show the critical
resource necessary for keeping the system going. Note from almost a third of total inputs
of phosphorus is lost to erosion each year. However, this is also the largest place to save
lost phosphorus. Also found from farms is a considerable loss of phosphorus to crop
residues. There are current efforts to retain this phosphorus through the use of soil
erosion minimization techniques, no-tilling agriculture and other best practices (Reviews
provided by Brauman et al., 2013, (Gutierrez Boem et al., 2008). Additional P losses
from farms are that in manure and urine not recycled from livestock. Recovery of animal
waste is already done in many areas and numerous pilots are under way to recover
struvite, a natural forming phosphorus-rich fertilizer, from the waste (Greaves, Hobbs,
Chadwick, & Haygarth, 1999). Also, struvite can be recovered from human waste to
wastewater, comprising an amount close to recycled flows. Losses from fertilizer
manufacturing and crop processing could be incrementally improved in these facilities.
Household composting could be increased from the current 1% with the additional 1%
currently going to landfills. It should be noted that recycled inputs (about 5%) come
from manure and compost, and their origin is from both phosphate rock and nature.
While phosphorus in impurities is much less than in phosphate rock or nature, they are a
significant amount which shouldnt be overlooked. While this is small, its 6-7% of total
inputs, on the same magnitude as composting and wastewater recycling. In summary,
many opportunities exist to increase efficiency and recycling in a way to greatly reduce
38


phosphorus wasting, and a viable source not considered on a global scale, phosphorus in
impurities, is larger than would be thought.
2.5 Discussion
These global and U.S. phosphorus flow inventories shed light on the importance
of nature and impurity inputs into the phosphorus cycle. Impurity inputs are 13% of total
phosphorus inputs for the world and 7% of total inputs for the US. Impurity inputs
equate to 33% of phosphate rock inputs at the world level, and 15% at the U.S. level.
Impurities are comparable to the flows that go to wastewater, which is the focus of many
current phosphorus recovery studies. A vast amount of phosphorus, larger than the input
of fertilizer to farms, is lost with the topsoil and fertilizer washed from farms to
waterways annually. The amount of phosphorus found in infrastructure impurities is also
significant, and is higher than that which is currently recycled in the farming system. The
main sources for phosphorus savings include efficiency measures, especially at the farm
(See Braumen et al., 2013, for a detailed review of farm measures), recycling waste and
utilizing phosphorus in impurities, especially in fly ash.
As has been shown by recent increases in the price of phosphorus, phosphorus is a
finite resource which should be used efficiently. Globally phosphorus should be used
wisely and recycle what is used. At the national and local scale good phosphorus
management helps local waterways and lessens reliance on phosphate rock. The
approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the global and U.S. flows of
phosphorus and places where recovery and efficiencies can be made, with newest
additions at the impurities level. There are a great many opportunities through
efficiencies, recycling, and the use of impurities to decrease the worlds reliance on
39


nonrenewable phosphate ore. Impurities, especially fly ash, can become a significant
new source of phosphorus for the worlds food system, and should be considered as
phosphate ore becomes increasingly scarce. Also note, all of these mitigation measures
are production-based, meaning they look at strategies for producing phosphorus.
Quantifying strategies that look at changing demand, and seeing how that affects
phosphorus flows are necessary.
2.6 Supporting Information
Table 2-2 in the main text showed a summary of major global 2009 and U.S. 2010
flows of phosphorus, categorized by flow types. Table 2-3 shows all global phosphorus
flows, Table 2-4 list U.S. phosphorus flows, along with detailed calculation sources.
Table 2-3. Detailed Global phosphorus flows in 2009. Calculation source listed.
# Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source
(1) Mining Input Ph Rock 1 Ph rock to Fert 17.5 1
Item P Other Use 2 Ph rock to Other 4.3 2
Input Ph Rock 3 Net Ph Rock import 0.0 3
Sink Sewer 4 Soap 0.9 2
Item P Other Use 5 Other Uses 0.4 2
Item P Internal 6 Ph Rock to Fert Mfg 18.6 3
Sink Landfill 7 Waste-Mine, Fert/Soap 1.9 2
Input Ph Rock 8 From Inv-Ph Rock 0.0 1
(2) Fertilizer Item P Trade Flow 9 Export Fertilizer 0.0 3
Item P Trade Flow 10 Add to Inv-Fert (0.3) 4
Item P Internal 11 P Fert to crops 14.1 4
Input Ph Rock 12 P feed additive 2.8 5
Sink Landfill 13 Waste Fert Mfg 2.0 2
(3) Crop Input Nature 14 Atmospheric Deposit 0.4 6
farming
Input Nature 15 Uptake by hay 1.4 7
Input Nature 16 Weathering 1.7 6
Input Nature 17 Soil to Erosion thru Farm 10.5 3
Item P Trade Flow 18 Export Crops 0.0 3
Item P Internal 19 Crop processing 4.6 8
Item P Trade Flow 20 Add to Inv-Crops (0.1) 4
Item P Internal 21 Feed and hay 5.8 8
Sink Waterway 22 Erosion runoff 17.2 6
40


Table 2-3, Continued.
# Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source
Sink Landfill 23 Waste-Crop residues 2.4 6
Sink Recycle 24 Residues to Recycle 4.9 6
(4) Crop Item P Other Use 25 Other Uses-Crops 0.8 4,8
processing Sink Landfill 26 Waste-Crop Processing 0.4 6
Item P Internal 27 Food and pet food 3.3 3
Input Nature 28 Grazing input 3.3 7
Livestock Item P Trade Flow 29 Export Animal 0.0 3
processing Item P Trade Flow 30 Add to Inv Animal 0.0 3
Sink Recycle 31 Manure 1.8 7
Input Recycle 32 Animal protein feed In 1.1 7
Sink Recycle 33 Animal protein feed Out 1.1 7
Item P Internal 34 Meat & dairy 0.3 3
Input Recycle 35 Organic Recycling 6.8 3
Sink Landfill 36 Waste-Animal Proc 5.7 3
Sink Waterway 37 Phosphorus to pasture 4.0 7
Sink Recycle 38 Compost 0.0 7
(5) Household Sink Sewer 39 HH Pto Sewer 2.7 7
Sink Landfill 40 HH P to Landfill 0.9 3
Input Impurity 41 Coal 3.8 9,10
Input Impurity 42 Steel Inputs 1.5 11,12,13
Input Impurity 43 Concrete 1.7 14,15
Item P Trade Flow 44 Infrastructure 4.7 3
Item P Trade Flow 45 Export 0.0 3
Sink Stock infr 46 Infrastructure P Stock 1.4 3
Sink Landfill 47 Waste infrastructure 0.9 7
Input 52
Sink 48
Item P 57
In-Out Difference: 4.12
Data & Calculation Sources:
1 I FA (2013)
2 Villalba et al. (2010)
3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work
4 FAO (2013)
5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010
6 Liu et al. (2008)
7 Suh & Yee (2011)
8 EU (2013)
9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production
10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971)
11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics
12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics
13 Matsubae-Yokoyama et al. (2009)
14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook
15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P205 in Cement. 43.62% P in P205
41


Table 2-4. Detailed U.S. Phosphorus flows in 2010. Calculation source listed.
# Process Flow Category # Flow Explanation Tg Source
(1) Mining Input Ph Rock 1 Ph rock to Fert, Soap 3.218 1
Item P Other Use 2 Ph rock for Other 0.481 2
Input Ph Rock 3 Net Ph Rock import 0.266 3
Sink Sewer 4 Soap Mfg 0.015 2
Item P Other Use 5 Other Uses/Soap Exp 0.012 2
Item P Internal 6 Ph Rock to Fert Mfg 3.777 3
Sink Landfill 7 Waste-Mine, Fert/Soap 0.327 2
Input Ph Rock 8 From Inv-Ph Rock 0.165 1
(2) Fertilizer Item P Net Exports 9 Export Fertilizer 0.900 3
Sink Waterway 9B Fert to Other Uses 0.370 3
Item P Net Exports 10 Add to Inv-Fert 0.364 4
Item P Internal 11 P Fert to crops 1.626 4
Input Ph Rock 12 P feed additive 0.471 5
Sink Landfill 13 Waste Fert Mfg 0.044 2
(3) Crop farming Input Nature 14 Atmospheric Deposit 0.072 6
Input Nature 15 Uptake by hay 0.190 7
Input Nature 16 Weathering 0.290 6
Input Nature 17 Soil to Erosion thru Farm 1.737 3
Item P Net Exports 18 Export Crops 0.529 3
Item P Internal 19 Crop processing 0.400 8
Item P Net Exports 20 Add to Inv-Crops 0.007 4
Item P Internal 21 Feed and hay 0.738 8
Sink Waterway 22 Erosion runoff 2.206 6
Sink Landfill 23 Waste-Crop residues 0.284 6
Sink Recycle 24 Residues to Recycle 0.873 6
(4) Crop processing Item P Other Use 25 Other Uses-Crops 0.086 4,8
Sink Landfill 26 Waste-Crop Processing 0.036 6
Item P Internal 27 Food and pet food 0.278 3
Input Nature 28 Grazing input 0.406 7
Livestock Item P Net Exports 29 Export Animal 0.012
processing 3
Item P Net Exports 30 Add to Inv Animal 0.002 3
Sink Recycle 31 Manure 0.245 7
Input Recycle 32 Animal protein feed In 0.127 7
Sink Recycle 33 Animal protein feed Out 0.127 7
Item P Internal 34 Meat & dairy 0.308 3
Input Recycle 35 Organic Recycling 1.121 3
Sink Landfill 36 Waste-Animal Proc 0.500 3
Sink Waterway 37 Phosphorus to pasture 0.548 7
Sink Recycle 38 Compost 0.003 7
42


Table 2-4, Continued. # Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source
(5) Household Sink Sewer 39 HH Pto Sewer 0.434 7
Sink Landfill 40 HH P to Landfill 0.149 3
Input Impurity 41 Coal 0.542 9,10
Input Impurity 42 Steel Inputs 0.035 11,12,13
Input Impurity 43 Concrete 0.035 14,15
Item P Net Exports 44 Infrastructure 0.000 3
Item P Net Exports 45 Export 0.033 3
Sink Stock infr 46 Infrastructure P Stock 0.031 3
Sink Landfill 47 Waste infrastructure 0.549 7
Input Input 8.677
Sink Sink 6.741
Item P Item P 9.554
In-Out Difference: 1.936
Data & Calculation Sources:
1 I FA (2013)
2 Villalba et al. (2010)
3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work
4 FAO (2013)
5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010
6 Liu et al. (2008)
7 Suh & Yee (2011)
8 EU (2013)
9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production
10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971)
11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics
12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics
13 Matsubae-Yokoyama et al. (2009)
14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook
15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P205 in Cement. 43.62% P in P205
43


3 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S.
Phosphorus Flows
3.1 Abstract
Quantifying phosphorus flows is an important step to regional waterway and global
nutrient sustainability. This project starts with a production-based inventory of the US,
and then creates a Demand-Side Environmental B Vector for Phosphorus which is used
to track the direct and indirect flows of phosphorus for all 440 sectors in the 2010
IMPLAN U.S. economic input-output tables. The vector is used in an Economic Input
Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) to calculate direct and supply chain
phosphorus use for each sector. Reviews are made of aggregate economic sectors in
terms of overall phosphorus use and intensity. For Total U.S. sector demands, Plant
crops (3.22 mt P/$M), Animals (1.97 mt P/$M) and Food Services (0.28 mt P/$M) are
understandably intense, but surprisingly the Textiles (0.51 mt P/$M), Construction (0.23
mt P/$M) and Wood (0.22 mt P/$M) are more intense then Fertilizer and Chemicals (0.18
mt P/$M). However, there is significant phosphorus use in these sectors due to usage of
phosphorus-containing items in the supply chain. A significant amount of phosphorus
use is found in the supply chain of U.S. industries (46%), showing that supply chain
effects should not be ignored. These results can be used in the U.S. to see the phosphorus
footprint of different sector demands. This methodology can be used for finding demand-
based impacts of any environmental resource.
3.2 Introduction
Phosphorus (P) is a vital, limited resource, with fertilizer already too expensive
for half the worlds population (Bufe, 2011). As seen from Figure 1-3, since its
discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, POT ) has increased over the
44


years to meet rising demand (Jasinski, 2013). Only in the late 1940s, however, did
inorganic fertilizer production begin (Mackenzie, Ver, & Lerman, 2002). Fertilizer
production uses about 80% of phosphate mined, with the remainder going into detergents
and animal feed (Steen, 1998). Reserves are estimated to run out in 60 (Dery &
Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates.
While there is uncertainty in the estimates of phosphate reserves, increasing prices and
decreasing reserves push for recycling of this essential, non-renewable resource.
The quality of P ore has steadily decreased (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010), and P ore
contains increasing levels of contaminants, becoming more difficult and expensive to
remove (Driver et al., 1999). Additionally, the worlds P reserves are located in very few
places, making future availability of P at competitive prices less reliable (Van
Kauwenbergh, 2010).
This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often
the limiting nutrient in water bodies (OConnor & Chinault, 2006). Excess nutrients in
the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a bad taste
and odor to the water. Large floating blooms get concentrated by wind action and disrupt
recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and
can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophication, P can stimulate the
growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002). Therefore many wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999).
Due to the increasing importance of this element, phosphorus flow compilations
have been done at the city, regional, country and worldwide levels. These studies include
environmental assessments (LCAs, eco footprints, etc.), material flow analyses (MFAs)
45


and substance flow analyses (SFAs). Global and national phosphorus flow studies have
been done in aggregate (world production based (Villalba et al., 2008) or in industry
sectors (Food in the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011); (Xue & Landis, 2010)). However, these
studies dont address embodied P as it flows through supply chain of specific industries
within an economy. Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of the
phosphorus demand, significant flows go to other goods and infrastructure items
(Matsubae-Yokoyama et al., 2009).
A few authors have used input-output analysis to assess the impact of economy-
wide flows of nutrients on the environment. For instance, Sleeswijk et al. (2008)
completed a normalization of EIO-LCAs at the global and European level for the
reference year 2000 for 15 impact categories, including eutrophication caused by both
phosphorus and nitrogen. The study only reviewed fertilizer and manure crop
applications, grouped all eutrophication indicators together, and wasnt calibrated to the
LIS. The Carnegie Mellon University EIO-LCA (Cicas, Matthews, & Hendrickson,
2006) incorporates the EPA TRACI database to give eutrophication indicators for the US.
However, this model doesnt provide phosphorus data individually, and only reviews
fertilizer applications. Other researches have reviewed flows of important items through
the economy like water (Blackhurst 2011), land use (Costello, 2010), carbon (Singh and
Bakshi, 2013) and nitrogen (Singh and Bakshi, 2013B), but phosphorus wasnt reviewed.
No known literature to date has covered the topic of non-fertilizer phosphorus using the
input-output analysis framework.
The main contribution of this research is that it tracks phosphorus flows in 440
sectors of the U.S. 2010 economy, including phosphate rock, natural phosphorus inputs
46


from soil, and P inputs to the economy in the form of mineral impurities. Inputs of
phosphorus (as phosphate rock, nature, impurities, and organic recycling) are computed
for 24 sectors of the U.S. economy, and combined with the materials requirement of the
Total Requirements Matrix of the U.S. Economy to generate the Production Phosphorus
Intensity Factor Vector, IFP, for any unit of economic demand in the U.S. Economy.
Barriers to vector creation are discussed, including data allocation and availability. This
current work looks at all phosphorus inputs or sources to the economy. Future work
will look at the fate and sinks for phosphorus.
3.3 Method
3.3.1 Overview
This study looks to create an environmental vector which represents the direct and
upstream phosphorus for the U.S. final economic demand, which is named here as the
U.S. Phosphorus Footprint. To calculate the U.S. Phosphorus footprint, the following
methodology was used: first, a phosphorus inputs to production inventory is completed
for 24 core sectors where phosphorus enters the economy. Second, these input flows are
used, along with the U.S. Production Economic Value vector, to create a Phosphorus
Input Intensity Factor of Production vector, PUFP. This vector is coupled with the U.S.
economic input-output tables to complete an EIO-LCA, producing the full phosphorus
footprint for the demands of the U.S. economy. This phosphorus footprint of the U.S.
economy represents the pre-consumption of food and other products. It allows one to
look at any of the 440 U.S. demand sectors or groupings of sectors to see which have a
high phosphorus intensity, as well as which have a high overall phosphorus footprint.
47


Also, the methodology developed here allows one to look at the phosphorus input source
for the demand from a sector or grouping of the U.S. economy.
3.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors
Significant phosphorus flows were defined as those that were 1% or more of the
global phosphorus mining industry. Material flows for these phosphorus-containing
items (fertilizer, food, etc.) were found through international data collection and trade
organizations. Phosphorus flows were obtained by multiplying the mass flow of
phosphorus-containing commodities by published phosphorus-content factors. Monetary
U.S. production value data came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996). Raw
material flow data for agriculture came from the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAOSTAT, 2011). Slight inconsistencies between production and trade flows, as well
as within agricultural usage groups were normalized for consistency and to avoid double-
counting. Material flow data for coal came from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA, 2011). Iron, Cement and Lime flow data was sourced from the
U.S. Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the
respective minerals. Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al.
(2008).
Plant phosphorus content was calculated on a dry basis. Dry material content
came for most crops (Sectors 1-6, 9) from Liu et al. (2008), for nuts from Trapp et al.
(2003), for tobacco from Drake (2013), and for cotton from Anthony and Mayfield
(1995). Forest products were assumed to contain 50% moisture on a wet basis from
Cutshall (2012) giving a dry material content of 67% (Siau, 1984).
48


Phosphorus content for most crops came from Smil (2000) and for cotton from an
average of: Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robinson (1986), Hocking and Meyer
(1991). Total fertilizer nutrient material flow of 37 Tg was calculated based on FAO
phosphate fertilizer flows and USDA phosphorus contents (USDA, 2013). Phosphorus
content for forest products (Sectors 15-16) was a calculation based on a 50% carbon
content of dry material from Lamlom and Savadge (2003) and 0.0014% phosphorus to
carbon ratio from Williams and Da Silva (1997).
Detailed sources for the monetary flow, material flow, dry material content and
phosphorus content data collected are explained in the Supporting Information (SI). A
summary of these results is provided in Table 3-1 below with the 24 core phosphorus
production sectors, including phosphorus inputs for each sector, the sectors monetary
production value and the final computed PIIFprod value.
3.3.3 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors
Significant phosphorus flows were assigned to 24 specific Core Production
Sectors where the phosphorus entered the economy (agriculture, forestry, fertilizer, soap,
coal, iron, cement and lime). Fertilizer and Soap are used as representatives of the
phosphate rock mining sector, as explained below in the Data Challenges section. This is
because 98% of mined phosphate rock is used by the fertilizer and soap industries
(Villalba et al., 2008). Primary phosphorus input flows were inventoried for all 24 Core
Production Sectors. No upstream phosphorus inputs were included for a commodity
which was an independent sector (for example, fertilizer is its own sector, so no fertilizer
inputs were included as an upstream flow for other commodities), because those inputs
would be covered through the EIO-LCA, the next step of this study. Embodied flows
49


included upstream non-monetary (hidden) inputs, like losses to erosion. Also, upstream
losses were included for goods where those inputs werent accounted for elsewhere (like
fertilizer production losses and upstream mining phosphate rock production losses were
included in the fertilizer sector). All phosphorus flows in the economy were included,
incorporating inputs from mining, nature, impurities and recycled organics. As an
example of the methodology, the Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory for
Grain doesnt include fertilizer inputs, but does include hidden inputs from the soil and
atmosphere. More details explaining the Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory
to Core Production Sectors is given in the SI (see Tables S1-S4).
Flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that had minimal
phosphorus flows (like tobacco, trees and lime) in order to have a complete picture of the
flows within agriculture and concrete (concretes main ingredients are cement from
limestone, water, and aggregate). Significant phosphorus flows were researched from the
literature and international data and trade organizations.
3.3.4 Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PIIFp
The U.S. Economic Production Value vector was utilized together with the
Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors to create a Production
Phosphorus Intensity Factor Vector, for the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy as
represented by IMPLAN. The Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production,PIIFprod,
for a specific core sector is equal to the total phosphorus input for the production of that
core commodity divided by total value of production for that commodity, as explained in
equation (1):
[PIIFp 0mtP/M%)\.
[p(mtP)\
[X (MS)];
(1)
50


Where i is the commodity row of each core sector, P is the production phosphorus input
for that particular core sector row, and M is the value of that core sectors production.
The total M includes the total value of that sectors production, including value added,
such as profit, taxes and payroll for the sector. An example of this methodology using
the grain core sector is given here, and follows with Table 1. The phosphorus intensity
factor for the grain industry includes nature inputs totaling 1,500,000 mt P (metric tons of
phosphorus), and recycling input totaling 800,000 mt P, summing to 2,300,000 mt P. The
total value of the grain sector production of the U.S. economy in 2010 was $60,974
million USD. The P intensity of the U.S. Grain Core Sector is therefore (1,500,000 Mt
P)/(60,974 M$) = 37.69 mt-P/M$. This is completed for all 24 Core Production
Phosphorus sectors which gives the Production Phosphorus Intensity Factor Vector.
3.3.5 Demand-based Phosphorus Footprint Economic Input-Output LCA
A U.S. Demand-based Phosphorus Footprint was created, correlating the
Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory, created above, to U.S. goods and
services demanded in 2010 using EIO-LCA. The advantage of an EIO-LCA is that it
allows one to review the entire supply chain for a product or service, without any
truncation error, which is a serious limit of process-based LCAs. Leontief first described
the total output of an economy, x, as the sum of intermediate demand, Ax, and final
demand, y, as described in equation (1):
x = Ax + y (2)
where A is the direct requirements matrix, which denotes the inter-industry flows
within an economy. Note, this methodology with Leontief is similar to the Ghosh model,
which provide similar results (Singh & Bakshi, 2013) and (Zhang, 2008). This project
51


uses the 440 sector direct requirements IMPLAN matrix for 2010 from MIG, which
closely relates to the 428 sector U.S. Department of Commerce commodity-by-
commodity input-output tables. Solving equation (2) for total output gives:
x = (I-A)"1(y) (3)
where (I-A)'1 is the total requirements (direct and supply chain) for a given final
demand, y, which is also called the Leontief, L. The Demand-based Phosphorus Intensity
Footprint, PIF|)om, for a demand of goods and services is given by the following equation:
PfFDem = PUFprod x X = (PIIFprodXI-A)"1 (y) (4)
The Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PIIFprod, has units of
metric tons of phosphorus per million U.S. dollars (mt P/$M). PIF|)om was calculated as
described above. The Demand-based Phosphorus Input Footprint, PIFoem, is given in
both direct and supply chain phosphorus use. Direct phosphorus use is calculated as
(PUFProd)(I+A)(y) and shows the phosphorus input due to direct purchases made by each
sector. Supply chain phosphorus use denotes all phosphorus encompassed within
purchases made throughout the upstream production of that good or service.
The sum of the Phosphorus Input Inventory of Production is equal to the total
Phosphorus Input Footprint from Demand, PIF|)om, which is given by Equation 4. The 24
core sector phosphorus inputs can be found by summing the rows of the resultant PIF|)om
matrix. To find the phosphorus input footprint for any of the 440 industries that make up
the economy, that sectors column is summed for the resultant P footprint matrix. This
column includes where the 24 core sectors are used in in the production of that industry,
both directly and indirectly. This methodology is explained further below. Equation 4 in
matrix format here:
52


PIIFprod vector, diagonalized
L, Total
Y, Final
X, Output
f PI IF,
Prod, 1,1
PIIF,
Prod,440,440
PIIF,
Prod
x}
X440J
(5)
Requirements Demand
^1,1 " ^1,440 yi
^440,1 " ^440,440 -^440-
The first two matrices multiplied together are equal to the phosphorus intensity. To look
at the total impact or phosphorus inputs footprint from a demand, Y, look down a column
of [PIIFprod] [L] and multiply by [Y]:
^PIIFProdl l* Y1 + (^PIIFProdl 2* L12^ Y1 + (pilFProd
1,440 ^1,440) ^1]
(6)
= PIFDem, 1 = Total Phosphorus Input Footprint due to the demand of Industry 1.
3.3.6 Data Challenges
Phosphorus Input Inventory of Production includes phosphorus used for
production of 24 Core Sectors where phosphorus enters the economy. These Core
Production Sectors dont include the sectors for Mining, Non-metallic mineral, or
Other Basic Inorganic Chemicals sectors (representing mined, refined and
manufactured phosphorus). Instead, the Core Production Sectors of Fertilizer, Soap
and demand sectors (animal feed) contain the upstream phosphorus flows from those
upstream sectors. This is due to data lacking for upstream phosphorus sectors.
Additionally, using the downstream Core Sectors makes the Phosphorus Input Intensity
53


of Production Factor Vector, PHFProd, scalable to the sub-national level, where
phosphorus flows within the mining and refined phosphorus vectors vary, but the
required phosphorus input per unit of fertilizer, soap or animal feed is fairly constant.
Also, waste from upstream flows was accounted for in downstream products where
necessary. As an example, losses from fertilizer manufacturing, as well as from
phosphate rock mining are included for fertilizer in Table 3-1.
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors
The results of the Phosphorus Input of Production Inventory for the 24 Core
Production Sectors where phosphorus enters the economy, necessary for creation of the
PIIFprod vector, is presented in Table 3-1.
54


Table 3-1. Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to 24 Core Production
Sectors in the U.S., 2010
Inputs
# Sector US Prod Mtl Flow Drv Mtl P Cone. Item P flux Ph. Rock Nature Recycle Impurity Total PUFprnfl
Units: MS Tg Tg t/t Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P mt P/M$
1 Oilseeds $34,224 101 74 5E-3 4E-1 0E+0 6E-1 3E-1 0E+0 9E-1 24.9
2 Grains $60,974 401 353 3E-3 1E+0 0E+0 2E+0 8E-1 0E+0 2E+0 39.9
3 Veges $18,747 48 5 1E-3 5E-3 0E+0 7E-3 4E-3 0E+0 1E-2 0.6
4 Fruit $21,516 23 3 1E-3 3E-3 0E+0 5E-3 3E-3 0E+0 8E-3 0.4
5 Nuts $5,910 2 2 1E-3 2E-3 0E+0 3E-3 2E-3 0E+0 5E-3 0.8
6 GH $16,510 4 3 1E-3 3E-3 0E+0 5E-3 2E-3 0E+0 7E-3 0.4
7 T obacco $1,247 0.33 0.05 1E-3 5E-5 0E+0 8E-5 4E-5 0E+0 1E-4 0.1
8 Cotton $6,267 4 4 4E-3 1E-2 0E+0 2E-2 1E-2 0E+0 3E-2 5.1
9 Sugar $2,635 54 17 1E-3 2E-2 0E+0 3E-2 1E-2 0E+0 4E-2 14.6
10 Crops-0 $25,263 6 5 2E-3 1E-2 0E+0 2E-2 8E-3 0E+0 2E-2 0.9
11 Beef $51,531 17 17 2E-3 4E-2 5E-2 1E-1 1E-2 0E+0 2E-1 3.2
12 Dairy $31,361 92 92 2E-3 2E-1 3E-1 6E-2 8E-2 0E+0 4E-1 14.0
13 Poultry $35,465 25 25 2E-3 6E-2 9E-2 2E-1 2E-2 0E+0 3E-1 7.3
14 Animal-O $23,087 9 9 2E-3 2E-2 3E-2 5E-2 8E-3 0E+0 9E-2 3.8
15 Forest $5,279 38 25 7E-6 2E-4 OE+0 3E-4 0E+0 0E+0 3E-4 0.1
16 Wood $11,736 184 123 7E-6 9E-4 0E+0 1E-3 0E+0 0E+0 1E-3 0.1
17 Fish $5,658 5 5 2E-3 1E-2 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 4.5
18 Game $3,347 2 2 2E-3 3E-3 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 7.5
21 Coal $30,059 986 986 5E-4 5E-1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E-1 5E-1 18.0
22 1 ron ore $2,698 50 50 6E-4 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 3E-2 12.2
130 Fertilizer $30,728 109 109 3E-2 3E+0 4E+0 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E+0 118
138 Soaps $66,063 6 6 3E-3 2E-2 2E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E-2 0.3
160 Cement $5,538 67 67 4E-4 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E-2 4E-2 6.4
164 Lime $5,896 18 18 1E-4 2E-3 0E+0 OE+0 0E+0 2E-3 2E-3 0.4
Sum/Average: $501,739 2,251 2,000 3E-3 6E+0 4E+0 2.70 1.25 0.61 8.68 11.82
Note. All numbers in Teragrams unless noted. Abbreviations: Cone: Concentration, M$: Million US dollars, Mtl: Material, mt: metric tons, P: Phosphorus, Prod:
Production; Tg: Teragram (1 million metric tons)
Note that the amount of phosphorus entering the U.S. economy through coal, 0.5
Tg, is more than an order of magnitude higher than iron or wood phosphorus, which have
been reported previously by others as significant flows (Iron Matsubae et al. (2009),
Wood Antikainen (2004)). To our knowledge, this is the first time that phosphorus
flows have been reported for coal through an economy, even though research has been
completed showing that fly ash can be used as a fertilizer (Bhattacharya &
Chattopadhyay, 2002).
55


For benchmarking purposes, the total input flows of phosphorus from this study
were broken down into significant inputs and compared to Suh and Yees U.S.
phosphorus flows study (2011) as shown in Figure 3-1. The relative percent differences
(defined here as the absolute value of the difference of the two numbers (xl-x2) divided
by the average of the two numbers) were taken for main categories of phosphorus flows
and flow inputs, which ranged from 3% to 90%, having an average of 38%. The
differences in flows of phosphorus are reasonable, noting that Suh and Yees values are
for 2007, and this works values are for 2010. Specifically, flows for phosphorus ore,
fertilizer and crop production decreased from 2007 to 2010. Also, this work included
hidden flows from nature not included by Suh and Yee for erosion and grazing inputs.
This works data was calibrated to FAO (2011) data values and Smil (2000) flows, while
Suh and Yee used USGS and USD A data and unidentified sources for farm residues.
Lastly, the data for this work and Suh and Yee were categorized slightly differently, so
individual flows for fertilizer to crops and fertilizer to feed are slightly different, while
total fertilizer production flows are similar.
4.5
Figure 3-1. Benchmarking phosphorus flows in US.
56


A breakdown of the phosphorus inputs to the U.S. economy is given in Figure 3-2.
7%
0%
14%
P Rock
Nature
Organic Recycle
Imp. Recoverable
Impurity in Item
Figure 3-2. Phosphorus Sources, US, 2010, 8.6 Tg Total. Abbreviations: Imp:
Impurities; P: Phosphate.
As would be expected, phosphate rock accounts for the largest portion of
phosphorus flows in the U.S. economy. However, as many studies review just phosphate
rock, its visible that they are missing very large phosphorus flows. Nature inputs of 31%
show the critical resource necessary for keeping the system going. Nature inputs include
soil erosion, which is an alarming loss of phosphorus each year to our waterways. For
impurities, those materials with impurity P which can currently be recovered (iron and
coal) are pointed out as Imp Recoverable, and those that remain in the item and are not
currently recoverable (P in cement, lime) are listed as Impurity in Item. As visible, the
majority of impurity phosphorus can be recovered with current technology.
3.4.2 Demand-based Phosphorus Use Footprint Economic Input-Output LCA
The Demand-based Phosphorus Use Footprint, P in equation 4, correlates the
phosphorus inputs to the economy to the demand, y, of the U.S. economy in 2010.
Results for PIFoem, as well as calculated Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Demand,
57


PIIFDerrb values, grouped by logical categories are included in Table 2. Results for each
sector are included in the SI.
Table 3-2. Demand-based Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S., 2010
Consumption Group Number of sectors Avg PIlFpem Range in P Intensity PIlFpem P Input
Units: # mt/$M mt P/$M Tg P
Plant Crops/Products 41 3.51 0.051-15.61 4.38
Animal Products 11 1.89 0.015-3.93 0.53
Textiles/Apparel 20 0.78 0.005 10.29 0.10
Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 23 0.14 0.003-0.61 0.65
Construction 7.0 0.37 0.019-0.72 0.54
Wood & Products 22 0.16 0.018-0.55 0.05
Fert, Soap, Chemicals 55.5 0.84 0.002-35.2 1.50
Other Goods 116 0.11 0.001-0.45 0.18
Gov/Services 99 0.06 0-2.19 0.48
Metal & Products 36 0.16 0.001-4.08 0.04
Mining/Utilities 11 0.51 0-4.9 0.23
Sum/Average: 440 0.78 0 35.2 8.68
Note: Abbreviations: Cone: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Services; Tg: Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S.l. Sorted by P Concentration
It is expected to see plants and animals group to have a high intensity. What isnt
expected are the construction, utilities and government sectors, which also have fairly
high intensities. These sectors are the unique findings of this study. The mining and
utilities sector has a great deal of phosphorus due to the mining of raw iron, as well as the
mining and burning of coal for electricity. The construction grouping has a high P
concentration due to a heavy use of fertilizer and concrete. It is assumed that fertilizer is
used when landscaping new properties. The other sectors have considerably lower
phosphorus concentrations, but all are non-zero due to the use of food and other
phosphorus items in their supply chains.
Figure 3-3 represents the phosphorus inputs that contribute to groupings of the U.S.
economy, as well as whether the phosphorus was direct or from the supply chain.
58


Metal & Products
Wood & Products
Textiles/Apparel
Other Goods
Mining/Utilities
Gov/Services
Construction
Animal Products
Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs
Fert, Soap, Chemicals
Plant Crops/Products
0.001 0.010 0.100
P Rock
Nature
Recycle
Impurities
1.000 10.000
Total Phosphorus = 8.7 Tg P Tg phosPhorus
Figure 3-3. Phosphorus Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. Note, hatching indicates
indirect use of phosphorus. Scale is logarithmic.
Phosphate rock makes up a significant portion of each demand grouping. This is
mainly due to all groupings using fertilizer or soap in their processes, directly or
indirectly. Its interesting to note that all groupings contain some amount of natural
phosphorus, due to the purchase of food directly or in their supply chains, even though
for some groupings its very small, like Construction, as well as Fertilizers, Soap and
Chemicals. While these groupings food purchases are non-zero, they are very low
compared to other purchases. Also, a few groups, notably Mining/Utilities, Metals,
Wood Products, Other Goods and Government/ Services, use a large portion of
impurities. These phosphorus impurity inputs come from raw materials and coal use. As
noted above in Figure 3-2, the majority of phosphorus in impurities is recoverable.
Nature and organic recycle inputs are also significant for the wood, food and textile
59


(cotton, leather as sources) groups, as would be expected. Note that the Education,
Health, Art, and Food Services Grouping contains a great amount of indirect phosphorus
requirements, which is as expected, because they must purchase food to provide for their
customers. Lastly, note that the indirect use of phosphorus (hatched bars) are smaller
than direct flows, but are large and make up 46% of the total U.S. phosphorus footprint.
3.5 Discussion
A phosphorus footprint is developed to describe direct and indirect phosphorus in
economic demands of the US. Mapping phosphorus inputs to economic demands allows
planners to assess the amount of phosphorus required to meet an estimated economic
demand for any or all sectors of the U.S. economy. This methodology can be used to
strategize about ways to decrease a nations phosphate ore dependence. For instance, a
proposed change in diet could be modeled through the demand sector for an economy,
effectively changing the demand for phosphorus through changing the demand for
phosphorus-containing food sectors, including primary and processed foods.
The footprint results are unique in that they consider four inputs of phosphorus,
phosphate rock, nature, organic recycling and impurities. The results show that not only
are production of fertilizer, soaps/detergents and animal and plant products important
sectors where significant phosphorus (87% of flows) is used, but that other sectors such
as utilities/mining, construction, clothing and government/services are also important. In
particular, new strategies for reclaiming P from the ash generated in utilities have been
considered. While it may be a small percentage of the overall P flow, it is of the same
magnitude as P in many other processed food sectors.
60


As has been shown by recent increases of 300% in the price of
phosphorus, this is a limited resource and should be used wisely. At the global scale the
goal should be to utilize phosphorus wisely and recycle what is used. At the regional
scale phosphorus recovery is an advantage for local waterways, as well as for less
reliance on phosphate rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of
the quantity of phosphorus necessary for a particular good or service, and can therefore
give an understanding of the quantities of phosphorus needed in different management
scenarios.
61


4 Using Economic Input-Output to Calculate Phosphorus Sources, Sinks and
Flows in the U.S. Economys Production and Consumption
4.1 Abstract
Quantifying phosphorus flows is important for national and global food and nutrient
sustainability. This project starts with a sinks-based inventory of the US, then creates a
Demand-Side Environmental B Vector for Phosphorus Sinks which is used to track the
direct and indirect flows of phosphorus for all 440 sectors in the 2010 IMPLAN U.S.
economic input-output tables. This sinks vector, coupled with a source vector published
previously, is used in an Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) to
calculate both the source and final fate of phosphorus use for each demand sector.
Analyses are made of economic sectors in terms of overall phosphorus sinks and
intensity. Phosphorus inputs to the U.S. are 8.6 Tg, sinks are 6.4 Tg, and the remaining
leaves the system through trade. For U.S. Economic demands, the majority of
phosphorus is lost to waterways (2.8 Tg) and landfills (1.8 Tg), and significant amounts
to sewers (0.5 Tg) and impurities (0.6 Tg) show that these other phosphorus sinks are
important. For U.S. sector demands, the very low amount of phosphorus going to the
unrecoverable stocks sink (0.02 Tg) shows the great potential for phosphorus recovery.
Phosphorus sink intensity for U.S. demand ranged for 11 groupings from 0.05 to 2.85 mt
P/M$, with Crops (2.85 mt/M$), Animals (1.78 mt/M$) and Food Services (0.25 mt/M$)
at the top, but surprisingly, Textiles (0.38 mt/M$), Wood (0.17 mt/M$) and Construction
(0.16 mt/M$) were more intense than Fertilizer and Chemicals (0.14 mt/MP). These
results can be used in the U.S. to see the phosphorus flows caused by individual or
aggregated sector demands. This methodology can be used for calculating demand-based
source and fate for any environmental resource.
62


4.2 Introduction
Phosphorus (P) is critical for all life, and is a main ingredient of fertilizers. It is
also a finite resource, with supplies dwindling in purity and quantity (Jasinski, 2013).
Phosphorus reserves will be exhausted in 60 (Dery & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van
Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates. While the true phosphate reserve
size may be unknown, lessened reserve size and increasing prices show a need to better
manage this vital, non-renewable resource.
This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often
the limiting nutrient in water bodies (OConnor & Chinault, 2006). Excess nutrients in
the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a bad taste
and odor to the water. Large floating blooms like those in Figure 1 get concentrated by
wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition
gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides
eutrophication, P can stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan,
2002). Therefore many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P
discharge limits (Litke, 1999).
Because phosphorus has proven to be so important for a sustainable future,
phosphorus flow studies have been completed for cities, regional watersheds, countries
and the globe. These studies include environmental assessments (LCAs, eco footprints,
etc.), substance flow analyses (SFAs) and material flow analyses (MFAs), and reviewed
phosphorus, phosphate (POT) and fertilizers. National and global phosphorus flow
studies have been completed (global production based (Villalba et al., 2008) and for
industry sectors (Food in the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011); (Xue & Landis, 2010)). However,
63


these studies dont include embodied P as it flows through supply chain of different
industries within an economy. Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of
the phosphorus demand, significant flows go to other goods and infrastructure items
(Matsubae-Yokoyama et al., 2009).
Some researchers have used input-output analysis to assess the impact of
economy-wide flows of nutrients on the environment. For instance, Sleeswijk et al.
(2008) conducted an EIO-LCA for the world and the European Union within 15 impact
categories, including eutrophication from phosphorus and nitrogen. The study only
calculated fertilizer and manure crop applications, aggregated all eutrophication impacts
together, and didnt include the US. The Carnegie Mellon University EIO-LCA (Cicas et
al., 2006) integrates the EPA TRACI toxic release database to give eutrophication
indicators for the US. However, this model doesnt provide phosphorus data
individually, and only reviews fertilizer applications. Other researches have calculated
flows of important items through the economy such as carbon (Singh and Bakshi, 2013)
and nitrogen (Singh and Bakshi, 2013B) water (Blackhurst 2011) and land use (Costello,
2010), and a phosphorus footprint vector for sources was recently completed by Knight
and Ramaswami (unpublished). However, no known literature to date has covered the
topic of non-fertilizer phosphorus fate using the input-output analysis framework.
The main contribution of this research is that it tracks phosphorus flows in 440
sectors of the U.S. 2010 economy, from inputs through final fate, and couples these flows
with economic data, such that future flow analyses can be completed without a full SFA
being necessary. Final fate of phosphorus inputs is computed for 24 sectors of the U.S.
economy, and combined with the materials requirement of the Total Requirements Matrix
64


of the U.S. Economy to generate the Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of
Production, PSrFProd, for any unit of economic demand in the U.S. Economy. Challenges
to vector creation are reviewed, including data allocation and availability. This current
work looks at all phosphorus final fate or sinks from the economy. Previous work
looked at the sources of phosphorus to the U.S. economy (Knight and Ramaswami,
unpublished).
4.3 Method
4.3.1 Overview
This study looks to create an environmental vector which represents the direct and
upstream phosphorus for the U.S. final economic demand, and connects these to their
final fate, which is named here as the U.S. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint. To calculate the
U.S. Phosphorus sinks footprint, this is the methodology used: first, the phosphorus
inputs to production inventory of 24 core sectors where phosphorus enters the economy
(Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished) is coupled with a full Substance Flow Analysis
for phosphorus to find final P fate. Second, these input flow final fates are used, along
with the U.S. Production Economic Value vector, to create a Phosphorus Sinks Input
Intensity of Production Factor Vector, PSIFprod. This vector is coupled with the U.S.
economic input-output tables to complete an EIO-LCA, producing the full phosphorus
sinks footprint for the demands of the U.S. economy. This phosphorus sinks footprint of
the U.S. economy represents the final fate of food and other products. It allows one to
look at any of the 440 U.S. demand sectors or aggregates of sectors to see which have the
highest phosphorus sinks intensity, as well as which have the highest total phosphorus
sinks footprint. In addition, this methodology enables one to review phosphorus sinks
65


linked to the demand from a sector or sector grouping of the U.S. economy. Lastly, by
looking at the relative contribution of each input and sink of the 24 core sectors, these
vectors can be used to evaluate the life cycle flow of phosphorus in any sub region of the
U.S. economy using only economic data.
4.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors and Final Fate
Significant phosphorus input flows were defined as those that were 1% or more of
the global phosphorus mining production. Production and trade flows (import, export,
inventory and use) of these items (fertilizer, food, etc.) were inventoried from industry
trade groups and U.S. and international data collection organizations. Phosphorus flows
were obtained by multiplying the mass flow of phosphorus-containing commodities by
published phosphorus-content factors. Monetary U.S. production value data came from
MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996). Fertilizer flow data came from the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) and was checked against data from the
USGS (2013) and the USDA (2012). Raw material flow data for agriculture came from
the USDA (2012) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011). Minor
inconsistencies between production and trade flows, as well as within primary and
processed agricultural groups were normalized for consistency and to avoid double-
counting. Material flow data for coal came from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA, 2011). Iron, Cement and Lime flow data was sourced from the
U.S. Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the
respective minerals. Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al.
(2008). Phosphorus and moisture content were calculated as given previously (Knight
and Ramaswami, unpublished).
66


The full life cycle of phosphorus-containing items was completed using a
Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) to find the final fate for each core sector input. Food
item flow values were calculated with the Commodity Trade Balance and Food Balance
worksheets from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011). Most
commodity flow data was found as described above. However, for some soap and
cement flows, monetary U.S. production value data was used as a proxy for physical
flows, and came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996). The monetary flow
data was coupled with price data from Villalba et al. (2007) for soap and the USGS
(2013) for cement. Previously published phosphorus SFAs were used for some unknown
values. These include Suh and Yee (2011) and Liu et al. (2008) for the U.S. Food
system, Smil (2000) for global food flows, and Villalba et al. (2008) for global industrial
phosphorus flows.
Details on the monetary flow, material flow, dry material content and phosphorus
content data collected are explained in the Supporting Information (SI). A summary of
these results is provided in Table 1 below with the 24 core phosphorus production
sectors, including phosphorus sinks for each sector, the sectors monetary production
value and the final computed PSIFprod value.
4.3.3 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors
and Final Fate
Significant phosphorus flows were assigned to 24 specific Core Production
Sectors where the phosphorus entered the economy (agriculture, forestry, fertilizer, soap,
coal, iron, cement and lime). Fertilizer and Soap were used as representatives of the
phosphate rock mining sector, as explained below in the Data Challenges section. This is
67


because 98% of mined phosphate rock is used by the fertilizer and soap industries
(Villalba et al., 2008). Primary phosphorus sink flows were inventoried for all 24 Core
Production Sectors. No upstream phosphorus sinks were included for a commodity
which was an independent sector (for example, fertilizer is its own sector, so no upstream
fertilizer was included for other commodities), because those inputs would be covered
through the EIO-LCA, the next step of this study. Flows included downstream non-
monetary (hidden) outputs, like losses to erosion. Also, upstream losses were included as
sinks for goods where those inputs werent accounted for elsewhere (like upstream
mining phosphate rock production losses were included in the fertilizer sector). All
phosphorus output flows in the economy were included, incorporating outputs to
Recycling, Waterways, Sewer, Landfill, Impurities and Stocks. As an example of the
methodology, the Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory for Grain doesnt
include fertilizer outputs, but does include hidden outputs to the soil and waterways.
More details explaining the Production Primary Phosphorus Sink Inventory to Core
Production Sectors is given in the SI (see Tables S1-S4).
Flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that had minimal
phosphorus flows (like tobacco, trees and lime) in order to have a complete picture of the
flows within agriculture, concrete and steel (concretes main ingredients are cement from
limestone, water, and aggregate, while steel inputs are iron ore, coal and limestone).
Significant phosphorus flows were included from the literature as well as national and
international data and trade organizations.
68


4.3.4 Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of Production, PSIFprod
The U.S. Economic Production Value vector was utilized together with the
Phosphorus Sink Inventory to Core Production Sectors to create a Phosphorus Sinks
Intensity Factor of Production Vector for the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy as
represented by IMPLAN. The Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor of Production, PSIFprod,
for a specific core sector is explained further below.
4.3.5 Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint Economic Input-Output LCA
A U.S. Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint was created, correlating the
Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory, created above, to U.S. goods and
services demanded in 2010 using EIO-LCA. EIO-LCA is extremely useful because it
gives the ability to review the entire supply chain of a product or service (sector), without
truncation error, which is a serious limit of process-based LCAs. Leontief first described
the total output of an economy, x, as the sum of intermediate demand, Ax, and final
demand, y, as described in equation (1):
x = Ax + y (1)
where A is the direct requirements matrix, which denotes the inter-industry flows
within an economy. This project uses the 440 sector direct requirements IMPLAN matrix
for 2010 from MIG, which closely relates to the 428 sector U.S. Department of
Commerce commodity-by-commodity input-output tables. Solving equation (1) for total
output gives:
x = (I-Aj-^y) (2)
69


where (I-A)'1 is the total supply chain requirements for a given final demand, y.
The Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint, P, for a demand of goods and services is
given by the following equation:
PSFDem = PSIFprod x x = (PSIFprod)(I-A)-1(y) (3)
The Phosphorus Sinks Input Intensity of Production Factor Vector, PSIF^-cd, has
units of metric tons of phosphorus per million U.S. dollars (mt P/$M). PSIFprod is
calculated as described below. The Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint, PSFDem,
is given in both direct and supply chain phosphorus use. Direct phosphorus use is
calculated as (PSIFprod)(I+A)(y) and shows the phosphorus fate due to direct purchases
made by each sector. Supply chain phosphorus fate denotes all phosphorus encompassed
within purchases made throughout the upstream production of that good or service.
The sum of the Production Phosphorus Sink Inventory is equal to the total
Phosphorus Demand, PSFDem, which is given by Equation 3. The fate of the 24 core
sector P inputs can be found by summing the rows of the resultant P matrix. To find the
P footprint for any of the 440 industries that make up the economy, that sectors column
is summed for the resultant P sink footprint matrix. This column includes where the 24
core sectors are used in in the production of that industry, both directly and indirectly.
The methodology for creating the PSIFprod vector and PSFDem footprint is explained
further below. Equation 3 in matrix format is given below. As visible, the non-diagonal
portion of the intensity matrix is utilized for the sinks calculation. This is because the
output of one sector (coal for instance) serves as an input to the many other sectors where
coal is burned.
70


PS IFprod vector,
diagonalized
L, Total
Requirements
Y, Final
Demand
X, Output
PS IF,
Prod, 1,440
PSIF,
Prod,440,1
Ll,l
J440,1
PSIF,
Prod
x}
IX
(4)
440 J
^1,440
^440,440
yi
4440-
For a sink (PSrFProdi,i x Xi, mt P), the sink mass is apportioned with a negative
sign to the remaining outputs of the column of the diagonalized PSIFprod vector,:
-X440 PSFDem l 440
_______1-1,440^440_____
211-1,440^1+1-2,440^2+ '
X\ PSFl)ejn440 1
1-1,440^440
Y, I-4401 ^440 +1-440,2 ^3
0 PSIF,
Prod1440
PSIFProd440 1 0
(6)
To look at the total phosphorus sinks footprint from a demand, Y, look down a
column of [PSIFprod][L] and multiply by [Y]:
[(PSIFProdl l * * Yi + (PSIFProdl 2 L12^ Y1 + (PSIFProdl44Q Lii440) Y1
(8)
= PSFoem,! = Total Sink due to the demand of Industry 1.
71


4.3.6 Data Challenges
The Phosphorus Fate of Production Sink Inventory includes phosphorus used for
production of 24 Core Production Sectors and tallies where that phosphorus leaves the
economy. These Core Production Sectors dont include the sectors for Mining, Non-
metallic mineral, or Other Basic Inorganic Chemicals sectors (representing mined,
refined and manufactured phosphorus). Instead, the Core Production Sectors of
Fertilizer, Soap and demand sectors (animal feed) represent the upstream phosphorus
flows from these sectors. This is due to data lacking for upstream phosphorus sectors.
Additionally, using the downstream Core Sectors makes the Phosphorus Input Intensity
Factor of Production Vector, PSIFprod, scalable to the sub-national level, where
phosphorus flows within the mining and refined phosphorus vectors vary, but the
required phosphorus input per unit of fertilizer, soap or animal feed is fairly constant.
Also, waste from upstream flows was accounted for in downstream products where
necessary. As an example, losses from phosphate rock mining are included as a fertilizer
sink to landfill in Table 4-1.
Lastly, there are some cases in the production of the sink vector where the diagonal
had to be utilized. This was when the diagonal was one for the Leontief for a row, and all
other row values were zero. This was true for 25 sectors of the economy (18, 28, 34-38,
361, 364, 391, 395, 398, 399, 400, 406, 420, 423, 426, 434-440, as described in the SI),
including game, construction, rentals, private education, health, recreation, hospice,
religion, employee compensation and secondary materials. For these sectors the PSIFprod
for that row on the diagonal is equal to (-PSIFprod,ii*Xi).
72


4.4 Results
4.4.1 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors
Table 4-1 shows major flows of phosphorus in 2010, categorized by flow types,
and Figure 2-2 displays those same flows using STAN software, building on the naming
conventions from Suh and Yee (2011). From reviewing Table 4-1 and Figure 2-2, it is
visible that savings opportunities from sinks comprise 8.6 Tg of phosphorus, more than
all the phosphorus mined and imported. It should be noted that this model is a
simplification, and assumes a steady state system. All wasted phosphorus is assumed to
be an opportunity for savings. While this is true, it is obvious that some areas of savings
will be easier than others. For instance, saving phosphorus wasted from mining and
transportation isnt possible except for the mines actually producing the phosphate ore
and the companies transporting it. However, this article is meant to highlight areas of
possibilities for future phosphorus sources. The possible amount of savings of
phosphorus is much higher than that input from mining because so much is added by
nature. It should be noted that a significant amount of recycling within and between the
livestock and crop sectors is already occurring in the US. The results of the Production
Primary Phosphorus Output Inventory for the 24 Core Production Sectors where
phosphorus leaves the economy, necessary for creation of the PSIFprod vector, is
presented in Table 4-1.
73


Table 4-1. Phosphorus Inputs and Sink Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U.S., 2010
Inputs Sinks
Inputs
Inputs -Sinks
Dry P Item P Ph. Re- lm- Input P + P Re- Water- Sinks + + P
# Sector Mtl Cone. flux Rock Nature cycle purity Total Item Item cycle way Sewer Landfill Stock Total P Item P Item Item
Units: Tg t/t Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P
1 Oilseeds 74 5E-3 4E-1 0E+0 6E-1 3E-1 0E+0 9E-1 4E-1 1E+0 5E-2 6E-1 4E-2 4E-2 0E+0 7E-1 5E-1 1E+0 -
2 Grains 353 3E-3 1E+0 0E+0 2E+0 8E-1 0E+0 2E+0 1E+0 4E+0 8E-1 1E+0 2E-1 3E-1 0E+0 3E+0 1E+0 4E+0 (0.00)
3 Veges 5 1E-3 5E-3 0E+0 7E-3 4E-3 0E+0 1E-2 5E-3 2E-2 6E-3 4E-3 1E-3 3E-3 0E+0 1E-2 2E-3 2E-2 -
4 Fruit 3 1E-3 3E-3 0E+0 5E-3 3E-3 0E+0 8E-3 4E-3 1E-2 4E-3 3E-3 9E-4 2E-3 0E+0 1E-2 2E-3 1E-2 (0.00)
2 1E-3 2E-3 0E+0 3E-3 2E-3 0E+0 5E-3 2E-3 7E-3 4E-4 3E-3 3E-4 3E-4 0E+0 4E-3 3E-3 7E-3 (0.00)
6 GH 3 1E-3 3E-3 0E+0 5E-3 2E-3 0E+0 7E-3 3E-3 1E-2 8E-4 5E-3 4E-4 6E-4 0E+0 6E-3 4E-3 1E-2 0.00
7 Tobacco 0.05 1E-3 5E-5 0E+0 8E-5 4E-5 0E+0 1E-4 5E-5 2E-4 6E-5 4E-5 0E+0 2E-5 0E+0 1E-4 4E-5 2E-4 (0.00)
8 Cotton 4 4E-3 1E-2 0E+0 2E-2 1E-2 0E+0 3E-2 2E-2 5E-2 7E-4 2E-2 0E+0 6E-4 0E+0 2E-2 2E-2 5E-2 -
9 Sugar 17 1E-3 2E-2 0E+0 3E-2 1E-2 0E+0 4E-2 2E-2 6E-2 1E-2 2E-2 4E-3 5E-3 0E+0 4E-2 2E-2 6E-2 (0.00)
10 Crops-0 5 2E-3 1E-2 0E+0 2E-2 8E-3 0E+0 2E-2 1E-2 3E-2 9E-3 1E-2 1E-3 4E-3 0E+0 3E-2 8E-3 3E-2 -
11 Beef 17 2E-3 4E-2 5E-2 1E-1 1E-2 0E+0 2E-1 2E-1 4E-1 8E-2 1E-1 2E-2 1E-1 0E+0 4E-1 3E-3 4E-1 -
12 Dairy 92 2E-3 2E-1 3E-1 6E-2 8E-2 0E+0 4E-1 1E-1 6E-1 1E-1 1E-1 1E-1 2E-1 0E+0 6E-1 6E-3 6E-1 -
13 Poultry 25 2E-3 6E-2 9E-2 2E-1 2E-2 0E+0 3E-1 3E-1 6E-1 1E-1 2E-1 4E-2 2E-1 0E+0 6E-1 3E-3 6E-1 (0.00)
14 Animal-0 9 2E-3 2E-2 3E-2 5E-2 8E-3 0E+0 9E-2 1E-1 2E-1 4E-2 7E-2 1E-2 6E-2 0E+0 2E-1 1E-3 2E-1 (0.00)
25 7E-6 2E-4 0E+0 3E-4 0E+0 0E+0 3E-4 2E-4 5E-4 5E-5 9E-6 0E+0 3E-5 0E+0 9E-5 4E-4 5E-4 (0.00)
16 Wood 123 7E-6 9E-4 0E+0 1E-3 0E+0 0E+0 1E-3 9E-4 2E-3 2E-4 5E-5 0E+0 1E-4 0E+0 4E-4 2E-3 2E-3 0.00
17 Fish 5 2E-3 1E-2 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 3E-2 5E-2 7E-5 0E+0 9E-3 4E-2 0E+0 5E-2 9E-4 5E-2 -
18 Game 2 2E-3 3E-3 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 3E-2 2E-5 0E+0 2E-3 2E-2 0E+0 3E-2 1E-8 3E-2 -
21 Coal 986 5E-4 5E-1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E-1 5E-1 0E+0 5E-1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E-1 0E+0 5E-1 3E-2 5E-1 -
22 Iron ore 50 6E-4 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 3E-2 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 3E-2 0E+0 3E-2 -
130 Fertilizer 109 3E-2 3E+0 4E+0 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E+0 0E+0 4E+0 0E+0 6E-1 0E+0 4E-1 0E+0 1E+0 3E+0 4E+0 -
138 Soaps 6 3E-3 2E-2 2E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E-2 0E+0 2E-2 0E+0 0E+0 2E-2 2E-3 0E+0 2E-2 2E-3 2E-2 -
160 Cement 67 4E-4 3E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E-2 4E-2 0E+0 4E-2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 6E-3 3E-2 3E-2 6E-4 4E-2 -
164 Lime 18 1E-4 2E-3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E-3 2E-3 0E+0 2E-3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E-4 2E-3 2E-3 3E-6 2E-3 -
Sum/Avg: 2,000 3E-3 5.64 4.12 2.70 1.25 0.61 8.68 2.36 11.04 1.25 3.12 0.45 1.89 0.03 6.74 4.30 11.04 0.00
Note. All numbers in Teragrams unless noted. Abbreviations: Cone: Concentration, M$: Million US dollars, Mtl: Material, mt: metric tons, P: Phosphorus, Prod: Production; Tg: Teragram (1 million metric tons)


One of the first things to note from review of Figure 4-1 Table 4-land Figure 2-2
is that the inputs dont equal the outputs. There are several reasons for this. First, total
input and output flows for phosphate rock are included in the SFA for totality sake, and
for comparison with other studies. The steel sector is included in its totality in the SFA,
while the individual ingredients are included for the phosphorus vector (iron ore, coal and
lime). Lastly, some calculations had to be completed using monetary flow data, which
doesnt exactly correspond to physical flow data due to changes in price across the
economy (i.e., import price for fertilizer is different than the export price). However, the
SFA is still useful in that it was used to verify that, with incorporation of all imports,
exports, inventory changes and consumption, phosphorus inputs to the U.S. economy are
within a relative 5% of the outputs.
As stated earlier, because this is a compilation of the sinks for the sectors through
which phosphorus enters the economy, as opposed to a full phosphorus footprint for all
440 sectors, fertilizer phosphorus is listed in its own sector and isnt include elsewhere.
However, due to varying fertilizer and zero monetary inputs into the various animal
sectors, despite data showing fertilizer actually going to these sectors, fertilizer feed
inputs (and respective sinks to waterway) were internalized to the respective animal
sectors.
A view of phosphorus sinks from the U.S. economy is given in Figure 4-1.
75


Phosphate flows to waterways account for the largest portion of phosphorus sink
flows in the U.S. economy, followed by landfill. Waterway sinks are due solely to
farming and animal runoff, as seen by flows 22 and 37 in Figure 2-2. Landfill and sewer
flows are large and potential savings can be made here with efficiency measures
(reducing waste) and composting or phosphorus recovery at wastewater treatment plants.
Another method of recovery is for the use of coal fly ash as a potential fertilizer. Lastly,
stock sink flows are very minor, and represent phosphorus bound in concrete and final
steel. As visible, the majority of impurity phosphorus can theoretically be recovered with
less than 1% permanently lost in stocks. A future study will review the actual potential
for recovery (Ch. 5).
4.4.2 Demand-based Phosphorus Use Footprint Economic Input-Output LCA
The Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint, Ps in equation 4, correlates the
phosphorus inputs to the economy to the demand, y, of the U.S. economy in 2010.
Results for Ps, as well as calculated Ps Demand Concentration values, grouped by logical
categories are included in Table 4-2. Results for each sector are included in the SI.
76


Table 4-2. Demand-based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010
Consumption Group Number of sectors Avg PSIFDem Range in P Sink Intensity PSIFDem PSink
Units: # mt/$M mt P/$M Tg P
Plant Crops/Products 41 2.81 0.015 -12.58 3.63
Animal Products 11 1.57 0.008-5.64 0.45
Textiles/Apparel 20 0.37 0.008-1.88 0.05
Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 23 0.24 0.006 -1.1 1.18
Construction 7.0 0.17 0.008-0.3 0.25
Wood & Products 22 0.17 0.022-0.5 0.05
Fert, Soap, Chemicals 55.5 0.14 0.001-0.61 0.29
Other Goods 116 0.14 0.002-0.44 0.22
Gov/Services 99 0.07 0 -1.37 0.52
Metal & Products 36 0.06 0.001-0.18 0.03
Mining/Utilities 11 0.06 0-0.17 0.06
Sum/Average: 440 0.5 0-12.58 6.74 Note: Abbreviations: Cone: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Services; Tg: Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S.l. Sorted by P Concentration
Table 4-2 is sorted by average phosphorus sink concentration demanded by the
grouping. It should be noted that a high sink concentration can be due either to a very
low price or to a large quantity of phosphorus sink demanded. As expected, the plant
crops group economic demand has the highest phosphorus sink concentration, also
having the highest overall phosphorus sink. The animal sector has the second highest
average phosphorus concentration, due to a heavy use of phosphorus supplements and
plant crops for feed. The fertilizer and chemicals group, which includes both fertilizer
and soaps, has a low sink concentration and overall phosphorus sink, which at first seems
counter-intuitive. However, this is due to the fact that the sinks in this study have been
distributed across the other demand sectors. This methodology tends to exclude high
phosphorus-containing sectors like fertilizer which include a high demand for its own
sector. This is also the reason that mining and utilities has a low sink concentration and
77


total sink footprint, because, for the U.S. 2010 economy, while coal demand is high for
the electricity sector, its only 3% of the demand that coal has for its own sector (and only
57% of the demand of coal by the steel sector). The next two groupings, textiles and
services which provide food, make sense, because they rely heavily on plant and animal
products, but will be slightly more expensive (sink concentration is essentially the inverse
of the price of phosphorus). The next grouping, construction, is unexpected. This
grouping has a high P sink concentration due to a heavy use of fertilizer and concrete. It
is assumed that fertilizer is used when landscaping new properties. The other sectors
have considerably lower phosphorus sink concentrations, but all are non-zero due to the
use of food and other phosphorus items in their supply chains.
A mass balance is completed on the phosphorus flows, visible in Figure 4-2.
Inputs
Item P
Flow Tg P Ph Rock 4 US Economy Net Exports 2
Nature 3 ? s'
Recycle
Impurity
A
Sum:
Recycle
Loss/Sinky
Waterway 3
Sewer 0
Landfill 2
Stock infr 0
Sum: 5
Sum:
Sinks, Exports &
Recycle:
In/Out &
Trade/ltem:
0
Figure 4-2. US 2010 Phosphorus Sinks assigned to endpoints
As visible, sinks and exports are close to inputs. The difference is made up when a full
SFA is completed, as seen in Table 2-4. Note that the landfill sink is close to the size of
the waterway sink, even though waterway has gotten the majority of attention about soil
and nutrient loss. However, both landfill and waterways sinks are diffuse losses, as will
be discussed in Ch. 5.
78


Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-8 represent the phosphorus sinks that contribute to
the highest intensity and highest overall sinks connected to demand sectors of the U.S.
economy.
Sink, Recycled, 1.25 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 76% Of Total
0.16
0.14
0.12
a. 0.10
ec 0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
"O (D "O (D +J> c "O c (D co "O o 03 I) co "O "O c "O C co" CD 03 > +- 03 CtO CtO "O CD c c E CO "O "O c M 03
co CO a; co CO a; 03 3 03 CD (D _c o M 'o_ CO O O M 03 "O 03 CO 15 O E 'c Q E CD "O o 4 O O 4 03 CLO E
u o L_ o_ u o L_ o_ 03 -M l/) CD E U "ro u "O O _C (D i) c CD N o 03 CD L_ CQ C "O o u 03 CD _C "O c 03 c 03 > 03 U c o '+- 03 U 03 c c 'co D _CD 03 lJ'
CC c 03 -M M D M U LO CD
03 > u_ 4 o _o D D CD
CtO O CO U_ O "O CQ
O o_ o_ LU
a
Figure 4-3. Phosphorus Sinks, Removed by Recycling, Footprint of U.S. Demands,
2010.
D
O
Q_
"O
CD
CD
U
O
03
E
'c
03
"O
CD
CO
CO
CD
U
O
03
_Q
+j
C
cu
D
03
-M
CO
CD
QC
"O
O
O
03
U
"O
c
cu
CuO
o
Q
_Q
"O
C
ru
*3
Q.
co
O
03
>
(D
03
_Q
"O
C
03
"O
03
CD
CO
"O
o
o
M
c
CD
CD
(D
U
(D
U
03
0
1^
O
o
u
"O
c
03
co
c
o
LD
"O "O CO W> M - 03 CD L_ CD "O
O O 4 c 03 "O O £ ClO CD "O 03 E "O CD CO C CD U
"03 E O c 03 u 03 c 03 > "O c 03 CD "O C U M CO 03 'o. "a
'c 03 CD CD _Q > O C CO M D O D _o u_ o u > 4 03 CD L_ CD c c 03
_C -i* LD Q_ Q CD U
"O
c
03
CtO
c
'c
(D
Figure 4-4. Phosphorus Sinks to Waterways, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010.
79


00
o
s
era
c
-?
re
-i-
p\
h3
o
e
CZ3
S
7T

r
to
B
a
3!
>n

o
a
"t
d
05
o
re
S
a
W!
K
O
TgP
oooooooooo
bboboppppp
osjjiaioooNj^aioo
Processed animal..
Restaurant, bar,..
Processed..
Private hospital..
Fluid milk and..
Cheese
Electricity, and..
Other newly..
Frozen foods
* Not a unique..
Dog and cat food
Soft drinks and..
Bread and bakery..
Education from..
Cookies,..
Dry, condensed,..
Newly..
Nursing and..
Other newly..
Wild game..
05
5
su
3
Q.
00
ID
d
era
jo
O
T3
N
O
CO
ft)
n
O
i/
II
cn
O
o
fi)
s
era
c
re
tin
hd
o
c
05
S'
7T
03
re
re
d
o

T3
05
o
re
as
3
a
05
o
TgP
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o b
O P NJ W U1 Ol
Restaurant, bar,..
Processed poultry..
Processed animal..
Fluid milk and butter
Cheese
Private hospital..
Dry, condensed,..
Frozen foods
Dog and cat food
Bread and bakery..
Cookies, crackers,..
Soft drinks and..
Education from..
Other animal food
Nursing and..
Snack foods..
Poultry and egg..
Canned, pickled..
Soybean oil and..
Flour and malt
05
3

CO
ro

o
cn
d
era
jo
o
T3
N>
o
CO
fD
n
r+
o
i/
II
o
o
fi)


figure is listed the total phosphorus sink amount, as well how much of that amount is
H
X/l
£3*
'S
-t
o>
P
O
o
p^r
o>
o-
S
r-F-
=r
o>
K
o
"O
to
o
w

O
r"K
o
-t
o
>-b
tK
=r
o>
o
r-h
o
>
tr
rr>
K
o
"o
o
>-+)
rr>
fa
O
tr
era
c
re
c*
oo
hd
cr
o
a
cr

c
05
CZ5
5'
w
05
C/5
c
3
o

a
5'
CZ5
O
re
3
o:
s
a
K
O
TgP
ooooooooo
o!^k)Lo!tiLncri-^jbo
ooooooooo
Processed animal..
Processed..
Restaurant, bar,..
Fluid milk and..
Cheese
Private hospital..
Dog and cat food
Frozen foods
Bread and bakery..
Soft drinks and..
Cookies,..
Other animal food
Snack foods..
Dry, condensed,..
Poultry and egg..
Other newly..
Soybean oil and..
Education from..
Flour and malt
Canned, pickled..
oo
Sink Total, 6.74 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 65% of Total
Figure 4-7. Phosphorus Sinks to Stocks, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010.
TgP
ooooooooo
bbbbbbbob
ooooooooo
Oh-'NJUoj^cncn^ioo
Other newly..
Other newly..
Newly constructed..
Newly constructed..
Products & services of..
Imputed rental services..
Restaurant, bar, and..,
Maintained and..
Support services for oil..
Refined petroleum..
Oil and gas wells
Newly constructed..
Offices of physicians,..^
Private hospital services
Telecommunications
Monetary authorities.
Wholesale trade..
Education from private..
Mining and oil and gas..
Securities, commodity..
t/>
5
CO
o
n
o
o
CO
d
era
jo
o
T3
N>
o
CO
ro
n
r+
o
(/>
II
00
N>
O
o
fi)


made up by the top 20 sectors. Figure 4-3 shows phosphorus sinks for recycling, and it is
visible that the waterway, landfill and sewer sink top sectors are fairly similar to that of
recycling. It is visible that processed foods, as well as food service industries demand the
highest phosphorus sinks. Figure 4-7 shows sinks to stock. These are for infrastructure
materials of concrete and steel. While the overall size of this sink is small, it is still
useful to see that the sinks are intuitive here, in that construction industries make up for
the highest users of infrastructure, so should be at the top. It is interesting to note that the
local government services sector comes in 5th for the stocks footprint. This is probably
due to a large amount of building in 2010 among local governments. The Total Sinks,
Figure 4-8, shows similar results to that of Figure 4-3.
In Table 4-3 below, the coefficients for each of the four inputs and five sinks is
listed for each of the 24 core production sectors.
82


Table 4-3. Input and Sink Intensity Factor of Production Vector breakdowns, by Input/Sink Category, US, 2010
Avg P Ph. Re- lm- Avg P Re- Water- Sew- Land-
Consumption Group PIIFDem Input Rock Nature cycle purity PSIFDem Sink cycle way er fill Stock
Units: mt/$M Tg P % % % % mt/$M Tg P % % % % %
Plant Crops/Products 3.2 4.45 32% 45% 22% 1% 2.8 3.63 21% 50% 7% 22% 0%
Animal Products 2.0 0.55 26% 53% 20% 1% 1.6 0.45 20% 55% 6% 19% 0%
Textiles/Apparel 0.5 0.10 52% 35% 11% 2% 0.4 0.05 7% 43% 5% 45% 0%
Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 0.3 0.67 40% 36% 17% 8% 0.2 1.18 20% 44% 8% 28% 0%
Construction 0.2 0.51 86% 3% 1% 10% 0.2 0.25 7% 40% 2% 43% 7%
Wood & Products 0.2 0.05 48% 24% 11% 17% 0.2 0.05 16% 45% 4% 35% 0%
Fert, Soap, Chemicals 0.2 1.52 93% 4% 2% 2% 0.1 0.29 13% 49% 4% 33% 0%
Other Goods 0.2 0.17 56% 9% 5% 30% 0.1 0.22 9% 33% 3% 55% 1%
Gov/Services 0.1 0.47 56% 12% 6% 25% 0.1 0.52 13% 37% 5% 44% 1%
Metal & Products 0.1 0.04 15% 3% 1% 82% 0.1 0.03 4% 14% 1% 80% 0%
Mining/Utilities 0.1 0.23 4% 1% 0% 95% 0.1 0.06 3% 10% 1% 84% 2%
Sum/Average: 0.6 8.76 46% 20% 9% 25% 0.5 6.74 19% 46% 7% 28% 0%
Note: Abbreviations: Cone: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Services; Tg:
Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S.l. Sorted by P Concentration
oo
00


We expect the coefficients in Table 4-3 to be consistent across various scales
within the U.S. This could be applied to different regional scales with just economic
data, showing both the phosphorus inputs and the sinks from any demand vector. The
full breakdowns for each of the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy are found in the SI.
84


4.5 Discussion
A phosphorus sinks footprint is developed to describe phosphorus fate from the
direct and indirect economic demands of the US. Mapping phosphorus outputs to
economic demands allows planners to assess the final fate of phosphorus which will be
required to meet an estimated economic demand for any or all sectors of the U.S.
economy. This methodology can be used to strategize about ways to decrease a nations
phosphate ore dependence. For instance, changes from restaurant to eating at home could
be modeled to see the change on the fate of the phosphorus consumed.
The sink footprint results are unique in that they consider five final fates of
phosphorus, recycling, waterway, sewer, landfill and stock. The results show that the
phosphorus sinks vector, if distributing that provided from a sector to all other sectors,
has much different results than the phosphorus source vector. These results are intuitive,
in that while the fertilizer industry is a large source of phosphorus entering the economy,
it wouldnt be one for phosphorus leaving the economy in sinks.
As has been shown by recent increases of 300% in the price of phosphorus, this is
a limited resource and should be used wisely. At the global scale the goal should be to
utilize phosphorus wisely and recycle what is used. At the regional scale phosphorus
recovery is an advantage for local waterways, as well as for less reliance on phosphate
rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the quantity of
phosphorus necessary and its final fate for a particular good or service, and can therefore
give an understanding of the quantities of phosphorus needed in different management
scenarios.
85


5 Quantifying Phosphorus Footprint Mitigation Strategies in The U.S.
5.1 Abstract
This study reviews the phosphorus (P) footprint associated with production through the
U.S. economy, and quantifies the impact of different management strategies on that
footprint. Management strategies fell under two broad categories, production- and
demand-based. Production strategies do not need the use of an Economic Input Output
Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) to quantify their impact, but current potential
recoveries were used to find a total potential savings of 4 Tg. Demand strategies require
the use of an EIO-LCA to see the full direct and upstream effects of making a change in
the demand for phosphorus-providing sectors. For the diet strategy, the consumption of
the U.S. economy for 2010 and the demand for 45 primary and processed human food
sectors were used to estimate the phosphorus footprint for specific diets. The current
average diet-associated U.S. phosphorus footprint is 9 kg P/capita/year. By reducing the
individual caloric intake while still meeting individual energy requirements, the diet-
associated P footprint decreased by 34%, or 0.2 Tg. When meeting both an active
individual protein level and caloric intake requirements, the diet-associated P footprint
was reduced even more to 54%, or 0.3 Tg (but with much more difficult diet restrictions).
It was found that meat-reduction strategies which replace animals with plants for protein
and calories actually increased the footprint (Octo-Lavo increased phosphorus by 20%,
and full Vegetarian diet increased phosphorus by 12%). This was due to substituting the
calories and protein of meat with fruits and vegetables, because they have a much lower
caloric and protein content. For this reason, transitioning to a plant-based diet may be a
healthy individual choice, but this strategy is not necessarily a good phosphorus footprint
reduction strategy.
86


5.2 Introduction
Phosphorus (P) is a vital, limited resource, with fertilizer already too expensive
for half the worlds population (Bufe, 2011). As seen from Figure 1 below, since its
discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, PO4 ) has increased over the
years to meet rising demand (Jasinski, 2013). Only in the late 1940s, however, did
inorganic fertilizer production begin (Mackenzie et al., 2002). Fertilizer production uses
about 80% of phosphate mined, with the remainder going into detergents and animal feed
(Steen, 1998). Reserves are estimated to run out in 60 (Dery & Anderson, 2007) to 400
(Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates. The price for phosphate
fertilizer has increased dramatically in the last few years, as seen from Figure 1-4.
Increasing prices and decreasing reserves push for recycling of this essential, non-
renewable resource.
This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often
the limiting nutrient in water bodies (OConnor & Chinault, 2006). Excess nutrients in
the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a bad taste
and odor to the water. Large floating blooms get concentrated by wind action and disrupt
recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and
can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophication, P can stimulate the
growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002). Therefore many wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999).
Due to the increasing importance of this element, many phosphorus mitigation
studies have been completed at city, regional, country and worldwide levels. These
studies include wastewater recovery, farm management (Withers and Jarvis, 1998), land
use management and buffer zone establishment. Industrial strategies were reviewed for
87


the world (Villalba et al., 2008). While some preliminary reviews of diet strategies have
been completed for the world (Cordell et al., 2009; Cordell et al., 2013), these only
looked at a rough estimate of overall phosphorus flows to vegetables and animals. Food
management strategies have been reviewed for the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011); (Xue &
Landis, 2010)). However, these studies didnt review the effect of demand on the
embodied P as it flows through supply chain of specific industries within an economy.
Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of the phosphorus demand,
significant strategies can utilize other goods and infrastructure items (Matsubae-
Yokoyama et al., 2009).
This contribution of this project is that it calculates the demand effects of diet on
45 food-specific sectors and through EIO-LCA, on to all 440 sectors of the U.S.
economy. Also, specific mitigation strategies which include infrastructure items are
included for the U.S., which havent been reviewed before. Both production- and
demand-based strategies are compiled to generate the total P requirement vector for any
unit of economic output in the U.S. Economy. Barriers to strategy calculation are
discussed, including data allocation and availability.
5.3 Method
5.3.1 Overview
To quantify U.S. Phosphorus footprint mitigation strategies, the following
methodology was used: first, strategies were categorized as either having to do with
demand for products or production of products containing phosphorus. Production
strategies utilized the Production Primary Phosphorus Inventory completed by Knight
and Ramaswami (unpublished). Demand strategies utilized a Phosphorus Input Intensity
88


Factor of Production vector, PIIFp, which is coupled with U.S. economic input-output
tables to complete an EIO-LCA, showing full phosphorus footprint effects. Strategies
reviewed include wastewater recovery, diet, farm, detergent, fertilizer and impurities.
5.3.2 Production-Based Strategies
Much of the work necessary for this paper was first begun with a world
phosphorus flows study (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-A) a U.S. Phosphorus
Inputs of Production inventory (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-B) and a U.S.
phosphorus flows and sinks study (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-C). The
production-based strategies reviewed areas where phosphorus production caused losses
of phosphorus. These were first reviewed from the Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) of
the U.S. (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-C) for large sinks that have the potential
for recovery. These wore quantified using the production phosphorus inputs and sinks
inventories (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-B, Ramaswami, unpublished-C).
Lastly, these were reviewed against the baseline of phosphorus input footprint for
production in the U.S. for 2010.
5.3.3 Demand-Based Strategies: Diet Changes
The single largest driver for phosphorus footprints in the U.S. food demand both
domestically and abroad (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-C). Therefore, as a
representative for demand-based strategies, different diet changes were reviewed for U.S.
consumption. The methodology for this is presented here. First, the current diet of the
population is calculated. This is completed by finding the total food production of the
US, adding imports, subtracting exports and inventory, to get food supply for local use, as
given in equation 1:
89


Local Food Supply = Production + Imports Exports Inventory Additions (1)
US human food consumption is found by then removing food that is used for
feeding animals, for seed, and for other uses, as described in equation 2:
Food for human consumption = Local Food Supply Feed Seed Other Uses (2)
Next the energy content (kilocalories/kg) protein and fat content (g/kg) are found
for each type of food. These contents are then divided by the total population of the U.S.
for the given food balance year. This gives a caloric content per individual for a given
year, which can be changed to daily provisions, such as kilocalories per capita per day
available from all the grain consumed for food in the US. These calculations were
completed for 2009 by FAOSTAT (2012). This gives the current U.S. diet from a top-
down approach. There are definitely errors with approach, such as not counting wastage
at the advanced processing (TV Dinners) or household levels. However, losses from
manufacturing of primary foods (flour, plant and animal oil and alcoholic beverages)
have been included in this review.
Next the recommended calorie, protein and fat intake had to be calculated to see
how recommendations related to the current U.S. diet and what changes could be made.
There are many different recommendations on necessary levels of nutrient intake in the
literature. This research utilized USDA recommendations (2013) for calories and fat,
while Lemon (2013) was used for protein, as explained in the Data Challenges section.
For these nutrient levels a certain weight and activity level needed to be used. As
a weight estimate, the 2010 population of the U.S. was used, broken down by both gender
and age, using Howden and Mayor (2011). The average health weight for all ages was
90


calculated using both Howden and Mayor (2011) and the CDC (2003). It should be noted
that age brackets didnt always line up, so linear interpolations were used. For protein
levels, Lemon (2013) was used as noted above. For energy intake levels, USDA and
DOH (2010) was used, a moderately active individual was chosen, and an even
distribution of ages among the U.S. population was assumed. These same sources and
methods were used to calculate recommended fat intake levels, but linear interpolation
had to be used within ranges for age and protein ranges that didnt match exactly.
The next step was to look at the current diet against the recommendations and
strategize about diet changes. As all three food items, calories, protein and fat, were well
above recommended levels for healthy, active individuals, reductions in food
consumption could be reviewed. First reviewed was a reduced-consumption diet which
still meets the USDA energy intake recommendation for healthy active lifestyles (2013).
This is followed by one that is also reduced consumption, isocaloric with the first reduced
consumption diet, but which also meets the recommendations for protein levels for active
people. Isocaloric and isoproteinic diets are then reviewed which are octo-lavo and
straight vegetarian. Relative reductions in 19 broad categories were made keeping food
item levels at or above the minimum recommended levels. These 19 broad categories
were then translated to all 116 FAOSTAT food categories for reductions.
Next, the diets for these 116 FAOSTAT food sectors were coupled with the
IMPLAN 45 food sectors. IMPLAN provided the monetary flow data for the U.S.
Economy, which was used to create the phosphorus input and sink footprints for the U.S.
(Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished-A and C). While there were many more
FAOSTAT food sectors than IMPLAN sectors, the majority of the FAOSTAT sectors
91


were for primary, unprocessed foods. Therefore, assumptions were made to get basic
equivalents between primary and processed foods, as explained in the data challenges
section.
Finally, changes in food consumption were related directly to monetary
consumption for those primary and processed food categories, and the U.S. phosphorus
footprint was calculated for each of the six scenarios. Reviews were made of the
resulting monetary and phosphorus changes for each diet.
5.4 Specific Mitigation Strategies
5.4.1 Wastewater Recovery Struvite
Wastewater treatment plants receive all the phosphorus ingested by humans in the
US, as well as phosphorus in detergents and industrial chemicals washed down the drain.
As shown in the phosphorus sinks and sources article (Knight and Ramaswami,
unpublished-C), these phosphorus flows are large. Current technology at wastewater
treatment plants works to sequester this phosphorus into biosolids. However, the
phosphorus content is usually too high relative to nitrogen, and so the application of these
biosolids to farms can end up not be used and lost to waterways in the end. Also, some
strategies include chemical precipitation of phosphorus, but this is expensive and can
make biosolids unfit for land application. A newer strategy utilizing the natural
occurrence of struvite crystallization can be used to remove phosphorus as a slow-release
fertilizer, as well as keep the crystallization from stopping up sewer pipes, as seen in
Figure 5-1.
92


Figure 5-1. Struvite formation in a sewer pipe
Struvite crystallization has been able to recover 85% of phosphorus and 40% of
nitrogen flows (Mohan, 2011; Britton, 2007). The struvite formed can be sold as
fertilizer to farmers, and is much lighter and portable than biosolids (Booker, 1999).
5.4.2 Steel Slag Recovery
Phosphorus is considered a contaminant in steel, but is found in steel raw
materials of iron, steel scrap, lime and other chemicals (Matsubae-Yokoyama et al.,
2009). The slag or waste material from steel manufacturing can have phosphate (P2O5)
levels as high as 40%. Currently the magnetic field methods for recovery of the
phosphorus from slag are expensive, but are being employed in limited cases (EIA,
2013).
5.4.3 Fly Ash Recovery
Coal is a major ingredient for electricity production in the United States (EIA,
2013). While there are minimal amounts of phosphorus found in coal, it is almost all
found in fly ash. Because such large volumes of coal are burned each year, a significant
amount of phosphorus ends up in the fly ash. The phosphorus content of fly ash is
actually higher than manure (Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay, 2002). The phosphorus
in fly ash is much less soluble than in manure, and therefore less bioavailable to plants.


However, Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay (2002) have researched a way to use
vermiculture (work composting) to increase the solubility of phosphorus in fly ash,
making it a viable nutrient alternative to fertilizer.
5.4.4 Diet Changes
Diet obviously has a big impact on the food demands of a society. Since food is
the largest contributor to phosphorus footprints, it makes sense that this is reviewed as a
strategy. Reviewed here are five diets. The first is the current food supply in the US: two
reduced consumption, one octo-lavo vegetarian, and one strict vegetarian diet.
5.4.5 Landfill Barriers
Stopping waste before it gets to the landfill are reviewed from a high level. These
include losses at manufacturing, mining, transportation and at the farm. Each of these
types of losses has its own difficulties, and the possibility of complete efficiency is near
impossible, but great gains have already been made just by the price of phosphorus
fertilizer increasing by 400% in 2008, as seen in Figure 1-4.
5.4.6 Household Changes
Changes at the household level include incorporating composting and bans. These
kinds of bans have already happened in some states around the country, but could be
made more uniform (Baker et al., 2009).
5.5 Data Challenges
For the U.S. diet, only the 45 demand sectors for food were altered. We know this
isnt a true depiction of food consumption in the US, for much food is consumed in
restaurants, hospitals, schools, etc. However, this research is only to look at the basic
94


food demands. It is still believed that a useful, meaningful result is given for changes in
diet shown only through demand for the food sectors themselves. It is hoped that the
indirect demands for food can be included in future research. For protein recommended
levels, I used Lemon (2000) over USDAs Dietary Health Guidelines, as several sources
list the USDA level as much too low for active people, and Lemons research was based
on laboratory measurements of moderately active individuals.
For diet changes in the US, demands to processed foods had to be correlated to
primary foods. In order to do this, the following assumptions were made:
Assumed flavoring syrups & concentrates flow changes were equal to the
average of: sugar and Canned, pickled and dried fruits and vegetables
Assumed Com sweeteners, oils and starches flow changes were equal to the
average ofSugar and shortening & margarines
Assumed Soybean oil & cakes & other products flow changes were equal to
Shortening & margarine and other fats & oils
Assumed nonchocolate confectionaries flow changes were equal to chocolate
Assumed flour, tortillas, and bread and bakery products were equal to grain
For the data year, 2010 was used, because economic and phosphorus footprint
calculations had already been completed. FAO has not yet released Food Balance data
for 2010. Therefore, it was assumed that the food balance for the U.S. in 2010 is close to
that of 2009.
5.6 Results
5.6.1 Overall Strategies
A review of all the phosphorus mitigation strategies is given in Table 5-1.
95


Table 5-1. Phosphorus Mitigation Strategies for the US. All units are Tg P
Sink/ Loss Strategy Loss/ Sink Potential Recovery Recover- able Percent of Total Notes
Landfill Fly ash, Slag 0.5 90% 0.5 12% Slag and Vermiculture
Landfill Composting Mining, Transp, Mfg. 1.0 70% 0.7 16% Austria, Bio Crops
Landfill Eff. Struvite 0.4 50% 0.2 5% Financial Incentive
Sewer Recovery 0.4 85% 0.4 9% Already in place Soil P Svys, P Limits, Less Till, Contouring, fertility enhancements, cover
Waterway Crop 2.2 71% 1.6 38% crops/mulches
Waterway Diet Livestock 0.0 13% 0.3 8% Reduced Consumption CAFOs/fish farms w/ recovery
Waterway operations 0.5 85% 0.5 11% OR pasture reuse
Stock Stays in Stock 0.03 0% 0.0 0% Stock in Infrastructure Stays
All Average/Sum: 5.1 58% 4.1 100% Apparent Recovery: 79%
As visible from the table, there are several possibilities to use today for phosphorus
mitigation in the U.S. Mining, transportation and manufacturing waste are areas which
already have an incentive to save phosphorus, as that also saves money. The mining and
transportation amount isnt a true representation of whats possible in the US, as 7% of
our phosphate rock ore was imported in 2010. However, the efficiency and waste
recovery strategy applies to other places as well. This is evident by old phosphate mines
being reopened to recover phosphate wasted in the past (USGS, 2013). Recovery from
the wastewater treatment plant is a great possibility, and 11% of total possibilities. The
amount listed here is for the total lost to wastewater treatment plants. Current recovery
rates are already at 85%, and increasing rates are possible (Britton et al., 2007). Coal
recovery from fly ash is also very significant at 8%. As pointed out above, no other
researcher, to our knowledge, has reviewed the potential for phosphorus recovery from
96


fly ash at the national level. Matsuabe et al. (2009) has reviewed steel recovery of
phosphorus, but as visible from the Figure, for the US, this would not be a very viable
phosphorus mitigation option. Next are listed household strategies, including a
residential ban on phosphorus fertilizers, as well as a ban on phosphorus in detergents.
Farming efficiencies are next, giving the largest amount of phosphorus mitigation
possibilities. These strategies could be incentivized or required administratively of
farmers, or phosphorus trading schemes could be used, as has been done in several states
(Metro, 2011). Composting of food and crop residues can have a large impact on
phosphorus use. This has the added benefit of reduced soil loss if completed as reduced-
tillage farming (Withers, 1998). Composting of yard waste has been reviewed by Baker
(2007) for the individual household, but its visible that this would have a negligible
effect at the national level. Lastly, the reduced consumption diet is seen as a large
potential for savings of phosphorus. It should be noted that this is only applying to the
consumption of food in the US, not changing production levels for export. Diet charges
are explained further in the next section.
5.6.2 Diet Changes
According to the FAO (2013) the current diet in the U.S. provides for 3,689
kilocalories per capita per day, 113 grams of protein, and 156 grams of fat. The USDA
(2013) and the literature provided general recommendations for all three of these items,
as listed in Table 5-2.
97


Table 5-2. U.S. Nutrient Recommendations
Description Value Unit Date of Value Notes
US Population 308,745,538 capita 2010 1
Weight, US, Average, Healthy 55 kg 2010 1,2
Protein, Recommended 1.7 g/kg/d Not listed 5
Protein, US, Recommended Energy, US, Average, 94 g/capita-d kCal/capita- Not listed 5 1, 6, 7,
Recommended 2,123 d 2010 8
Fat, US, Average, Recommended 70 g/capita-d 2010 1,6-9
Notes
1 - Howden & Mayor 2011
2 - CDC2003
3-Fryar& Ogden 2012
4 - Calculation
5 - Lemon 2000
6- USDA& DOH, 2010
7 - Assume moderately active
8 - Assume even distribution of ages
9 - Assume linear interpolation within range
The actual diets reviewed are listed below in Table 5-3 for reduced consumption and
Table 5-4 for vegetarian diets. The first diet is the current diet of the US, which is simply
the average of the food quantity that goes to human consumption. As visible, calories are
about a third above recommendations, protein is about 20% above recommendations, and
fat is over twice that of recommendations. The next section is for the simple reduced diet
to meet caloric needs. These reductions are similar to the slightly different reduced
reduction diet in the next section, which includes lower reductions to meat, but slightly
more reductions in grains. This was in order to increase the protein content to that
recommended by Lemon (2011). Further, in Table 5-4, an octo-lavo and strict vegetarian
98


diet are listed. As visible, large increases of food were necessary to meet calorie and
protein recommendations.
99


100
Table 5-3. U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including two reduced consumption diets. 2009. FAO (2012).
Item Energy supply (kcal/c/d ) Protein supply quantity (g/c/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/c/day ) % Red, Red Consu m Diet Energy supply (kcal/capita/day ) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/capita/day ) % Red Diet, isocaloric, isoproteini c Energy supply (kcal/capita/day ) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/capita/day )
Pop/RDI 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70
Total 3,689 113 156 31% 2,125 69 72 12% 2,520 93 86
Vegetable 2,675 41 87 19% 1,606 31 37 12% 1,717 35 34
Animal 1,014 72 69 49% 519 38 35 11% 803 58 52
Oilcrops 66 3 6 65% 23 1 2 65% 23 1 2
Cereals -
Beer 827 24 4 20% 662 19 3 10% 744 22 3
Pulses 42 3 0 20% 34 2 0 10% 38 3 0
Roots 93 2 0 60% 37 1 0 0% 93 2 0
Vegetables 76 3 1 0% 76 3 1 0% 76 3 1
Fruit 116 1 1 0% 116 1 1 0% 116 1 1
Nuts 24 1 2 0% 24 1 2 0% 24 1 2
Stimulants 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1
Spices 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0
Sugar 603 0 65% 211 0 0 65% 211 0 0
Vege Oils 636 0 72 60% 254 0 29 65% 223 0 25
Alcohol 165 1 0% 165 1 0 0% 165 1 0
Meat 440 40 30 50% 220 20 15 30% 308 28 21
Offals 3 0 0 50% 2 0 0 30% 2 0 0
Animal Fat 102 0 12 65% 36 0 4 65% 36 0 4
Eggs 54 4 4 0% 54 4 4 0% 54 4 4
Milk 376 22 22 50% 188 11 11 0% 376 22 22
Fish 39 6 2 50% 20 3 1 30% 27 4 1
Sea Plants 0 0 0 50% 0 0 0 30% 0 0 0


Full Text

PAGE 1

QUANTIFYING PHOSPHORUS SOURCES, SINKS, FLOWS AND FOOTPRINTS: INCORPORATING PHOSPHATE ROCK, MINERAL IMPURITIES AND NATURAL INPUTS by JOSHUA NATHANIAL KNIGHT B.S. University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998 M. E ., University of South Carolina 2001 A th esis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Civil Engineering 2013

PAGE 2

ii 2013 JOSHUA KNIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Joshua Nathanial Knight has been approved for the Department of Civil Engineering by Arunprakash Karunanithi Chair Anu Ramaswami Advisor Angela Bielefeldt Jason Ren JoAnn Silverstein N ovember 8 2013

PAGE 4

iv Knight, Joshua Nathanial (Ph.D., Civil Engineering) Quantifying Phosphorus Sourc es, Sinks, Flows and Footprints; Incorporating Phosphate Rock, Mineral Impurities and Natural Inputs Thesis directed by Professor Anu Ramaswami ABSTRACT This research is the first to include phosphorus as impurities in quantifying total phosphorus flows at the U.S. and global scale (Ch. 2) At the global scale, including mineral impurities phosphate rock and natural inputs, we found 52 Teragram ( Tg ) inputs to the world in 2009 and 9 Tg to the U.S. in 2010 of which m ineral impurities contributed 13 % (world) and 7 % (U S ) proving impurities a significant resource which should not be overlooked. Of the 52 Tg of phosphorus inputs globally, 48 Tg goes to sinks, w ith 25 Tg to wastewater and waterways, 14 Tg to landfills, 1 Tg lost to stock in concrete, and 8 Tg being recycled to farms. For the U.S., 9 Tg of phosphorus were input in 2010, with 7 Tg going to sinks, with 4 Tg to sewer and waterways, 2 Tg to landfill s and 1 Tg being recycled back to farms. Embodied p hosphorus inputs were then mapped to U.S. economic demand, and the phosphorus intensity of final demand was found for 440 sectors of the U.S. economy (Ch. 3). This showed that food and fertilizer unders tan da bly comprise the most intense demanders of phosphorus (mt P/M$), but that construction, utilities and government also comprise intense phosphorus demand on inputs This research developed new mathematical methods to model phosphorus sources, sinks an d flows in an economy (Ch. 4) to analyze direct, upstream and downstream phosphorus flows with economic data and a method to evaluate phosphorus flow production and demand based interventions. This showed that food understan da bly

PAGE 5

v comprises the most inten se demanders of phosphorus sinks (mt P/M$), but that textiles, construction, and wood also comprise intense phosphorus demand on sinks, even more so than fertilizer and government, unlike the inputs of Ch. 3. This research proved to be a useful method to quickly evaluate the mitigation possibilities in an economy through just economic data, readily available at city, regional, state, country and global levels (Ch. 5) It was found that mitigation solutions could quickly be estimated from sinks found in Ch 4, with an average 76% recoverable at the world level and 79% in the U.S. using currently available best management practices. Of the total mitigation possible, 9% was attributable to a demand based strategy (reduced consumption), with the remaining at tributable to production based strategies. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Dr. Anu Ramaswami

PAGE 6

vi DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my wife and children, who have given generously to papa in orde r to finish this hard work, and they deserve many hours of love and attention to make up for my absence during this hard but meaningful road. Pie, now go sign up for more yoga of the kids!

PAGE 7

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is only possible because of the assistance, support and advice of many more than I could name in this space. Below are some of those who have made this work possible, but there are many more not specifica lly here listed, but I thank you all for your contribution s Before all I must give praise and glory to almighty God for giving me strength, perseverance a loving and caring family, a wonderful advisor, a balance with work that made all of this possible. He has and continues to bless me in so many ways. Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ, for making this happen! I would like to thank the Ramaswami Research Incentive Award, MIG, Inc., Golden Key International Honor Society Pillars of Excellence, the America n Water Works Association, MWH, the Ford Foundation, the Bernhardt Family, the University of Colorado Denver Engineering School and Dean and Metro Wastewater Reclamation District and their Scholarship Programs for providing the funding to carry out this re search. Many thanks are due to my advisor, Dr. Anu Ramaswami, for expecting the absolute best from me, which has strengthened me personally and professionally. She was also key in deriving the new Phosphorus S ink equations providing strategic direction and critical quality assurance and quality control of my methods and numbers, driving this work the to highest quality possible! Dr. Angela Bielefeldt started me on towards this dissertation early on in inviting and mentoring me to complete my undergradua te senior thesis. Dr. JoAnn Silverstein instilled in me the appreciation for nutrient recovery in and outside her wastewater class. Dr. Jason Ren and Dr. Arunprakash Karunanithi have been open to discussion, advice and approval along this

PAGE 8

viii long hard path. Dr. Bruce Janson has been much more available and helpful and quick to department. Dr. Abel Chavez provided great review, guidance and encouragement during the entire d issertation process. Dr. Krista Nordback provided guidance and templates for completing this dissertation paper. Support has also come from many of my fellow class mates and friends including Josh Sperling, Elliot Cohen, Zac Coventry, Dr. Leslie Miller Robbie and Dr. Heather Bechtold. The following organizations and their dedicated employees also deserve thanks. MIG, Inc. (IMPLAN) gave generously their monetary flow data for multiple cities, states and the entire U.S. economy. Dr. Jenny Thorvaldson and Dr. Doug Olson specifically at MIG overcame amazingly high hurdles to assist me early on in getting inputs and outputs to match through the U.S. economy, absolutely critical for making this dissertation possible. Metro Wastewater worked with us from the beginning to conceptualize solutions to the phosphorus resource and eutrophication problems. The U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Transportation provided inter community commodity flow data.

PAGE 9

ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introductio n ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 17 1.1 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 17 1.2 Rationale Literature Review ................................ ................................ .............. 17 1.2.1 Phosphorus: Scarce, Expensive ................................ ................................ ............ 17 1.2.2 Phosphorus: Waterway Pollutant ................................ ................................ .......... 20 1.2.3 Phosphorus as a Mineral Impurity ................................ ................................ ........ 22 1.2.4 Limited Tools to Quantify Flows, Sources and Sinks in an Economy ................. 23 1.2.5 Economic Input Output Models for other it ems, not Phosphorus ........................ 23 1.3 Unique Contributions of Research ................................ ................................ ........ 24 1.4 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 24 2 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S. Phosphorus Flows ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 26 2.1 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 26 2.2 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 2.3 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 29 2.4 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31 2.5 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 2.6 Supporting Information ................................ ................................ ......................... 40 3 The Significance of Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities in Global and U.S. Phosphorus Flows ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 44 3.1 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 44 3.2 Introd uction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 44 3.3 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 47 3.3.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 3.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors ................................ ................................ ... 48 3.3.3 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory t o Core Production Sectors ............. 49 3.3.4 Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PIIF P ........................... 50 3.3.5 Demand based Phosphorus Footprint Economic Input Output LCA ................. 51 3.3.6 Data Challenges ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 53 3.4 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 54

PAGE 10

x 3.4.1 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors ............. 54 3.4.2 Demand based Phosphorus Use Footprint Economic Input Output LCA ......... 57 3.5 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 60 4 Using Economic Input Output to Calculate Phosphorus Sources, Sinks and Flows in ................................ .......................... 62 4.1 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 62 4.2 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63 4.3 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 65 4.3.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 65 4.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors and Final F ate ................................ ........... 66 4.3.3 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors and Final Fate ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 67 4.3.4 Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of Production, PSIF Prod ...................... 69 4.3.5 Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint Economic Input Output LCA ....... 69 4.3.6 Data Challenges ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 72 4.4 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 73 4.4.1 Production Primary Phosphorus I nput Inventory to Core Production Sectors ..... 73 4.4.2 Demand based Phosphorus Use Footprint Economic Input Output LCA ......... 76 4.5 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 85 5 Quantifying Phosphorus Foo tprint Mitigation Strategies in The U.S. ...................... 86 5.1 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 86 5.2 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 87 5.3 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 88 5.3.1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 88 5.3.2 Production Based Strategies ................................ ................................ ................. 89 5.3.3 Demand Based Strategies: Diet Changes ................................ ............................. 89 5.4 Specific Mitigation Strategies ................................ ................................ ............... 92 5.4.1 Wastewater Recovery Struvite ................................ ................................ ........... 92 5.4.2 Steel Slag Recovery ................................ ................................ .............................. 93 5.4.3 Fly Ash Recovery ................................ ................................ ................................ 93 5.4.4 Diet Changes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 94 5.4.5 Landfill Barriers ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 94 5.4.6 Household Changes ................................ ................................ .............................. 94

PAGE 11

xi 5.5 Data Challenges ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 94 5.6 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 95 5.6.1 Overall Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 95 5.6.2 Diet Changes ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 97 5.7 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 102 6 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 104 6.1 Contributions to Literature ................................ ................................ .................. 104 6.2 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 104 6.2.1 Incorporation of Full In put Output Models ................................ ........................ 104 6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 105 6.2.3 New Area Levels ................................ ................................ ................................ 105 6.2.4 New Time Periods ................................ ................................ ............................... 105 6.2.5 Infrastructure Footprint ................................ ................................ ....................... 106 6.2.6 Mitigation Strategies: Production Based ................................ ............................ 106 6.2.7 Mitigation Strategies: Demand Based Diet ................................ ........................ 106 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 107 Appendix A ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 111 1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Input Datasets ................................ ............. 111 1.1 Phosphorus Input Datasets ................................ ................................ .................. 111 1.2 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sector s ... 112 1.3 Demand Based Complete Inventory ................................ ................................ ... 119 1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions ................................ ................................ ......... 138 Appendix B ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 140 1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Sink Datasets ................................ .............. 140 1.1 Phosphorus Sink Datasets ................................ ................................ ................... 140 1.2 Phosphorus Sink Footprint Inventory from 24 Core Production Sectors ........... 141 1.3 Demand Based Complete Inventory ................................ ................................ ... 146 1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions ................................ ................................ ......... 171

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF TABLES Table 2 1. Phosphorus Substance Flow Analysis studies done at the global and nat ional levels. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 2 2. Global phosphorus flows in 2009, as well as U.S. flows in 2010. Calculation source listed. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 2 3. Detail ed Global phosphorus flows in 2009. Calculation source listed. ................... 40 2 4. Detailed U.S. Phosphorus flows in 2010. Calculation source listed. ....................... 42 3 1. Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 55 3 2. Demand based Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S., 2010 ................................ 58 4 1. Phosphorus Inputs and Sink Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 74 4 2. Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010 ................................ 77 4 3. Input and Sink Intensity Factor of Production Vector breakdowns, by Input/Sink Category, US, 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 83 5 1. Phosphorus Mitigation Strategios for the US. All units are Tg P ............................ 96 5 2. U.S. Nutrient Recommendations ................................ ................................ .............. 98 5 3. U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including two reduced consumption diets. 2009. FAO (2012). ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 100 5 4. U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including Octo Lavo and Strict Vegetarian diets. 2009. FAO (2012). ................................ ................................ ............ 101 5 5. Effects of diet changes in the U.S. on phosphorus footprint and cost .................... 102 A 1 1. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of P roduction for Crops and Forestry in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 114 A 1 2. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 116 A 1 3. Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Goods in the U.S., 2010 ........... 117

PAGE 13

xiii A 1 4. Complete 440 Sector Demand based Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 120 A 1 5. IMPLAN Codes included in each Demand Group ................................ .............. 139 B 1 1. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Crops and Forestry in the U.S. 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 142 B 1 2. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 143 B 1 3. Phosphorus Sinks Footp rint of Production of Goods in the U.S., 2010 .............. 144 B 1 4. Complete 440 Sector Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 147

PAGE 14

xiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 1. Previous rock production peak prediction. Source: Cordell et al., 2009 .................. 18 1 2. History of World Phosphate Production. ................................ ................................ ... 18 1 3. Data on worldwide phosphate reserves, about 67,000 Teragrams ............................ 19 1 4. Historical U.S. Phosphate Fertilizer Price. Data Source: USDA (2013) ................. 19 1 5. Global Mined Phosphate Rock Intermediate Use in 2010 (24 Tg). Data Source: This Study. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 1 6. Losses along the phosphorus chain. Source: Schroder et al., 2009 .......................... 20 1 7. U.S. Applied Fertilizer Fate, 2010 (2 Tg). Data Source: this research ..................... 21 1 8. Three examples of waterway eutrophication, shown as a greenish hue on top of the water. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 2 1. Major world phosphorus flows in 2009, including impurities in the bottom left corner. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 2 2. Major U.S. phosphorus flows in 2010, including impurities in the bottom left corner. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 35 2 3. World Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in resources. Data Source: this research ................................ ................................ ................ 37 2 4. U.S. Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in resources. Data Source: t his research ................................ ................................ ................ 37 3 1. Benchmarking phosphorus flows in US. ................................ ................................ ... 56 3 2. Phosphorus Sources, US, 2010, 8.6 Tg Total. Abbreviations: Imp : Impurities; P: Phosphate. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 57 3 3. Phosphorus Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. Note, hatching indicates indirect use of phosphorus. Scale is logarithmic. ................................ ................................ ................ 59 4 1. Phosphorus Sinks, US, 2010, 6.7 Tg Total. ................................ .............................. 76 4 2. US 2010 Phosphorus Sinks assigned to endpoints ................................ ................... 78 4 3. Phosphorus Sinks, Removed by Recycling, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. ....... 79 4 4. Phosphorus Sinks to Waterways, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. ....................... 79

PAGE 15

xv 4 5. Phosphorus Sinks to Sewers, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. .............................. 80 4 6. Phosphorus Sinks to Landfill, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. ............................ 80 4 7. Phosphorus Sinks to Stocks, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. .............................. 81 4 8. Phosphorus Sinks, Sum, Footprint of U.S. Demands, 2010. ................................ ..... 81 5 1. Struvite formation in a sewer pipe ................................ ................................ ............. 93

PAGE 16

xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Avg. Average Hr. Hour CO Colorado DAP Diammonium phosphate F Fahrenheit FAO Food and Agricultural Organ ization of the United Nations FAOSTATS Online statistical database of the FAO Gg Gigagram (1 x 10 9 grams = 1000 metric tonnes) GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions GIS Geographic Information System IFA International Fertilizer Industry Association IFADATA O nline statistical database of the IFA K Potassium MAP 1 Monoammonium phosphate MFA Material Flows Analysis MT Million metric tonnes N Nitrogen NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P Phosphorus PM Afternoon SFA Substance Flows Analysis St. Dev. Standard Deviation Tg Teragram (1 x 10 12 grams = 1 million metric tonnes) TSP Triple Superphosphate UCD University of Colorado Denver UN United Nations U.S. United States of Americ a USGS US Geological Survey WHO World Health Or ganization of the United Nations WTO World Trade Organization 1 Struvite is also referred to as MAP (magnesium ammonium phosphate), but in order to avoid confusion, the common name struvite is used here.

PAGE 17

17 1 Introduction 1.1 Background P hosphorus (P) is a vital building block for all life. It has proved to be a matchless key in the agricultural system, as no substitute exists for its being a neces sary ingredient in animal feed and fertilizer. Currently waste and losses along each step of the phosphorus life cycle gives concerns both about future supplies and pollution to water and soils. With better management, big steps can be made towards the s ustainable use of phosphorus, making reserves available for future generations to use. 1.2 Rationale Literature Review 1.2.1 Phosphorus: Scarce, E xpensive Several factors drawn together show that phosphorus supply and use should be monitored. First, phosphorus is a finite, limited resource, and reserves are decreasing, as seen in Figures 1 1 and 1 2. Dery and Anderson (2007) believed peak phosphorus was reached in 1990, as shown in Figure 1 1. As seen from Figure 1 2, r eality has proved this estimate of peak ph osphorus to not be true. However, as a finite resource, there will ultimately be a peak to phosphorus availability, which is currently estimated at 2035 (Cordell et al., 2009) Second, while the U.S. historically had large amounts of phosphorus reserves, these have been depleted, and now the U.S. is no longer among the top five phosphorus reserve nations, as seen in Figure 1 3 Third there has been recent price volatility, as seen in Figure 1 4 with a 400% increase in price in 2008. Fourth there is v ery little change that can be made to make other phosphorus uses available for fertilizer, because, along with waste and losses, fertilizer already uses about 90% of the total mined phosphate rock (with attributed losses) as seen in Figure 1 3. Fifth as seen

PAGE 18

18 from Figure 1 4, the high amounts of losses along the phosphorus supply chain point to the great potential for savings through closing these losses. Increasing the use of recycled phosphorus in the U.S. and globally could help save the supply of thi s critical element and encourage a more even distribution of phosphorus regionally and world wide. Economically, diversifying the supply of phosphorus to U.S. manufacturers and sectors that depend on it would improve their resilience when faced with futur e price instability and import issues. Figure 1 1 Previous rock production peak prediction. Source: Cordell et al., 2009 Figure 1 2 History of World Ph osphate Production. Figure Note : 2012 (210) and 2013 (256) are USGS estimate and prediction, respectively. Data Source: USGS (2013) 210 256 0 100 200 300 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Production (Tg)

PAGE 19

19 Figure 1 3 Data on worldwide phosphate reserves, about 6 7 ,000 T eragram s Figure note: (1 Teragram T g = 10 1 2 grams, or 1 million metric tons). Data Source: (Jasinski, 2013) Figure 1 4 Historical U.S. Phosphate Fertilizer Price. Data Source: USDA (2013) Figure 1 5 Global Mined Phos phate Rock Intermediate Use in 2010 (24 Tg) Data Source: This Study. 74% 6% 3% 3% 2% 12% Morocco China Algeria Syria Jordan $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Phosphate Fertilizer Price, USD per Short Ton 83% 10% 4% 2% Fertilizer Losses Detergents Other Uses

PAGE 20

20 Figure 1 6 Los ses along the phosphorus chain. Source: Schroder et al., 2009 Additionally, the environmental benefits of improving e fficiency and decreasing losses would be significant. Currently, phosphorus use is inefficient along the whole life cycle, which causes problems with water pollution and wasted energy, water and other resources related to phosphorus use. Contaminants fou nd in phosphate ore like cadmium and uranium can also cause health and environmental issues. Not even looking at the total resources available or security concerns, the environmental benefits alone could justify action being taken to use this resource mor e efficiently and begin to recycle more. Synergistic benefits from better phosphorus management can be had. For example, better soil management can have climate and biodiversity benefits as well as saving phosphorus losses at the farm. 1.2.2 Phosphorus: Waterw ay Pollutant Much work can be done in the field of phosphorus conservation and management. As seen from Figure 1 7 about half of the phosphorus mined for fertilizer ends up in the

PAGE 21

21 crops it was intended for, with the remaining lo st to waterways and crop residues (and further losses occurring during crop processing and going to final consumption). Figure 1 7 U.S. Applied Fertilizer Fate, 2010 (2 Tg). Data Source: this research T hese issues are difficult to address. While several regions around the U.S. are tending towards a stabilization in soil phosphorus levels, farms continue to rely on mineral phosphorus fertilizers for crop production (USGS, 2012). Additionally, excessive phosphorus is usually applied, being a main cause for loading of phosphorus to waterways. Industrial phosphorus pollution also add s to these problems. Soil erosion carries a large amount of soil bound nature derived phos phorus into surface waters. JRC ( 2012 ) completed a model of soil erosion showing large amount of soil being lost yearly. Lastly, manure can end up in waterways either by runoff from pastures or from intensive feeding operations. All of these losses lead to excessive phosphorus levels i n fresh waters, and some studies have concluded the planetary capacity to handle phosphorus in na tural waters has been exceeded (Carpenter & Bennett, 2011) This phosphorus still works as fertilizer in waterways, grow ing plants and algae, and leads to eutrophication, or aging of waterways A lgal blooms can give a bad taste and 48% 15% 37% Crops Waterways Crop Residues

PAGE 22

22 odor to the water. Large floating blooms like those in Figure 1 8 get concentrated by wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these b looms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophication, P can stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002) Therefore many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999) Figure 1 8 Three examples of waterway eutrophication, shown as a greenish hue on top of the water. 1.2.3 Phosphorus as a Mineral Impurity Due to the high price, regionalized sources and imminent decline of phosphate ore which provides phosphorus, researchers are looking at novel ways to close the phosphorus loop. While a few researchers have looked at the recovery of phosphorus

PAGE 23

23 from steel (Matsubae Yoko yama, Kubo, Nakajima, & Nagasaka, 2009) or from coal fly ash (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971) on a regional scale, no one has looked at the opportunity of using phosphorus present as impurities as a potential resource globally, nor for these resources com bined. This is the first study to include all three inputs, from phosphate rock, nature and impurities at the global level. 1.2.4 Limited Tools to Quantify Flows, Sources and Sinks in an Economy Several authors have reviewed phosphorus flows within an urban o r regional area, tracking the phosphorus as an element as it flows through fertilizer, food, etc. These types of studies have been called either Material Flow Analyses (MFAs) or Substance Flow Analyses (SFAs). These include a handbook for doing M FA analy ses in general (Brunner and Richardson, 2004) the Twin Cities Watershed (Baker, 2011) global food P (Cordell et al., 2009), and scaled up phosphorus flows from the household level in Minneapolis Saint Paul, Minnesota (Fissore et al., 2011). These studie s can work well at the global and national level with gross trade flow data, but have difficulty when focusing at a regional or urban area. They can focus on household consumption and flows which are scaled up to the regional level, but this is difficult, reflect reality, and can incorporate scale up errors. Also, t hese studies focus on scaled consumption and flow data but input output data to track phosphorus in regional or urban economics, with the capacity to show sources, sinks, stock, recycle and exports from economic data. 1.2.5 Economic Input Output Models for other items, not Phosphorus Researchers have seen the power of the Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment, and have begun to create environmental vec tors to review both

PAGE 24

24 Environmental Burdens and Resource Intensity Factors for use with economic data. These types of vectors include water use (Blackhurst, 2011 ), land use (Costello, 2009), carbon (Singh and Bakshi, 2013) nitrogen (Singh and Bakshi, 2013) and eutrophication (Joshi, 2000, Mattila et al., 2010; Sleeswijk et al., 2008) These vectors work great for their intended use. The problem is simply that there has never been one created before for phosphorus. This is to be f illed by this research 1.3 Unique Contributions of Research This study is providing several contributions to the general body of research. This is the first research to include mineral impurities as a phosphorus resource evaluated at global scale (Ch. 2). Secondly, this is the first study to compute embodied and direct phosphorus intensity of final demand in the U.S. incorporating phosphorus from nature, phosphate rock and phosphorus in mi neral impurities (Ch. 3). Thir dly, this research develops new ma thematical methods to model embodied phosphorus into the economy, sinks from the economy, and flows through an economy (Ch. 4). Lastly, this is the first study to utilize demand based strategies for phosphorus mitigation, and quantifying their effect on phosphorus through the economy (Ch. 5). 1.4 Objectives This dissertation included specific objectives that were met within each chapter to follow this introduction, as outlined below. In Chapter 2 both g lobal and U.S. phosphorus f lows will be tracked, w ith s pecific attention paid to phosphorus found as

PAGE 25

25 i mpurities in infrastructure materials. Chapter 3 will focus on calculating the phosphorus i ntensity of U.S. f inal e conomic d emand Chapter 4 will look closely at phosphorus flows in the U.S. economy and s epa rating Inputs and Sinks. Chapter 5 will quantify phosphorus m anagement s trategies reviewing both production and demand based strategies. Lastly, Chapter 6 will conclude with insights overall, contributions to the research and future research.

PAGE 26

26 2 The Sig nificance o f Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities i n Global a nd U.S. Phosphorus Flows 2.1 Abstract also found as an impurity in other products, and significant phosphorous flows are found in infrastructure materials (steel, concrete and coal). To date, global and U.S. phosphorus flow studies have not included a holistic review of all phosphor us flows. Specifically, current studies only include information on phosphorus related to food or industrial activity, while missing phosphorus in impurities. This project comprises an inclusive review of world wide phosphorus flows including significant impurity flows. Phosphorus inputs to the world economy were 52 Tg in 2009 and to the US were 9 Tg in 2010. Flows of phosphorus as impurities are 13% of total input flows for the world an d 7% of input flows for the US. They are also 3 5 sphate rock inputs and 15% of the U.S. phosphate rock input, showing that they could be a valuable resource in the future. Impurity flows are comparable to those that go to wastewater. This study shows that important phosphorus flows from impurities shou ld be included for global, national and regional phosphorus flow studies. 2.2 Introduction Phosphorus (P) is a vital resource, necessary for all plants, animals and humans. The source for the great majority of phosphorus used today is phosphate rock, a finit e and non (Bufe, 2011) Since its discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, PO 4 3 ) has increased over the years to meet rising demand (USGS, 2013). Phosphate r ock is

PAGE 27

27 estimated to run out in 60 (Dry & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current mining rates. Although the estimated available phosphate rock is uncertain, growing prices and diminishing reserves show the need to better manage this cri tical, non renewable resource. The quality of P ore has gone down (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) and phosphate rock is increasing ly contaminated with toxic metals, taking more energy to remove (Driver, Lijmbach, & Steen, 1999) As visible in Figure 1 3 located in very few places, making future availabil ity of P at competitive prices less reliable (Kelly, Matos, Buckingham, DiFrancesco, & Porter, 2013) ; (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) ). Phosph orus leads to eutrophication in water bodies because P is often the limiting nutrient in water ways ( ; ) Excess nutrients in water cause eutrophication, or aging, accompanied by algal blooms As alga blooms die and decompose, it gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels (WWTPs) are working to decrease their P discharges (Schindler, 2006) Beca been done at the city, regional, country and global levels. These studies include environmental assessments (life cycle assessments, ecological footprints, etc.) and material and sub stance flow analyses (MFAs and SFAs). Table 2 1 gives a review of national and international phosphorus flow studies, building upon the review completed by Cordell et al. (2011) Global and national phosphorus flow studies have been done on a production basis ( Villalba et al., 2008 for industries and fertilizer ) or in specific sectors

PAGE 28

28 (Food in the world Smil, 2000; Cordell et al., 2009 etc.). To date only one study has reviewed phosphor us as impurities, except (Matsubae Yokoyama et al., 2009) who has their study. This is the first study to include all three inputs, from phosphate rock, nature and impurities at the global and U.S. level s Table 2 1 Phosphorus Substance Flow Analysis studies done at the global and national levels. P Flow Study Study Area Time Frame Sectors Mining & Fertilizer Agriculture Food Production Household Waste Pollution & Inefficiencies Impurities This Study Global 2009 X X X X X X X Bouwman et al. (2011) Global 1970 2050 X X Cordell et al. (2009) Global 2005 X X X X X X Liu et al. (2008) Global 2005 X X X X Villalba et al. (2008) Global 2004 X X Smil (2000) Global Mid 1990s X X X Schroeder et al. (2010) EU 2006 2007 X X X X Su h & Yee (2011) USA 2007 X X X X X Senthilkumar et al.(2011) France 1990 2006 X X X Cordell & White (2010) Australia 2007 X X X X X X Smit et al. (2010) Netherlands 2004 X X X X X Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) Japan 2002 X X X X X X Seyhan (2009) Turkey, Austria 2007 X X X X

PAGE 29

29 This research analyzes the phosphorus flows for the world in 2009 and the U.S. in 2010 We review both the natural and engineered infrastructure systems to include a holistic understanding of the global and U.S. phosphorus metabolism s This is done with a balanced substance flow analysis (SFA) methodology, which is utilized to characterize physical substance flows through natural and human systems (Brunner and Richardson (2004) provide a basic SFA methodo logy). We examine three major inputs of phosphorus: from phosphate rock, from nature and from impurities. We also include recycle flows, which ultimately find the source from nature or phosphate rock. We give special attention to impurities and waste fl ows, in order to point out opportunities for phosphorus recovery. 2.3 Method To calculate global and U.S. phosphorus flows, the following methodology was used: first, the literature was reviewed for all significant phosphorus flows. For this rock flows. Sources included global, national and regional phosphorus flow studies, as well as case studies on phosphorus. Next, the flows of phosphorus containing items were identified using international and national data collection and trade organizations, as well as mass balances. For agricultural items (including fertilizer) the Food and Agriculture ade Balance database was utilized, as commodity flows were homogenized into similar units of mass and flows mostly balanced. Slight inconsistencies between production and trade flows, as well as within agricultural usage groups were normalized. Coal flow s were

PAGE 30

30 found from EIA (2013). Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al. (2010). Cement and lime flows were found from USGS (2013). Last, material flows were converted to phosphorus flows by identifying the phosphorus content of the materials using published content values, as well as mass balances. Plant phosphorus content is calculated on a dry basis. Liu et al. (2008) was utilized for conversion of fresh weight to dry weight for most crops. Cotton moisture was averaged from USD A (1977), and wood moisture was from Trapp (2007). Smil (2000) provided crop and residue phosphorus contents for most crops. Phosphorus content in cotton was averaged from Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robinson (1986) and Hocking and Meyer (1991); woo d phosphorus came from Lamlom and Savadge (2003) and Williams and Da Silva (1997). Coal phosphorus content was found from Bertine & Goldberg (1971) Soap and detergent phosphorus flows were estimated directly based o n Villalba et al. (2010). Cement and lime phosphorus content were found from Hossain (2007) and Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009). Additionally, flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that had minimal phosphorus flows (like tobacco, t rees and lime) in order to have a complete cement from limestone, water, and aggregate). Significant phosphorus flows were researched from the literature and internation al data and trade organizations for the years 2000 2009. The boundary for this study was set as the anthrosphere, that area of the world Inputs

PAGE 31

31 as well Sinks defined as the areas where humans no longer change the phosphorus flow. These sinks of phosphorus could be to l andfills, to waterways, sewers, Stock (such as the phosphorus contained in cement, which simply remains there in the finished concrete) and even to O ther U For U.S. flows, there are a 2.4 Results Summarized r esults for the global and U.S. phosphorus flows are given in Table 2 2 Details for all flows are given for the world in Figure 2 1 and for the U.S. in Figure 2 2 Detailed pie charts for categories of flows are given for the world in Figure 2 3 and for the U.S. in Figure 2 4 Table 2 2 shows major global 2009 and U.S. 2010 flows of phosphorus, categorized by flow types, and Figure 2 1 (world) and Figure 2 2 (US) display those same flows using STAN software, building on the namin g conventions from Suh and Yee (2011). A pie chart of phosphorus inputs is given in Figure 2 3 for the world and for the U.S. in Figure 2 4 Table 2 3 shows all global phosphor us flows Table 2 4 list U.S. phosphorus flows along with detailed calculation sources

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 2 Global phosphorus flows in 2009 as well as U.S. flows in 2010 Calculation s ource listed. Global US Flow Flow Level Tg P Tg P Source Input Input 52 9 1,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 Sink Sink 48 7 2,3,6,7 Item P Item P 57 10 2,3,4,8 In Out Difference: 4.123 1.936 Sum, Categories World phosphorus flows in 2 009 Flow Category Tg P Tg P Source Input Ph Rock 20 4 1,3,5 Input Nature 17 3 3,6,7 Input Recycle 8 1 3,7 Input Impurity 7 1 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 Sink Recycle 8 1 7 Sink Waterway 21 3 6,7 Sink Sewer 4 0 7 Sink Landfill 14 2 2,3,6, 7 Sink Stock infr 1 0 3 Item P Trade Flow 4 2 3,4 Item P Internal 47 7 2,3,4,8 Item P Other Use 5 1 2,4,8 Trade/Item Flow 4.123 1.936 In/Out &Trade/Item: 0.000 0.000 Data Source & Reference : 1 IFA (2013) 2 Villalba et al. (2 010) 3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work 4 FAO (2013) 5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010 6 Liu et al. (2008) 7 Suh & Yee (2011) 8 EU (2013) 9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production 10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971) 11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics 12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics 13 Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook 15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P2O5 in Cement. 43.62% P in P2O5 The first thing to note from the above table is that the mass balances as it should, with all phosphorus inputs equal to outputs when flows to all uses are included. Other uses flows are also the reason that the sinks are lower than the inputs, because some

PAGE 33

33 phosphorus leaves the economy as net exports (US) or to other useful purp oses (for both the U.S. and the world) Note the impurities found in infrastructure materials are emboldened, and are almost twice that of flows to wastewater and almost as much as current recycling of phosphorus. Internal flows are circular and are the largest overall flows showing that the circular flows of phosphorus are many from when it first enters the economy to its final fate

PAGE 34

34 Figure 2 1 Major world phosphorus flows in 2009, including impuriti es in the bottom left corner. Note for figure: Boxes indicated major processes. Arrow sizes correspond to relative flow rates. Numbers close to arrows correspond to the Flow Numbers given in Table 2 3 Numbers in ovals cor respond to phosphorus flow amounts in Tg. Red inputs are from mining. Black arrows indicate internal flows and other uses. Green Inputs are from Nature. Blue outputs are potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery. The purple arrows show organic recycling to crops. Abbreviations: a: annual cycle; Atm: Atmosphere; dStock: Change in Stock; E: Export; Er: Erosion; FdAn: Animal Protein Feed; I: Import; Mfr: Manufacturing; MtDairy: Meat & Dairy; Org: Organic; P: Phosphorus; PRock: Phosphate Rock; Rec: Recycle; SFA: Substance Flow Analysis; Suppl: Supplement; Tg: Teragram; W: Waste; Wtr: Weathering.

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 2 Major U.S. phosphorus flows in 2010, including impurities in the bottom left corner. Note to figure: Boxes indicated major processes. Arrow sizes correspond to relative flow rates. Numbers close to arrows correspond to the Flow Numbers given in Table 2 4 Numbers in ovals correspond to phosphorus flow amounts in Ter agrams (1 T g = 1,000 ,000 metric tons). Red inputs are from mining. Black arrows indicate internal flows, other uses and exports. Green Inputs are from Nature. Blue and Orange Sinks are potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery. Blue Sinks go to sewers and waterways, while Orange Sinks go to landfills. The purple arrows show organic recycling to crops and animals. Abbreviations: a: annual cycle; Atm: Atmosphere; dStock: Change in Stock; E: Export; Er: Erosion; I: Import; Mfr: Manufacturing; MtD airy: Meat & Dairy; Org: Organic; P: Phosphorus; Ptn: Animal Protein Feed; PRock: Phosphate Rock; Rec: Recycle; SFA: Substance Flow Analysis; Suppl: Supplement; Tg: Teragram; W: Waste; Wtr: Weathering. Note that for global flows in Figure 2 1 a s well as U.S. flows in Figure 2 2 r ed inputs are from mining which includes both phosphate rock and impurities Black

PAGE 36

36 arrows indicate internal flows and other uses and are significant and many Green Inputs are from Nature and comprise some of the largest flows, comparable to phosphate rock mining Blue and orange outputs are potential opportunities for efficiency/recovery with blue arrows going to wastewater and waterways, and orange arrows going to landf ills The purple a rrows show organic recycling between crops, farms and households, and show that there is already a great deal of internal recycling of phosphorus occurring From reviewing Table 2 2 and Figure 2 1 (World) and Figure 2 2 (US) it is visible that Sinks are very large equivalent to all the phosphorus Inputs minus the few that go to other uses. It should be noted that this model is a simplification, and assumes a steady state system. A ll wasted phosphorus is assumed to be an opportunity for savings. While this is true, it is obvious that some areas of savings will be easier than others. For for the mines actually producing the phosphate ore and the companies transporting it. However, this article is meant to highlight areas of possibilities for future phosphorus sources. The possible amount of savings of phosphorus is much higher than that input f rom mining because so much is added by nature.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 3 World Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in resources Data Source: this research Figure 2 4 U.S. Phosphorus inputs from mining, nature, recycling and as impurities in resources Data Source: this research As seen from Figure 2 3 for global and Figure 2 4 for U.S. phosphorus inputs, there is a very significant amount of phosphorus available in basic infrastructure items like cement, coal and steel This is the first study to include all three inputs, from phosphate rock, nature and impurities at t he global level. 39% 33% 15% 7% 3% 3% 13% Ph Rock Nature Recycle Coal Steel Concrete Impurity Inputs World Phosphorus 2009 Inputs = 52 Tg 48% 31% 14% 6% 0% 1% 7% Ph Rock Nature Recycle Coal Steel Concrete Impurity Inputs US Phosphorus 2010 Inputs = 9 Tg

PAGE 38

38 As may be expected, phosphate rock provides a large amount ( about one third) of missing major phosph orus flows. Nature inputs of about one quarter show the critical resource necessary for keeping the system going. N ote from almost a third of total inputs of phosphorus is lost to erosion each year. However, this is also the largest place to save lost phosphorus. Also found from farms is a consider able loss of phosphorus to crop residues. There are current efforts to retain this phosphorus through the use of soil erosion minimization techniques, no tilling agriculture and other best practices (Reviews provided by Brauman et al., 2013, (Gutirrez Boem et al., 2008) Additional P losses from farms are that in manure and urine not recycled from livestock. Recovery of animal waste is already done in many areas and numerous pilots are under way to recover struvite, a natural forming phosphorus rich fertilizer, f rom the waste (Greaves, Hobbs, Chadwick, & Haygarth, 1999) Also, struvite can be recovered from human waste to wastewater comprising a n am ount close to recycled flows Losses from fertilizer manufacturing and crop processing could be incrementally improved in these facilities. Household composting could be increased from the current 1% with the additional 1% currently going to landfills. It should be noted that recycled inputs ( about 5%) come from manure and compost, and their origin is from both phosphate rock and nature. While phosphorus in impurities is much less than in phosphate rock or nature, they are a significant amount which sho 6 7% of total inputs, on the same magnitude as composting and wastewater recycling. In summary, many opportunities exist to increase efficiency and recycling in a way to greatly reduce

PAGE 39

39 phosphorus wasting, a nd a viable source not considered on a global scale, phosphorus in impurities, is larger than would be thought. 2.5 Discussion Th ese global and U.S. phosphorus flow inventories shed light on the importance of nature and impurity inputs into the phosphorus cy cle. Impurity inputs are 13% of total phosphorus inputs for the world and 7% of total inputs for the US. Impurity inputs equate to 33% of phosphate rock inputs at the world level, and 15% at the U.S. level Impurities are comparable to the flows that go to wastewater, which is the focus of many current phosphorus recovery studies. A vast amount of phosphorus, larger than the input of fertilizer to farms, is lost with the topsoil and fertilizer washed from farms to waterways annually. The amount of phos phorus found in infrastructure impurities is also significant, and is higher than that which is currently recycled in the farming system. T he main sources for phosphorus savings include efficiency measures, especially at the farm (See Braumen et al., 2013 for a detailed review of farm measures) recycling waste and utilizing phosphorus in impurities, especially in fly ash. As has been shown by recent increases in the price of phosphorus, phosphorus is a finite resource which should be used efficiently. G lobally phosphorus should be used wisely and recycle what is used. At the national and local scale good phosphorus management helps local waterways and lessens reliance on phosphate rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the glob al and U.S. flows of phosphorus and places where recovery and efficiencies can be made, with newest additions at the impurities level. There are a great many opportunities through reliance on

PAGE 40

40 nonrenewable phosphate ore. Impurities, especially fly ash, can become a significant phosphate ore becomes increasingly scarce. Also note, all of these mitigati on measures are production based, meaning they look at strategies for producing phosphorus. Quantifying s trategies that look at changing demand, and seeing how that affects phosphorus flows are necessary. 2.6 Supporting Information Table 2 2 in the main text showed a summary of major global 2009 and U.S. 2010 flows of phosphorus, categorized by flow types Table 2 3 shows all global phosphorus flows Table 2 4 list U.S. phosphorus f lows along with detailed calculation sources Table 2 3 Detailed G lobal phosphorus flows in 2009 Calculation source listed. # Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source (1) Mining Input Ph Rock 1 Ph rock to Fert 17.5 1 Item P Other Use 2 Ph rock to Other 4.3 2 Input Ph Rock 3 Net Ph Rock import 0.0 3 Sink Sewer 4 Soap 0.9 2 Item P Other Use 5 Other Uses 0.4 2 Item P Internal 6 Ph Rock to Fert Mfg 18.6 3 Sink La ndfill 7 Waste Mine, Fert/Soap 1.9 2 Input Ph Rock 8 From Inv Ph Rock 0.0 1 (2) Fertilizer Item P Trade Flow 9 Export Fertilizer 0.0 3 Item P Trade Flow 10 Add to Inv Fert (0.3) 4 Item P Internal 11 P Fert to crops 14.1 4 Input Ph Rock 12 P feed additive 2.8 5 Sink Landfill 13 Waste Fert Mfg 2.0 2 (3) Crop farming Input Nature 14 Atmospheric Deposit 0.4 6 Input Nature 15 Uptake by hay 1.4 7 Input Nature 16 Weathering 1.7 6 Input Nature 17 Soil to Erosion thru Fa rm 10.5 3 Item P Trade Flow 18 Export Crops 0.0 3 Item P Internal 19 Crop processing 4.6 8 Item P Trade Flow 20 Add to Inv Crops (0.1) 4 Item P Internal 21 Feed and hay 5.8 8 Sink Waterway 22 Erosion runoff 17.2 6

PAGE 41

41 Table 2 3, Cont inued. # Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source Sink Landfill 23 Waste Crop residues 2.4 6 Sink Recycle 24 Residues to Recycle 4.9 6 (4) Crop processing Item P Other Use 25 Other Uses Crops 0.8 4,8 Sink Landfill 26 Waste Cro p Processing 0.4 6 Item P Internal 27 Food and pet food 3.3 3 Input Nature 28 Grazing input 3.3 7 Livestock processing Item P Trade Flow 29 Export Animal 0.0 3 Item P Trade Flow 30 Add to Inv Animal 0.0 3 Sink Recycle 31 Manure 1.8 7 Input Recycle 32 Animal protein feed In 1.1 7 Sink Recycle 33 Animal protein feed Out 1.1 7 Item P Internal 34 Meat & dairy 0.3 3 Input Recycle 35 Organic Recycling 6.8 3 Sink Landfill 36 Waste Animal Proc 5.7 3 Sink Wa terway 37 Phosphorus to pasture 4.0 7 Sink Recycle 38 Compost 0.0 7 (5) Household Sink Sewer 39 HH P to Sewer 2.7 7 Sink Landfill 40 HH P to Landfill 0.9 3 Input Impurity 41 Coal 3.8 9,10 Input Impurity 42 Steel Inputs 1.5 11,12 ,13 Input Impurity 43 Concrete 1.7 14,15 Item P Trade Flow 44 Infrastructure 4.7 3 Item P Trade Flow 45 Export 0.0 3 Sink Stock infr 46 Infrastructure P Stock 1.4 3 Sink Landfill 47 Waste infrastructure 0.9 7 Input 52 Sink 48 Item P 57 In Out Difference: 4.12 Data & Calculation Sources: 1 IFA (2013) 2 Villalba et al. (2010) 3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work 4 FAO (2013) 5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010 6 Liu e t al. (2008) 7 Suh & Yee (2011) 8 EU (2013) 9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production 10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971) 11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics 12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics 13 Matsubae Yokoyama et a l. (2009) 14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook 15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P2O5 in Cement. 43.62% P in P2O5

PAGE 42

42 Table 2 4 Detailed U.S. Ph osphorus flows in 2010. Calculation source listed. # Process Flow Category # Flow Explanation Tg Source (1) Mining Input Ph Rock 1 Ph rock to Fert, Soap 3.218 1 Item P Other Use 2 Ph rock for Other 0.481 2 Input Ph Rock 3 Net Ph Rock import 0.266 3 Sink Sewer 4 Soap Mfg 0.015 2 Item P Other Us e 5 Other Uses/Soap Exp 0.012 2 Item P Internal 6 Ph Rock to Fert Mfg 3.777 3 Sink Landfill 7 Waste Mine, Fert/Soap 0.327 2 Input Ph Rock 8 From Inv Ph Rock 0.165 1 (2) Fertilizer Item P Net Exports 9 Export Fertilizer 0.900 3 Sink Wa terway 9B Fert to Other Uses 0.370 3 Item P Net Exports 10 Add to Inv Fert 0.364 4 Item P Internal 11 P Fert to crops 1.626 4 Input Ph Rock 12 P feed additive 0.471 5 Sink Landfill 13 Waste Fert Mfg 0.044 2 (3) Crop farming Input Nat ure 14 Atmospheric Deposit 0.072 6 Input Nature 15 Uptake by hay 0.190 7 Input Nature 16 Weathering 0.290 6 Input Nature 17 Soil to Erosion thru Farm 1.737 3 Item P Net Exports 18 Export Crops 0.529 3 Item P Internal 19 Crop proc essing 0.400 8 Item P Net Exports 20 Add to Inv Crops 0.007 4 Item P Internal 21 Feed and hay 0.738 8 Sink Waterway 22 Erosion runoff 2.206 6 Sink Landfill 23 Waste Crop residues 0.284 6 Sink Recycle 24 Residues to Recycle 0.873 6 (4) Crop processing Item P Other Use 25 Other Uses Crops 0.086 4,8 Sink Landfill 26 Waste Crop Processing 0.036 6 Item P Internal 27 Food and pet food 0.278 3 Input Nature 28 Grazing input 0.406 7 Livestock processing Item P Net Ex ports 29 Export Animal 0.012 3 Item P Net Exports 30 Add to Inv Animal 0.002 3 Sink Recycle 31 Manure 0.245 7 Input Recycle 32 Animal protein feed In 0.127 7 Sink Recycle 33 Animal protein feed Out 0.127 7 Item P Internal 34 Meat & dairy 0.308 3 Input Recycle 35 Organic Recycling 1.121 3 Sink Landfill 36 Waste Animal Proc 0.500 3 Sink Waterway 37 Phosphorus to pasture 0.548 7 Sink Recycle 38 Compost 0.003 7

PAGE 43

43 Table 2 4, Continued. # Process Flow Category Num Flow Explanation Tg Source (5) Household Sink Sewer 39 HH P to Sewer 0.434 7 Sink Landfill 40 HH P to Landfill 0.149 3 Input Impurity 41 Coal 0.542 9,10 Input Impurity 42 Steel Inputs 0.035 11,12,13 Input Impurity 43 Concr ete 0.035 14,15 Item P Net Exports 44 Infrastructure 0.000 3 Item P Net Exports 45 Export 0.033 3 Sink Stock infr 46 Infrastructure P Stock 0.031 3 Sink Landfill 47 Waste infrastructure 0.549 7 Input Input 8.677 Sink Sink 6.741 Item P Item P 9.554 In Out Difference: 1.936 Data & Calculation Sources: 1 IFA (2013) 2 Villalba et al. (2010) 3 Mass Balance, 0 or this work 4 FAO (2013) 5 Van Vuuren et al. 2010 6 Liu et al. (2008) 7 Suh & Yee (2011) 8 EU (2013) 9 EIA (2013). World Coal Production 10 Coal P Content: 500 (Bertine & Goldberg, 1971) 11 USGS (2012). Iron Ore Statistics 12 USGS (2012). Limestone Statistics 13 Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 14 USGS (2012). Hydraulic Cement Yearbook 15 Hossain (2007): 0.1% P2O5 in Cement. 43.62% P in P2O5

PAGE 44

44 3 The Significance o f Phosphorus as Mineral Impurities i n Global a nd U.S. Phosphorus Flows 3.1 Abstract Qu antifying phosphorus flows is an important step to regional waterway and global nutrient sustainability. This project starts with a production based inventory of the US, and then creates a Demand Side Environmental B Vector for Phosphorus which is used to track the direct and indirect flows of phosphorus for all 440 sectors in the 2010 IMPLAN U.S. economic input output tables. The vector is used in an Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA) to calculate direct and supply chain phosphorus use for each sector. Reviews are made of aggregate economic sectors in terms of overall phosphorus use and intensity. For Total U.S. sector demand s, Plant crops (3.2 2 mt P/$M), Animals ( 1.97 mt P/$M) and Food Services (0. 28 mt P/$M) are understandably intens e, but surprisingly the Textiles (0.51 mt P/$M), Construction (0.23 mt P/$M) and Wood (0.22 mt P/$M) are more intense then Fertilizer and Chemicals (0.18 mt P/$M). However, there is significant phosphorus use in these sectors due to usage of phosphorus con taining items in the supply chain. A significant amount of phosphorus use is found in the supply chain of U.S. industries ( 4 6 %), showing that supply chain effects should not be ignored. These results can be used in the U.S. to see the phosphorus footprin t of different sector demands This methodology can be used for finding demand based impacts of any environmental resource. 3.2 Introduction Phosphorus (P) is a vital, limited resource, with fertilizer already too expensive (Bufe, 2011) As seen from Figure 1 3 since its discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, PO 4 3 ) has increased over the

PAGE 45

45 years to meet rising demand (Jasinski, 2013) Only in the late 1940s, however, did inorganic fertilizer production begin (Mackenzie, Ver, & Lerman, 2002) Fertilizer production uses about 80% of phosphate mined, with the remainder going into detergents and animal feed (Steen, 1998) Reserves are estimated to run out in 60 (Dry & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates. While there is uncertainty in the estimates of phosphate reserves, increasing prices and decreasing reserves push for recycling of this essential, non renewable resource. The quality of P ore has steadily decreased (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) and P ore contains increasing levels of contaminants, becoming more difficult and expensive to remove (Driver et al., 1999) places, making future availability of P at competitive prices less reliable (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often the limiting nutrien t in water bodies Excess nutrients in the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a b ad taste and odor to the water. Large floating blooms get concentrated by wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophicatio n, P can stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002) Therefore many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999) Due to the increasing importance of this element, phosphorus flow compilations have been done at the city, regional, country and worldwide levels. These studies include environmental assessments (LCAs, eco fo otprints, etc.), material flow analyses (MFAs)

PAGE 46

46 and substance flow analyses (SFAs). Global and national phosphorus flow studies have been done in aggregate (world production based (Villalba et al., 2008) or in industry sectors (Food in the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011) ; (Xue & Landis, 2010) ). However, these address embodied P as it flows through s upply chain of specific industries within an economy. Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of the phosphorus demand, significant flows go to other goods and infrastructure items (Matsubae Yokoyama et al., 2009) A few authors have used input output analysis to assess the impact of economy wide flows of nutrients on the environment For instance, Sleeswijk et al. (2008) completed a normalization of EIO LCAs at the global and Eu ropean level for the reference year 2000 for 15 impact categories, including eutrophication caused by both phosphorus and nitrogen. The study only reviewed fertilizer and manure crop calibrated to the US. The Carnegie Mellon University EIO LCA (Cicas, Matthews, & Hendrickson, 2006) incorporates the EPA TRACI data base to give eutrophication indicators for the US. fertilizer applications. Other researches have reviewed flows of important items through the economy like water (Blackhu rst 2011), land use (Costello, 2010), carbon (Singh and No known literature to date has covered the topic of non fertilizer phosphorus using the input output analysis fr amework. Th e main contribution of this research is that it tracks phosphorus flows in 440 sectors of the U.S. 2010 economy including phosphate rock, natural phosphorus inputs

PAGE 47

47 from soil, and P inputs to the economy in the form of mineral impurities. Inp uts of phosphorus (as phosphate rock, nature, impurities, and organic recycling) are computed for 24 sectors of the U.S. economy, and combined with the materials requirement of the Total Requirements Matrix of the U.S. Economy to generate the Production Ph osphorus Intensity Factor Vector, IF P for any unit of economic demand in the U.S. Economy. Barriers to vector creation are discussed, including data allocation and availability. This y. Future work 3.3 Method 3.3.1 Overview This study looks to create an environmental vector which represents the direct and upstream phosphorus for the U.S. final economic demand, which is named here as the U.S. Pho sphorus Footprint. To calculate the U.S. Phosphorus footprint, the following methodology was used: first, a phosphorus inputs to production inventory is completed for 24 core sectors where phosphorus enters the economy. Second these input flows are used along with the U.S. Production Economic Value vector to create a Phosphorus I nput I ntensity F actor of Production vector PIIF P This vector is coupled with the U.S. economic input output table s to complete an EIO LCA, producing the full phosphorus foot print for the demands of the U.S. economy. This phosphorus footprint of the U.S. economy represents the pre consumption of food and other products. It allows one to look at any of the 440 U.S. demand sectors or groupings of sectors to see which have a hi gh phosphorus intensity, as well as which have a high overall phosphorus footprint.

PAGE 48

48 Also, the methodology developed here allows one to look at the phosphorus input source for the demand from a sector or grouping of the U.S. economy. 3.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors Significant phosphorus flows were defined as those that were 1% or more of the global phosphorus mining industry. Material flows for these phosphorus containing items (fertilizer, food, etc.) were found through international data collection and trade organizations. Phosphorus flows were obtained by multiplying the mass flow of phosphorus containing commodities by published phosphorus content factors. Monetary U.S. production value data came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996) Raw material flow data for agriculture came from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) Slight inconsistencies bet ween production and trade flows, as well as within agricultural usage groups were normalized for consistency and to avoid double counting Material flow data for coal came from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2011) Iron, Cement and Lime flow data was sourced from the U.S. Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the respective minerals. Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al. (2008) Plant phosphorus content was calculated on a dry basis. Dry material content came for most crops ( Sectors 1 6, 9) from Liu et al. (2008) for nuts from Trapp et al. (2003) for tobacco from Drake (2013) and for c otton from Anthony and Mayfield (1995) Forest products were assumed to contain 50% moisture on a wet basis from Cutshall (2012) giving a dry material content of 67% (Siau, 1984)

PAGE 49

49 Phosphorus con tent for most crops came from Smil (2000) and for cotton from an average of: Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robinson (1986), Hocking and Meyer (1991). Total fertilizer nutrient material flow of 37 Tg was calculated based on FAO phosp hate fertilizer flows and USDA phosphorus contents (USDA, 2013). Phosphorus content for forest products ( Sectors 15 16) was a calculation based on a 50% carbon content of dry material from Lamlom and Savadge (2003) and 0.0014% phosphorus to carbon ratio f rom Williams and Da Silva (1997). Detailed sources for the monetary flow, material flow, dry material content and phosphorus content data collected are explained in the Supporting Information (SI). A summary of these results is provided in Table 3 1 below with the 24 core phosphorus production value and the final computed PIIF P rod value. 3.3.3 Phosphorus Input s of Production Inventory to Core Producti on Sectors Significant phosphorus flows were assigned to 24 specific Core Production S ectors where the phosphorus entered the economy (agriculture, forestry, fertilizer, soap, coal, iron, cement and lime). Fertilizer and Soap are used as representatives of the phosphate rock mining sector, as explained below in the Data Challenges section. This is because 98% of mined phosphate rock is used by the fertilizer and soap industries (Villalba et al., 2008) Primary phosphorus i nput flows were inventoried for all 24 Core Production S ectors. No upstream phosphorus inputs were included for a commodity which was an independent sector (for example, fertilizer is its own sector, so no fertilizer inputs were included as an upstream flow for other commodities), because those inputs would be covered through the EIO LCA, the next step of this study. Embodied flows

PAGE 50

50 included upstream non monetary (hidden) inputs, like losses to erosion. Also, upstream fertilizer production losses and upstream mining phosphate rock production losses were included in the fertiliz er sector). All phosphorus flows in the economy were included, incorporating inputs from mining, nature, impurities and recycled organics. As an example of the methodology, the P roduction P rimary P hosphorus I nput Inventory for Grain lizer input s but does include hidden inputs from the soil and atmosphere. More details explaining the Production Primary P hosphorus I nput Inventory to Core Production Sectors is given in the SI (see Tables S1 S4) Flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that had minimal phosphorus flows (like tobacco, trees and lime) in order to have a complete picture of the limestone, water, and aggregate). Signific ant phosphorus flows were researched from the literature and international data and trade organi zations. 3.3.4 Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PIIF P The U.S. Economic Production Value vector was utilized together with the Phosphorus Inp ut Inventory to Core Production Sectors to create a Production Phosphorus Intensity Factor Vector for the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy as represented by IMPLAN. The Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production PIIF P rod for a specific core sector i s equal to the total phosphorus input for the production of that core commodity divided by total value of production for that commodity as explained in equation (1): (1)

PAGE 51

51 Where i is the commodity row of each core sector, P is the production phosphorus input for that particular core sector row, and M is the value of that core The total M includes the total value of ded, such as profit, taxes and payroll for the sector. An example of this methodology using the grain core sector is given here, and follows with Table 1 The phosphorus intensity factor for the grain industry includes nature inputs totaling 1,500,000 mt P ( metric tons of phosphorus), and recycling input totaling 800,000 mt P, summing to 2,300,000 mt P. The total value of the grain sector production of the U.S. economy in 2010 was $60,974 million USD. The P intensity of the U.S. Grain Core Sector is the refore ( 1,500,000 Mt P)/( 60,974 M$) = 37.69 mt P/M$. This is completed for all 24 Core Production Phosphorus sectors which gives the Production Phosphorus Intensity Factor Vector 3.3.5 Demand based Phosphorus Footprint Economic Input Output LCA A U.S. De mand based P hosphorus Footprint was created, correlating the Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory created above, to U.S. goods and services demanded in 2010 using EIO LCA. The advantage of an EIO LCA is that it allows one to review the entire su pply chain for a product or service, without any truncation error, which is a serious limit of process based LCAs. Leontief first described the total output of an economy, x, as the sum of intermediate demand Ax, and final demand y, as described in equa tion (1): x = Ax + y (2) where A is the direct requirements matrix, which denotes the inter industry flows within an economy. Note, this methodology with Leontief is similar to the Ghosh model, which provide similar results (Singh & Bakshi, 2013) and (Zhang, 2008) This project

PAGE 52

52 uses the 440 sector direct requirements IMPLAN matrix for 2010 from MIG, which closely relates to the 428 sector U.S. Department of Commerce commodity by commodity inp ut output tables. Solving equation (2) for total output gives: x = (I A) 1 (y) (3) where (I A) 1 is the total requirements (direct and supply chain) for a given final demand, y which is also called the Leontief, L The Demand based P hosphorus In tensity Footprint PIF Dem for a demand of good s and service s is given by the following equation: PIF Dem = PIIF Pr od x X = ( PIIF Pr od )(I A) 1 (y) (4) The Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector P IIF Pr od has units of metric tons of phosph orus per million U.S. dollars (mt P/$M). P IF Dem was calculated as described above. The Demand based Phosphorus Input Footprint, P IF D em is given in both direct and supply chain phosphorus use. Direct phosphorus use is calculated as ( PIIF Prod )(I+A)(y) an d shows the phosphorus input due to direct purchases made by each sector. Supply chain phosphorus use denotes all phosphorus encompassed within purchases made throughout the upstream production of that good or service. The sum of the Phosphorus Input In ventory of Production is equal to the total Phosphorus Input Footprint from Demand, P IF Dem which is given by Equation 4. The 24 core sector phosphorus inputs can be found by summing the rows of the resultant P IF Dem matrix. To find the phosphorus input f ootprint for any of the 440 industries that make up column includes where the 24 core sectors are used in in the production of that industry, both directly and indirect ly. T his methodology is explained further below. Equation 4 in matrix format here:

PAGE 53

53 PIIF Prod vector, diagonali zed L, Total Requirements Y Final Demand X, Output ( 5 ) The first two matrices multiplied together are equal to the phosphorus intensity. To look at the total impact or phosphorus input s footprint from a demand, Y, look down a column of [ PIIF Prod ][L] and multiply by [Y]: (6) = P IF Dem,1 = Tota l Phosphorus Input Footprint due to the demand of Industry 1 3.3.6 Data Challenges Phosphorus Input Inventory of Production includes phosphorus used for production of 24 Core Sectors where phosphorus enters the economy. These Core clude the sectors for ining on metallic mineral or ther B asic I norganic C hemicals sectors (representing mined, refined and manufactured phosphorus) ertilizer and demand sectors (animal feed) c ontain the upstream phosphorus flows from those upstream sectors This is due to data lacking for upstream phosphorus sectors. Additionally, using the downstream Core Sectors make s the Phosphorus Input Intensity

PAGE 54

54 of Production Factor Vector, PIIF P rod sca lable to the sub national level, where phosphorus flows within the mining and refined phosphorus vectors vary, but the required phosphorus input per unit of fertilizer soap or animal feed is fairly constant. Also, waste from upstream flows was accounted for in downstream products where necessary. As an example, losses from fertilizer manufacturing, as well as from phosphate rock mining are included for fertilizer in Table 3 1 3.4 Results 3.4.1 Phosphorus Input s of Production Inventory to Core Production Sectors The results of the Phosphorus Input of Production Inventory for the 24 Core Production Sectors where phosphorus enters the economy necessary for creation of the PIIF Prod vector, is presented in Table 3 1

PAGE 55

55 Table 3 1 Phosphorus Inputs of Production Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U. S 2010 Inputs # Sector US Prod Mtl Flow Dry Mtl P Conc. Item P flux Ph. Rock Nature Recyc le Impurity Total PIIF Prod Units: M$ Tg Tg t/t Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P mt P/M$ 1 Oilseeds $34,224 101 74 5E 3 4E 1 0E+0 6E 1 3E 1 0E+0 9E 1 24.9 2 Grains $60,974 401 353 3E 3 1E+0 0E+0 2E+0 8E 1 0E+0 2E+0 39.9 3 Veges $18,747 48 5 1E 3 5 E 3 0E+0 7E 3 4E 3 0E+0 1E 2 0.6 4 Fruit $21,516 23 3 1E 3 3E 3 0E+0 5E 3 3E 3 0E+0 8E 3 0.4 5 Nuts $5,910 2 2 1E 3 2E 3 0E+0 3E 3 2E 3 0E+0 5E 3 0.8 6 GH $16,510 4 3 1E 3 3E 3 0E+0 5E 3 2E 3 0E+0 7E 3 0.4 7 Tobacco $1,247 0.33 0.05 1E 3 5E 5 0E+0 8E 5 4E 5 0E+0 1E 4 0.1 8 Cotton $6,267 4 4 4E 3 1E 2 0E+0 2E 2 1E 2 0E+0 3E 2 5.1 9 Sugar $2,635 54 17 1E 3 2E 2 0E+0 3E 2 1E 2 0E+0 4E 2 14.6 10 Crops O $25,263 6 5 2E 3 1E 2 0E+0 2E 2 8E 3 0E+0 2E 2 0.9 11 Beef $51,531 17 17 2E 3 4E 2 5E 2 1E 1 1E 2 0E+0 2E 1 3.2 12 Dairy $31,361 92 92 2E 3 2E 1 3E 1 6E 2 8E 2 0E+0 4E 1 14.0 13 Poultry $35,465 25 25 2E 3 6E 2 9E 2 2E 1 2E 2 0E+0 3E 1 7.3 14 Animal O $23,087 9 9 2E 3 2E 2 3E 2 5E 2 8E 3 0E+0 9E 2 3.8 15 Forest $5,279 38 25 7E 6 2E 4 0E+0 3E 4 0E+0 0E+0 3E 4 0.1 16 Wood $11,736 184 123 7E 6 9E 4 0E+0 1E 3 0E+0 0E+0 1E 3 0.1 17 Fish $5,658 5 5 2E 3 1E 2 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 4.5 18 Game $3,347 2 2 2E 3 3E 3 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 7.5 21 Coal $30,059 986 986 5E 4 5E 1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E 1 5E 1 18.0 22 Iron ore $2,698 50 50 6E 4 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 3E 2 12.2 130 Fertilizer $30,728 109 109 3E 2 3E+0 4E+0 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E+0 118 138 Soaps $66,063 6 6 3E 3 2E 2 2E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E 2 0 .3 160 Cement $5,538 67 67 4E 4 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E 2 4E 2 6.4 164 Lime $5,896 18 18 1E 4 2E 3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E 3 2E 3 0.4 Sum/Average: $501,739 2,251 2,000 3E 3 6E+0 4E+0 2.70 1.25 0.61 8.68 11.82 Note. All numbers in Teragrams unle ss noted. Abbreviations: Conc: Concentration, M$: Million US dollars, Mtl: Material, mt: metric tons, P: Phosphorus, Prod: Production; Tg: Teragram (1 million metric tons) N ote that the amount of phosphorus entering the U.S. economy through coal, 0.5 Tg, is more than an order of magnitude higher than iron or wood phosphorus, which have been reported previously by others as significant flows (Iron Matsubae et al. (2009) Wood Antikainen (2004) ). To our knowledge, this is the first time that phosphorus flows have been reported for coal through an economy, even though research has been completed showing that fly ash can be used as a fertilizer (Bhattacharya & Chattopadhyay, 2002)

PAGE 56

56 For benchmarking purposes, the total input flows of phosphorus from this study U.S. phosphorus flows study (2011) as shown in Figure 3 1 The relative percent dif ferences (defined here as the absolute value of the difference of the two numbers (x1 x2) divided by the average of the two numbers) were taken for main categories of phosphorus flows and flow inputs, which ranged from 3% to 90%, having an average of 38%. The fertilizer and crop production decreased from 2007 to 2010. Also, this wor k included hidden flows from nature not included by Suh and Yee for erosion and grazing inputs. Suh and Yee used USGS and USDA data and unidentified sources for farm re sidues. Lastly, the data for this work and Suh and Yee were categorized slightly differently, so individual flows for fertilizer to crops and fertilizer to feed are slightly different, while total fertilizer production flows are similar. Figure 3 1 Benchmarking phosphorus flows in US. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Teragrams P (Tg P) Suh & Yee: 2007 This Work: 2010

PAGE 57

57 A breakdown of the phosphorus inputs to the U.S. economy is given in Figure 3 2 Figure 3 2 P hosphorus Sources, US, 2010, 8. 6 Tg Total Abbreviations: Imp: Impurities; P: Phosphate. As would be expected, phosphate rock accounts for the largest portion of phosphorus flows in the U.S. economy. However, as many studies review just phosphate rock, very large phosphorus flows. Nature inputs of 3 1 % show the critical resource necessary for keeping the system going. Nature inputs include soil erosion, which is an alarming loss of phosphorus each year to our waterways For impurities, those materials with impurity P which can currently be recovered (iron and coal) are pointed out as Imp Recoverable, and those that remain in the item and are not currently recoverable (P in cement, lime) are listed as Impurity in Item. As visible, the majority of impurity phosphorus can be recovered with current technology. 3.4.2 Demand based Phosphorus Use Footprint Economic Input Output LCA T he Demand based P hosphorus U se Footprint P in equation 4, correlates the phosphorus inputs to t he economy to the demand y, of the U.S. economy in 2010. Results for P IF Dem as well as calculated Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Deman d, 48% 31% 14% 7% 0% P Rock Nature Organic Recycle Imp. Recoverable Impurity in Item

PAGE 58

58 PIIF Dem values, grouped by logical categories are included in Table 2. Results for each sector are included in the SI. Table 3 2 Demand based P hosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U S 2010 Consumption Group Number of sectors Avg PIIF Dem Range in P Intensity PIIF Dem P Input Units: # mt/$M mt P/$M Tg P Plant Cr ops/Products 41 3.51 0.051 15.61 4.38 Animal Products 11 1.89 0.015 3.93 0.53 Textiles/Apparel 20 0.78 0.005 10.29 0.10 Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 23 0.14 0.003 0.61 0.65 Construction 7.0 0.37 0.019 0.72 0.54 Wood & Products 22 0.16 0.018 0.55 0.05 Fert, Soap, Chemicals 55.5 0.84 0.002 35.2 1.50 Other Goods 116 0.11 0.001 0.45 0.18 Gov/Services 99 0.06 0 2.19 0.48 Metal & Products 36 0.16 0.001 4.08 0.04 Mining/Utilities 11 0.51 0 4.9 0.23 Sum/Average: 440 0.78 0 35.2 8.6 8 Note: Abbreviations: Conc: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Services; Tg: Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S.I. Sorted by P Concentratio n expected are the construction, utilities and government sectors, which also have fairly high intensities. These sectors are the unique findings of th is s tudy The min ing and utilities sector has a great deal of phosphorus due to the mining of raw iron, as well as the mining and burning of coal for electricity. The construction grouping has a high P concentration due to a heavy use of fertilizer and concrete. It is as sumed that fertilizer is used when landscaping new properties. The other sectors have considerably lower phosphorus concentrations but all are non zero due to the use of food and other phosphorus items in their supply chains. Figure 3 3 represents the phosphorus inputs that contribute to groupings of the U.S. economy, as well as whether the phosphorus was direct or from the supply chain.

PAGE 59

5 9 Figure 3 3 Phosphorus Footprint of U.S. De mands, 2010. Note, hatching indicates indirect use of phosphorus. Scale is logarithmic. Phosphate rock makes up a significant portion of each demand grouping. This is mainly due to all groupings using fertilizer or soap in their processes directly or indirectly all groupings contain some amount of natural phosphorus, due to the purchase of food directly or in their supply chains, even though C onstruction, as well as Fertilizers, Soap and Chemicals. zero, they are very low compared to other purchases. Also, a few groups, notably Mining /Utilities Metals, Wood Pro ducts, Other Goods a nd Government/ Services, use a large portion of impur ities. These phosphorus impurity inputs come from raw materials and coal use. As noted above in Figure 3 2 the majority of phosphorus in impurities is recoverable. Nature and organic recycle inputs ar e also significant for the wood, food and textile 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 Plant Crops/Products Fert, Soap, Chemicals Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs Animal Products Construction Gov/Services Mining/Utilities Other Goods Textiles/Apparel Wood & Products Metal & Products Tg Phosphorus P Rock Nature Recycle Impurities Total Phosphorus = 8.7 Tg P

PAGE 60

60 (cotton, leather as sources) groups, as would be expected. Note that the Education, Health, Art, and Food Services Grouping contains a great amount of indirect phosphorus requirements, which is as expected, because they must purcha se food to provide for their customers. Lastly, note that the indirect use of phosphorus (hatched bars) are smaller than direct flows, but are large and make up 46 % of the total U.S. phosphorus footprint. 3.5 Discussion A phosphorus footprint is developed to describe direct and indirect phosphorus in economic demands of the US. Mapping phosphorus inputs to economic demands allows planners to assess the amount of phosphorus required to meet an estimated economic demand for any or all sectors of the U.S. econom y This methodology can be used to strategize about ways ore dependence For instance, a proposed change in diet could be modeled through the demand sector for an economy, effectively changing the demand for phosphorus th rough changing the demand for phosphorus containing food sectors, including primary and processed foods. The footprint results are unique in that they consider four inputs of phosphorus, phosphate rock, nature, organic recycling and impurities. The results show that not only are production of fertilizer, soaps/detergents and animal and plant products important sectors where significant phosphorus (87% of flows) is used, but that other sectors such as utilities/mining, construction, clothing and government/s ervices are also important. In particular, new strategies for reclaiming P from the ash generated in utilities have been considered. While it may be a small percentage of the overall P flow, it is of the same magnitude as P in many other processed food se ctors.

PAGE 61

61 As has been shown by recent increases of 300% in the price of phosphorus, this is a limited resource and should be used wisely. At the global scale the goal should be to utilize phosphorus wisely and recycle what is used. At the regional scale ph osphorus recovery is an advantage for local waterways, as well as for less reliance on phosphate rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the quantity of phosphorus necessary for a particular good or service, and can therefore give an understanding of the quantities of phosphorus needed in different management scenarios.

PAGE 62

62 4 Using Economic Input Output to Calculate Phosphorus Sources, Sinks and Flows 4.1 Abstract Quantifying phosphorus flow s is important for national and global food and nutrient sustainability. This project starts with a sinks based inventory of the US, then creates a Demand Side Environmental B Vector for Phosphorus Sinks which is used to track the direct and indirect flows of phosphorus for all 440 sectors in the 2010 IMPLAN U.S. economic input output tables. This sinks vector, coupled with a source vector published previously, is used in an Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA) to calculate both the source and final fate of phosphorus use for each demand sector. Analyses are made of economic sectors in terms of overall phosphorus sinks and intensity. Phosphorus inputs to the U.S. are 8.6 Tg, sinks are 6.4 Tg, and the remaining leaves the system through tr ade. For U.S. Economic demands, the majority of phosphorus is lost to waterways (2.8 Tg) and landfills (1.8 Tg) and significant amounts to sewers (0.5 Tg) and impurities (0.6 Tg) show that these other phosphorus sinks are important. For U.S. sector dema nds, the very low amount of phosphorus going to the unrecoverable stocks sink (0.02 Tg) shows the great potential for phosphorus recovery. Phosphorus sink intensity for U.S. demand ranged for 11 groupings from 0.05 to 2.85 mt P/M$, with Crops (2.85 mt/M$) Animals (1.78 mt/M$) and Food Services (0.25 mt/M$) at the top, but surprisingly, Textiles (0.38 mt/M$), Wood (0.17 mt/M$) and Construction (0.16 mt/M$) were more intense than Fertilizer and Chemicals (0.14 mt/MP). These results can be used in the U.S. to see the phosphorus flows caused by individual or aggregated sector demands. This methodology can be used for calculating demand based source and fate for any environmental resource.

PAGE 63

63 4.2 Introduction Phosphorus (P) is critical for all life, and is a main ingredient of fertilizers. It is also a finite resource with supplies dwindling in purity and quantity (Jasinski, 2013) Phosphorus r eserves will be exhausted in 60 (Dry & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates. While the true phosphate reserve size may be unknown lessened res erve size and increasing prices show a need to better manage this vital non renewable resource. This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often the limiting nutrien t in water bodies Excess nutrients in the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a bad taste and odor to the water. Large floating blooms like those in Figure 1 get concentrated by wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophication, P can stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Dr olc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002) Therefore many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999) Because phosphorus has proven to be so important for a sustainable future phosphorus flow studies have been completed for cities, regional watersheds, c ountries and the globe. These studies include environmental assessments (LCAs, eco footprints, etc.), substance flow analyses (SFAs) and material flow analyses (MFAs) and reviewed phosphorus, phosphate (PO 4 ) and fertilizers National and global phospho rus flow studies have been completed ( global production based (Villalba et al., 2008) and for industry sectors (Food in the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011) ; (Xue & Landis, 2010) ). However,

PAGE 64

64 include embodied P as it flows through supply chain of different industries within an economy. Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of the phosphorus demand, significant flows go to other goods and infrastructure items (Matsubae Yokoyama et al., 2009) Some researchers h ave used input output analysis to assess the impact of economy wide flows of nutrients on the environment For instance, Sleeswijk et al. (2008) conducted an EIO LCA for the world and the European Union within 15 impact categories, including eutrophication from phosphorus and nitrogen. The study only calculated f ertilizer and manure crop applications, aggregated all eutrophication impacts together, and the US. The Carnegie Mellon University EIO LCA ( Cicas et al., 2006) integrates the EPA TRACI toxic release database to give eutrophication individually, and only reviews fertilizer applications. Other researches have calculate d flows of important items through the economy such as carbon (Singh and Bakshi, 2013) and nitrogen (Singh and Bakshi, 2013B) water (Blackhurst 2011) and land use (Costello, 2010), and a phosphorus footprint vector for sources was recently completed by Kni ght and Ramaswami (unpublished). However, n o known literature to date has covered the topic of non fertilizer phosphorus fate using the input output analysis framework. Th e main contribution of this research is that it tracks phosphorus flows in 440 sec tors of the U.S. 2010 economy from inputs through final fate and couples these flows with economic data, such that future flow analyses can be completed without a full SFA being necessary Final fate of phosphorus inputs is computed for 24 sectors of th e U.S. economy, and combined with the materials requirement of the Total Requirements Matrix

PAGE 65

65 of the U.S. Economy to generate the Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of Production PS IF P rod for any unit of economic demand in the U.S. Economy. Challen ges to vector creation are reviewed including data allocation and availability. This current U.S. economy (Knight and Ramaswa mi, unpublished). 4.3 Method 4.3.1 Overview This study looks to create an environmental vector which represents the direct and upstream phosphorus for the U.S. final economic demand, and connects these to their final fate, which is named here as the U.S. Phosphorus Sinks Footprint. To calculate the U.S. Phosphorus sinks footprint, this is the methodology used: first, the phosphorus inputs to production inventory of 24 core sectors where phosphorus enters the economy (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished) is coupled w ith a full Substance Flow Analysis for phosphorus to find final P fate Second these input flow final fates are used, along with the U.S. Production Economic Value vector to create a Phosphorus Sinks Input Intensity of Production Factor V ector PS IF P rod This vector is coupled with the U.S. economic input output table s to complete an EIO LCA, producing the full phosphorus sinks footprint for the demands of the U.S. economy. This phosphorus sinks footprint of the U.S. economy represents the final fate o f food and other products. It allows one to look at any of the 440 U.S. demand sectors or aggregates of sectors to see which have the highest phosphorus sinks intensity, as well as which have the highest total phosphorus sinks footprint. In addition thi s methodology enables one to review phosphorus sinks

PAGE 66

66 linked to the demand from a sector or sector grouping of the U.S. economy. Lastly, by looking at the relative contribution of each input and sink of the 24 core sectors, these vectors can be used to eva luate the life cycle flow of phosphorus in any sub region of the U.S. economy using only economic data. 4.3.2 Significant Phosphorus Flow Sectors and Final Fate Significant phosphorus input flows were defined as those that were 1% or more of the global phosphor us mining production Production and trade flows (import, export, inventory and use) of these items (fertilizer, food, etc.) were inventoried from industry trade groups and U.S. and international data collection organizations Phosphorus flows were obtai ned by multiplying the mass flow of phosphorus containing commodities by published phosphorus content factors. Monetary U.S. production value data came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996) Fertilizer flow data came from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) and was checked against data from the USGS (2013) and the USDA (2012). Raw material flow data for a griculture came from the USDA (2012) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) Minor inconsistencies between production and trade flows, as well as within primary and processed agricultural groups were normalized for consistency and to avoid double counting Material flow data for coal came from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2011) Iron, Cement and Lime flow data was sourced from the U.S. Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the respective minerals. Soap and de tergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al. (2008) P hosphorus and moisture content were calculated as given previously (K night and Ramaswami, unpublished).

PAGE 67

67 The full life cycle of phosphorus containing items was completed using a Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) to find the final fate for each core sector input. Food item flow values were calculated with the Commodity Trade Ba lance and Food Balance worksheets from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) Most commodity flow data was found as described above. However, for some soap and cement flows, m onetary U.S. production value data was used as a proxy for physical flows and came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996) The monetary flow data was coupled with price data from Villal ba et al. (2007) for soap and the USGS (2013) for cement. Previously published phosphorus SFAs were used for some unknown values. These include Suh and Yee (2011) and Liu et al. (2008) for the U.S. Food system, Smil (2000) for global food flows, and Vill alba et al. (2008) for global industrial phosphorus flows. Detail s on the monetary flow, material flow, dry material content and phosphorus content data collected are explained in the Supporting Information (SI). A summary of these results is provided in Table 1 below with the 24 core phosphorus production value and the final computed PS IF P rod value. 4.3.3 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors and Final Fate Significant phosphorus flows were assigned to 24 specific Core Production S ectors where the phosphorus entered the economy (agriculture, forestry, fertilizer, soap, coal, iron, cement and lime). Fertilizer and Soap were used as representa tives of the phosphate rock mining sector, as explained below in the Data Challenges section. This is

PAGE 68

68 because 98% of mined phosphate rock is used by the fertilizer and soap industries (Villalba et al., 2008) Primary phosphorus sink flows were inventoried for all 24 Core Production S ectors. No upstream phosphorus sinks were included for a commodity which was an independent sector (f or example, fertilizer is its own sector, so no upstream fertilizer was included for other commodities), because those inputs would be covered through the EIO LCA, the next step of this study. F lows included down stream non monetary (hidden) outputs like losses to erosion. Also, upstream losses were included as sinks mining phosphate rock production losses were included in the fertilizer sector). All phosphorus output flows in th e economy were included, incorporating out puts to Recycling Waterways, Sewer, Landfill, Impurities and Stocks As an example of the methodology, the P roduction P rimary P hosphorus I nput Inventory for Grain include fertilizer out put s but does incl ude hidden out puts to the soil and waterways More details explaining the Production Primary P hosphorus Sink Inventory to Core Production Sectors is given in the SI (see Tables S1 S4) Flows were included for agricultural and infrastructure items that had minimal phosphorus flows (like tobacco, trees and lime) in order to have a complete picture of the flows within agriculture concrete and steel limestone, water, and aggregate while steel inputs are iron ore, coal and limestone ). Significant phosphorus flows were included from the literature as well as national and international data and trade organi zations.

PAGE 69

69 4.3.4 Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor Vector of Production PSIF Prod The U.S. Economic Production Value vec tor was utilized together with the Phosphorus Sink Inventory to Core Production Sectors to create a Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Factor of Production Vector for the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy as represented by IMPLAN. The Phosphorus Sinks Intensity Fac tor of Production PS IF P rod for a specific core sector is explained further below. 4.3.5 Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint Economic Input Output LCA A U.S. Demand based P hosphorus Sinks Footprint was created, correlating the Production Primary Phospho rus Input Inventory created above, to U.S. goods and services demanded in 2010 using EIO LCA. EIO LCA is extremely useful because it gives the ability to review the entire supply chain of a product or service (sector) without truncation error, which is a serious limit of process based LCAs. Leontief first described the total output of an economy, x, as the sum of intermediate demand Ax, and final demand y, as described in equation (1): x = Ax + y (1 ) where A is the direct requirements matrix which denotes the inter industry flows within an economy. This project uses the 440 sector direct requirements IMPLAN matrix for 2010 from MIG, which closely relates to the 428 sector U.S. Department of Commerce commodity by commodity input output table s. Solving equation ( 1 ) for total output gives: x = (I A) 1 (y) ( 2 )

PAGE 70

70 where (I A) 1 is the total supply chain requirements for a given final demand, y. The Demand based P hosphorus Sinks Footprint P, for a demand of good s and service s is given by t he following equation: P SF Dem = PS IF P rod x x = ( PS IF P rod )(I A) 1 (y) ( 3 ) The Phosphorus Sinks Input Intensity of Production Factor Vector PS IF P rod has units of metric tons of phosphorus per million U.S. dollars (mt P/$M). PS IF P rod is calculated as d escribed below The Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint, P SF Dem is given in both direct and supply chain phosphorus use. Direct phosphorus use is calculated as ( PS IF P rod )(I+A)(y) and shows the phosphorus fate due to direct purchases made by each sec tor. Supply chain phosphorus fate denotes all phosphorus encompassed within purchases made throughout the upstream production of that good or service. The sum of the Production Phosphorus Sink Inventory is equal to the total Phosphorus Demand, P SF Dem w hich is given by Equation 3 The fate of the 24 core sector P inputs can be found by summing the rows of the resultant P matrix. To find the is summed for the result ant P sink footprint matrix. This column includes where the 24 core sectors are used in in the production of that industry, both directly and indirectly. The methodology for creating the PS IF P rod vector and P SF Dem footprint is explained further below. E quation 3 in matrix format is given below. As visible, the non diagonal portion of the intensity matrix is utilized for the sinks calculation. This is because the output of one sector (coal for instance) serves as an input to the many other sectors where coal is burned.

PAGE 71

71 PS IF P rod vector, diagonali zed L, Total Requirements Y Final Demand X, Output ( 4 ) For a sink (P SIF Prod 1,1 x X 1 mt P), the sink mass is appo rtioned with a negative sign to the remaining outputs of the column of the diagonalized PS IF P rod vector,: = (6) To look at the total phosphorus sinks footprint from a demand, Y, look down a column of [ PS IF P rod ][L] and mul tiply by [Y]: (8) = P SF Dem, 1 = Total Sink due to the demand of Industry 1

PAGE 72

72 4.3.6 Data Challenges The Phosphorus Fat e of Production Sink Inventory includes phosphorus used for production of 24 Core Production Sectors and tallies where that phosphorus leaves the economy. for ining on metallic mineral or t her B asic I norganic C hemicals sectors (representing mined, refined and manufactured phosphorus) Instead, the Core Production Sectors of ertilizer and demand sectors (animal feed) represent the upstream phosphorus flows from these sectors Th is is due to data lacking for upstream phosphorus sectors. Additionally, using the downstream Core Sectors make s the Phosphorus Input Intensity Factor of Production Vector, PS IF P rod scalable to the sub national level, where phosphorus flows within the mi ning and refined phosphorus vectors vary, but the required phosphorus input per unit of fertilizer soap or animal feed is fairly constant. Also, waste from upstream flows was accounted for in downstream products where necessary. As an example, losses fr om phosphate rock mining are included as a fertilizer sink to landfill in Table 4 1. Lastly, there are some cases in the production of the sink vector where the diagonal had to be utilized. This was when the diagonal was one for the Leontief for a row, a nd all other row values were zero. This was true for 25 sectors of the economy ( 18, 28, 34 38, 361, 364, 391, 395, 398, 399, 400, 406, 420, 423, 426, 434 440, as described in the SI), including game, construction, rentals, private education, health, recre ation, hospice, religion, employee compensation and secondary materials. For these sectors the PS IF P rod for that row on th e diagonal is equal to ( PS IF P rod i ,i *X i ).

PAGE 73

73 4.4 Results 4.4.1 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors Table 4 1 shows maj or flows of phosphorus in 2010 categorized by flow types, and Figure 2 2 displays those same flows using STAN software, building on the naming conventions from Suh and Yee (2011). From review ing Table 4 1 and Figure 2 2 it is visible that savings opportunities from sinks comprise 8. 6 Tg of phosphorus, more than all the phosphorus mined and imported. It should be noted that t his model is a simplification, and assumes a steady state system. All wasted phosphorus is assumed to be an opportunity for savings. While this is true, it is obvious that some areas of savings will be easier than others. For instance, saving phosphoru s wasted from mining and and the companies transporting it. However, this article is meant to highlight areas of possibilities for future phosphorus sources. The poss ible amount of savings of phosphorus is much higher than that input from mining because so much is added by nature. It should be noted that a significant amount of recycling within and between the livestock and crop sectors is already occurring in the US. The results of the Production Primary Phosphorus Output Inventory for the 24 Core Production Sectors where phosphorus leaves the economy, necessary for creation of the PS IF Prod vector, is presented in Table 4 1.

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 1 Phosphorus Inputs and Sink Inventory to 24 Core Production Sectors in the U. S 2010 Inputs Sinks # Sector Dry Mtl P Conc. Item P flux Ph. Rock Nature Re cycle Im purity Total Input P Item Inputs + P Item Re cycle Water way S ewer Landfill Stock Total P Item Sinks + P Item Inputs Sinks + P Item Units: Tg t/t Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P 1 Oilseeds 74 5E 3 4E 1 0E+0 6E 1 3E 1 0E+0 9E 1 4E 1 1E+0 5E 2 6E 1 4E 2 4E 2 0E+0 7E 1 5E 1 1E+0 2 Grains 353 3E 3 1E+0 0E+0 2E+0 8E 1 0E+0 2E+0 1E+0 4E+0 8E 1 1E+0 2E 1 3E 1 0E+0 3E+0 1E+0 4E+0 (0.00) 3 Veges 5 1E 3 5E 3 0E+0 7E 3 4E 3 0E+0 1E 2 5E 3 2E 2 6E 3 4E 3 1E 3 3E 3 0E+0 1E 2 2E 3 2E 2 4 Fruit 3 1E 3 3E 3 0E+0 5E 3 3E 3 0E+0 8E 3 4E 3 1E 2 4E 3 3E 3 9E 4 2E 3 0E+0 1E 2 2E 3 1E 2 (0.00) 5 Nuts 2 1E 3 2E 3 0E+0 3E 3 2E 3 0E+0 5E 3 2E 3 7E 3 4E 4 3E 3 3E 4 3E 4 0E+0 4E 3 3E 3 7E 3 (0.00) 6 GH 3 1E 3 3E 3 0E+0 5E 3 2E 3 0E+0 7E 3 3E 3 1E 2 8E 4 5E 3 4E 4 6E 4 0 E+0 6E 3 4E 3 1E 2 0.00 7 Tobacco 0.05 1E 3 5E 5 0E+0 8E 5 4E 5 0E+0 1E 4 5E 5 2E 4 6E 5 4E 5 0E+0 2E 5 0E+0 1E 4 4E 5 2E 4 (0.00) 8 Cotton 4 4E 3 1E 2 0E+0 2E 2 1E 2 0E+0 3E 2 2E 2 5E 2 7E 4 2E 2 0E+0 6E 4 0E+0 2E 2 2E 2 5E 2 9 Sugar 17 1E 3 2E 2 0E+0 3E 2 1E 2 0E+0 4E 2 2E 2 6E 2 1E 2 2E 2 4E 3 5E 3 0E+0 4E 2 2E 2 6E 2 (0.00) 10 Crops O 5 2E 3 1E 2 0E+0 2E 2 8E 3 0E+0 2E 2 1E 2 3E 2 9E 3 1E 2 1E 3 4E 3 0E+0 3E 2 8E 3 3E 2 11 Beef 17 2E 3 4E 2 5E 2 1E 1 1E 2 0E+0 2E 1 2E 1 4E 1 8E 2 1E 1 2 E 2 1E 1 0E+0 4E 1 3E 3 4E 1 12 Dairy 92 2E 3 2E 1 3E 1 6E 2 8E 2 0E+0 4E 1 1E 1 6E 1 1E 1 1E 1 1E 1 2E 1 0E+0 6E 1 6E 3 6E 1 13 Poultry 25 2E 3 6E 2 9E 2 2E 1 2E 2 0E+0 3E 1 3E 1 6E 1 1E 1 2E 1 4E 2 2E 1 0E+0 6E 1 3E 3 6E 1 (0.00) 14 Animal O 9 2E 3 2E 2 3E 2 5E 2 8E 3 0E+0 9E 2 1E 1 2E 1 4E 2 7E 2 1E 2 6E 2 0E+0 2E 1 1E 3 2E 1 (0.00) 15 Forest 25 7E 6 2E 4 0E+0 3E 4 0E+0 0E+0 3E 4 2E 4 5E 4 5E 5 9E 6 0E+0 3E 5 0E+0 9E 5 4E 4 5E 4 (0.00) 16 Wood 123 7E 6 9E 4 0E+0 1E 3 0E+0 0E+0 1E 3 9E 4 2 E 3 2E 4 5E 5 0E+0 1E 4 0E+0 4E 4 2E 3 2E 3 0.00 17 Fish 5 2E 3 1E 2 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 3E 2 5E 2 7E 5 0E+0 9E 3 4E 2 0E+0 5E 2 9E 4 5E 2 18 Game 2 2E 3 3E 3 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 3E 2 2E 5 0E+0 2E 3 2E 2 0E+0 3E 2 1E 8 3E 2 21 C oal 986 5E 4 5E 1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E 1 5E 1 0E+0 5E 1 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 5E 1 0E+0 5E 1 3E 2 5E 1 22 Iron ore 50 6E 4 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 3E 2 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 3E 2 0E+0 3E 2 130 Fertilizer 109 3E 2 3E+0 4E+0 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E+0 0E+0 4E+0 0E+0 6E 1 0E+0 4E 1 0E+0 1E+0 3E+0 4E+0 138 Soaps 6 3E 3 2E 2 2E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E 2 0E+0 2E 2 0E+0 0E+0 2E 2 2E 3 0E+0 2E 2 2E 3 2E 2 160 Cement 67 4E 4 3E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E 2 4E 2 0E+0 4E 2 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 6E 3 3E 2 3E 2 6E 4 4E 2 164 Lime 18 1E 4 2E 3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E 3 2E 3 0E+0 2E 3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E 4 2E 3 2E 3 3E 6 2E 3 Sum/Avg: 2,000 3E 3 5.64 4.12 2.70 1.25 0.61 8.68 2.36 11.04 1.25 3.12 0.45 1.89 0.03 6.74 4.30 11.04 0.00 Note. All numbers in Teragrams unless noted. Abbreviations: Conc: Concentration, M$: Million US dollars, Mtl: Material, mt: metric tons, P: Phosph orus, Prod: Production; Tg: Teragram (1 million metric tons)

PAGE 75

75 One of the first things to note from review of Figure 4 1 Table 4 1 and Figure 2 2 input and output flows for phosphate rock are included in the SFA fo r totality sake, and for comparison with other studies. The steel sector is included in its totality in the SFA, while the individual ingredients are included for the phosphorus vector (iron ore, coal and lime). Lastly, some calculations had to be comple ted using monetary flow data, which economy (i.e., import price for fertilizer is different than the export price). However, the SFA is still useful in that it was used to verify that, with incorporation of all imports, exports, inventory changes and consumption, phosphorus inputs to the U.S. economy are within a relative 5% of the outputs. As stated earlier, because this is a compilation of the sinks for the sectors throug h which phosphorus enters the economy, as opposed to a full phosphorus footprint for all 440 sector s However, due to varying fertilizer and zero monetary inputs into the vario us animal sectors, despite data showing fertilizer actually going to these sectors, fertilizer feed inputs (and respective sinks to waterway) were internalized to the respective animal sectors. A view of phosphorus sinks from the U.S. economy is given in Figure 4 1

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 1 Phosphorus Sinks US, 2010, 6. 7 Tg Total P hosphate flows to waterways account for the largest portion of phosphorus sink flows in the U.S. economy followed by landfill Waterway sinks are due solely to farming and animal runoff as seen by flows 22 and 37 in Figure 2 2 Landfill and sewer flows are large and potential savings can be made here with efficiency measures (red ucing waste) and composting or phosphorus recovery at wastewater treatment plants. Another method of recovery is for the use of coal fly ash as a potential fertilizer. Lastly, stock sink flows are very minor, and represent phosphorus bound in concrete an d final steel. As visible, the majority of impurity phosphorus can theoretically be recovered with less than 1% permanently lost in stocks. A future study will review the actual potential for recovery (Ch. 5). 4.4.2 Demand based Phosphorus Use Footprint Econ omic Input Output LCA T he Demand based P hosphorus Sinks Footprint P S in equation 4, correlates the phosphorus inputs to the economy to the demand y, of the U.S. economy in 2010. Results for P S as well as calculated P S Demand Concentration values, group ed by logical categories are included in Table 4 2 Results for each sector are included in the SI. 19% 46% 7% 28% 0% Recycle Water Sewer Landfill Stock

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 2 Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U.S., 2010 Consumptio n Group Number of sectors Avg PSIF Dem Range in P Sink Intensity PSIF Dem P Sink Units: # mt/$M mt P/$M Tg P Plant Crops/Products 41 2.81 0.015 12.58 3.63 Animal Products 11 1.57 0.008 5.64 0.45 Textiles/Apparel 20 0.37 0.008 1.88 0.05 Edu, Heal th, Art, Food Svcs 23 0.24 0.006 1.1 1.18 Construction 7.0 0.17 0.008 0.3 0.25 Wood & Products 22 0.17 0.022 0.5 0.05 Fert, Soap, Chemicals 55.5 0.14 0.001 0.61 0.29 Other Goods 116 0.14 0.002 0.44 0.22 Gov/Services 99 0.07 0 1.37 0.52 Me tal & Products 36 0.06 0.001 0.18 0.03 Mining/Utilities 11 0.06 0 0.17 0.06 Sum/Average: 440 0.5 0 12.58 6.74 Note: Abbreviations: Conc: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Servic es; Tg: Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S.I. Sorted by P Concentration Table 4 2 is sorted by average phosphorus sink concentration demanded by the grouping. It should be noted tha t a high sink concentration can be due either to a very low price or to a large quantity of phosphorus sink demanded. As expected, t he plant crops group economic demand has the highest phosphorus sink concentration also having the highest overall phospho rus sink The animal sector has the second highest average phosphorus concentration due to a heavy use of phosphorus supplements and plant crops for feed The fertilizer and chemicals group which includes both fertilizer and soaps, has a low sink conce ntration and overall phosphorus sink which at first seems counter intuitive. However, this is due to the fact that the sinks in this study have been distributed across the other demand sectors This methodology tends to exclude high phosphorus containin g sectors like fertilizer which include a high demand for its own sector. This is also the reason that mining and utilities has a low sink concentration and

PAGE 78

78 total sink footprint, because, for the U.S. 2010 economy, while coal demand is high for the electr 57% of the demand of coal by the steel sector). The next two groupings textiles and services which provide food, make sense, because they rely heavily on plant and animal products, but will be slightly more expensive (sink concentration is essentially the inverse of the price of phosphorus). The next grouping construction, is unexpected. This grouping has a high P sink concentration due to a heavy use of fertilizer and concrete. It is assumed that fertilizer is used when landscaping new properties. The other sectors have considerably lower phosphorus sink concentrations but all are non zero due to the use of food and other phosphorus items in their supply chains. A m ass balance is completed on the phosphorus flows, visible in Figure 4 2 Figure 4 2 US 2010 Phosphorus Sinks assigned to endpoints As visible, sinks and exports are close to inputs. The difference is made up when a full SFA is completed, as seen in Table 2 4 Note that the landfill sink is close to the size of the waterway sink, even though waterway has gotten the majority of attention about soil an d nutrient loss. However, both landfill and waterways sinks are diffuse losses, as will be discussed in Ch. 5.

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 3 through Figure 4 8 represent the phosphorus sinks that contribute to the highest intensity and highest overall sinks connected to demand sectors of the U.S. economy Figure 4 3 Phosphorus Sinks, Removed by Recycling, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. Figure 4 4 Phosphorus Sinks to Waterways, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 Cheese Dog and cat food Frozen foods Flour and malt Tg P Sink, Recycled, 1.25 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 76% Of Total 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Dog and cat food Fluid milk and butter Frozen foods Cheese Other animal food Flour and malt Tg P Sink Waterway, 3.12 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 68% Of Total

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 5 Phosphorus Sinks to Sewers, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. Figure 4 6 Phosphorus Sinks to Landfill, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Fluid milk and butter Cheese Frozen foods Dog and cat food Other animal food Flour and malt Tg P Sink Sewer, 0.45 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 76% Of Total 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 Cheese Frozen foods Dog and cat food Tg P Sink Landfill, 1.89 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 57% Of Total

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 7 Phosphorus Sinks to Stocks, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. Figure 4 8 Phosphorus Sinks, Sum, Footprint of U.S. Demand s, 2010. These figures all looked at the top 2 0 sectors of the total 440. At the top of each figure is listed the total phosphorus sink amount, as well how much of that amou nt is 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 Oil and gas wells Private hospital services Telecommunications Tg P Sink Stock Infr, 0.03 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 82% Of Total 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 Cheese Dog and cat food Frozen foods Other animal food Flour and malt Tg P Sink Total, 6.74 Tg P, Top 20 Sectors = 65% of Total

PAGE 82

82 made up by the top 2 0 sectors. Figure 4 3 shows phosphorus sinks for recycling, and it is visible that the waterway, landfill and sewer sink top sectors are fairly similar to that of recycling. It is visible that processed foods, as well as food service industries demand the highest phosphorus sinks. Figure 4 7 shows sinks to stock. These are for infrastructure materials of concrete and steel. While the overall size of this sink is small, it is still useful to see that the sinks are intuitive here, in that construction industries make up for the highest users of infrastructure, so should be at the top. It is interesting to note that the local government services sector comes in 5 th for the stock s footprint. This is probably due to a large amount of building in 2010 among local governments. The Total Sinks, Figure 4 8 shows similar results to that of Figure 4 3 In Table 4 3 below, the coefficients for each of the four inputs and five sinks is listed for each of the 24 core production sector s

PAGE 83

83 Table 4 3 Input and Sink Intensity Factor of Production V ector b reakdowns, by Input/Sink Category, US, 2010 Consumption Group Avg PIIF Dem P Input Ph. Rock Nature Re cycle Im purity Avg PSIF Dem P Sink Re cycle Water way Sew er Land fill Stock Units: mt/$M Tg P % % % % mt/$M Tg P % % % % % Plant Crops/Produc ts 3.2 4.45 32% 45% 22% 1% 2.8 3.63 21% 50% 7% 22% 0% Animal Products 2.0 0.55 26% 53% 20% 1% 1.6 0.45 20% 55% 6% 19% 0% Textiles/Apparel 0.5 0.10 52% 35% 11% 2% 0.4 0.05 7% 43% 5% 45% 0% Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 0.3 0.67 40% 36% 17% 8% 0.2 1.18 20% 44% 8% 28% 0% Construction 0.2 0.51 86% 3% 1% 10% 0.2 0.25 7% 40% 2% 43% 7% Wood & Products 0.2 0.05 48% 24% 11% 17% 0.2 0.05 16% 45% 4% 35% 0% Fert, Soap, Chemicals 0.2 1.52 93% 4% 2% 2% 0.1 0.29 13% 49% 4% 33% 0% Other Goods 0.2 0.17 56% 9% 5% 30% 0. 1 0.22 9% 33% 3% 55% 1% Gov/Services 0.1 0.47 56% 12% 6% 25% 0.1 0.52 13% 37% 5% 44% 1% Metal & Products 0.1 0.04 15% 3% 1% 82% 0.1 0.03 4% 14% 1% 80% 0% Mining/Utilities 0.1 0.23 4% 1% 0% 95% 0.1 0.06 3% 10% 1% 84% 2% Sum/Average: 0.6 8.76 46% 20% 9% 25% 0.5 6.74 19% 46% 7% 28% 0% Note: Abbreviations: Conc: Concentration; Edu: Education; Fert: Fertilizer, Gov: Government; mt: metric tons; P: Phosphorus; Svcs: Services; Tg: Teragram, $M: Million US Dollar. Results for each sector are included in the S .I. Sorted by P Concentration

PAGE 84

84 We expect the coefficients in Table 4 3 to be consistent across various scales within the U.S. This could be applied to different regional scales with just economic data, showing both the phospho rus inputs and the sinks from any demand vector. The full breakdowns for each of the 440 sectors of the U.S. economy are found in the SI.

PAGE 85

85 4.5 Discussion A phosphorus sinks footprint is developed to describe phosphorus fate from the direct and indirect econom ic demands of the US. Mapping phosphorus outputs to economic demands allows planners to assess the final fate of phosphorus which will be required to meet an estimated economic demand for any or all sectors of the U.S. economy This methodology can be use d to strategize about ways phosphate ore dependence For instance, changes from restaurant to eating at home could be modeled to see the change on the fate of the phosphorus consumed. The sink footprint results are unique in that th ey consider five final fates of phosphorus, recycling, waterway, sewer, landfill and stock. The results show that the phosphorus sinks vector, if distributing that provided from a sector to all other sectors, has much different results than the phosphorus source vector. These results are intuitive, in that while the fertilizer industry is a large source of phosphorus entering the economy, As has been shown by recent increases of 300% in the price of phosphorus, this is a limited resource and should be used wisely. At the global scale the goal should be to utilize phosphorus wisely and recycle what is used. At the regional scale phosphorus recovery is an advantage for local waterways, as wel l as for less reliance on phosphate rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the quantity of phosphorus necessary and its final fate for a particular good or service, and can therefore give an understanding of the quantities of phos phorus needed in different management scenarios.

PAGE 86

86 5 Quantifying Phosphorus Footprint Mitigation Strategies i n The U.S. 5.1 Abstract This study reviews the phosphorus (P) footprint associated with production through the U.S. economy, and quantifies the impact o f different management strategies on that footprint. Management strategies fell under two broad categories, production and demand based. Production strategies do not need the use of an Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA) to quantify th eir impact but current potential recoveries were used to find a total potential savings of 4 Tg Demand strategies require the use of an EIO LCA to see the full direct and upstream effects of making a change in the demand for phosphorus providing sectors For the diet strategy, the consumption of the U.S. economy for 2010 and the demand for 45 primary and processed human food sectors were used to estimate the phosphorus footprint for specific diets. The current average diet associated U.S. phosphorus fo otprint is 9 kg P/capita/year. By reducing the individual caloric intake while still meeting individual energy requirements, the diet associated P footprint decreased by 3 4 % or 0.2 Tg When meeting both an active individual protein level and caloric int ake requirements, the diet associated P footprint was reduced even more to 5 4 % or 0.3 Tg (but with much more difficult diet restrictions). It was found that meat reduction strategies which replace animals with plants for protein and calories actually inc reased the footprint (Octo Lavo increased phosphorus by 20%, and full Vegetarian diet increased phosphorus by 12%) This was due to substituting the calories and protein of meat with fruits and vegetables, because they have a much lower caloric and protei n content. For this reason, transitioning to a plant based diet may be a healthy individual choice, but this strategy is not necessarily a good phosphorus footprint reduction strategy.

PAGE 87

87 5.2 Introduction Phosphorus (P) is a vital, limited resource, with fertil izer already too expensive (Bufe, 2011) As seen from Figure 1 below, since its discovery in 1669, world P production (found in phosphate, PO 4 3 ) has increased over the years to meet rising demand (Jasinski, 2013) Only in the late 1940s, however, did inorganic fertilizer production begi n (Mackenzie et al., 2002) Fertilizer production uses about 80% of phosphate mined, with the remainder going into detergents and animal feed (Steen, 1998) Reserves are estimated to run out in 60 (Dry & Anderson, 2007) to 400 (Van Kauwenbergh, 2010) years at current extraction rates. The price for phosphate fertilizer has increased dramatically in the last few years, as seen from Figure 1 4 I ncreasing prices and decreasing reserves push for recycling of this essential, non renewable resource. This nutrient also causes natural water system eutrophication because P is often the limiting nutrien t in water bodies Excess nutrients in the water cause aging, or eutrophication, with algal blooms, which can give a bad tast e and odor to the water. Large floating blooms get concentrated by wind action and disrupt recreational activities. As these blooms die, their decomposition gives a bad smell and can deplete oxygen levels for marine species. Besides eutrophication, P ca n stimulate the growth of toxic algae (Drolc & Zagorc Koncan, 2002) Therefore many wastewater treatme nt plants (WWTPs) are facing tighter P discharge limits (Litke, 1999) Due to the increasing importance of this element, many phosphorus mitigation studies have been completed at city, regional, country and worldwide levels. These studies include wastewater recovery, farm management (W ithers and Jarvis, 1998), land use management and buffer zone establishment. Industrial strategies were reviewed for

PAGE 88

88 the world (Vill alba et al., 2008) While some preliminary reviews of diet strategies have been completed for the world (Cordell et al., 2009; Cordell et al., 2013), these only looked at a rough estimate of overall phosphorus flows to vegetables and animals. F ood manag ement strategies have been reviewed for the U.S. (Suh & Yee, 2011) ; (Xue & Landis, 2010) ). However, these studies embodied P as it flows through supply chain of specific industries w ithin an economy. Also, while the food sector does make up the majority of the phosphorus demand, significant strategies can utilize other goods and infrastructure items (Matsubae Yokoyama et al., 2009) This contribution of this project is that it calculates the demand effects of diet on 45 food specific sectors and through EIO LCA, on to all 440 sectors of the U.S. economy. Also, sp ecific mitigation strategies which include infrastructure items are and demand based strategies are compiled to generate the total P requirement vector for any unit of economic ou tput in the U.S. Economy. Barriers to strategy calculation are discussed, including data allocation and availability. 5.3 Method 5.3.1 Overview To quantify U.S. Phosphorus footprint mitigation strategies the following methodology was used: first, strategies were c ategorized as either having to do with demand for products or production of products containing phosphorus. Production strategies utilized the Production Primary Phosphorus Inventory completed by Knight and Ramaswami (unpublished). Demand strategies util ized a Phosphorus Input Intensity

PAGE 89

89 Factor of Production vector, PIIF P which is coupled with U.S. economic input output table s to complete an EIO LCA, showing full phosphorus footprint effects Strategies reviewed include wastewater recovery, diet, farm, d etergent, fertilizer and impurities. 5.3.2 Production Based Strategies Much of the work necessary for this paper was first begun with a world phosphorus flows study (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished A) a U.S. P hosphorus I nput s of Production inventory (Knight an d Ramaswami, unpublished B) and a U.S. phosphorus flows and sinks study (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished C). The production based strategies reviewed areas where phosphorus production caused losses of phosphorus. These were first reviewed from the Subs tance Flow Analysis (SFA) of the U.S. (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished C) for large sinks that have the potential for recovery. These wore quantified using the production phosphorus inputs and sinks inventories (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished B, Rama swami, unpublished C). Lastly, these were reviewed against the baseline of phosphorus input footprint for production in the U.S. for 2010. 5.3.3 Demand Based Strategies: Diet Changes The single largest driver for phosphorus footprints in the U.S. food demand bo th domestically and abroad (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished C). Therefore, as a representative for demand based strategies, different diet changes were reviewed for U.S. consumption. The methodology for this is presented here. First, the current diet of the population is calculated. This is completed by finding the total food production of the US, adding imports, subtracting exports and inventory, to get food supply for local use, as given in equation 1:

PAGE 90

90 Local Food Supply = Production + Imports Exp orts Inventory Additions (1) US human food consumption is found by then removing food that is used for feeding animals, for seed, and for other uses, as described in equation 2: Food for human consumption = Local Food Supply Feed Seed Other Uses ( 2) Next the energy content (kilocalories/kg) protein and fat content (g/kg) are found for each type of food. These contents are then divided by the total population of the U.S. for the given food balance year. This gives a caloric content per individual for a given year, which can be changed to daily provisions, such as kilocalories per capita per day available from all the grain consumed for food in the US. These calculations were completed for 2009 by FAOSTAT (2012). This gives the current U.S. diet f rom a top down approach. There are definitely errors with approach, such as not counting wastage at the advanced processing (TV Dinners) or household levels. However, losses from manufacturing of primary foods (flour, plant and animal oil and alcoholic b everages) have been included in this review. Next the recommended calorie, protein and fat intake had to be calculated to see how recommendations related to the current U.S. diet and what changes could be made. There are many different recommendations on necessary levels of nutrient intake in the literature. This research utilized USDA recommendations (2013) for calories and fat, while Lemon (2013) was used for protein, as explained in the Data Challenges section. For these nutrient levels a certain weigh t and activity level needed to be used. As a weight estimate, the 2010 population of the U.S. was used, broken down by both gender and age, using Howden and Mayor (2011). The average health weight for all ages was

PAGE 91

91 calculated using both Howden and Mayor ( 2011) and the CDC (2003). It should be noted levels, Lemon (2013) was used as noted above. For energy intake levels, USDA and DOH (2010) was used, a moderately acti ve individual was chosen, and an even distribution of ages among the U.S. population was assumed. These same sources and methods were used to calculate recommended fat intake levels, but linear interpolation had to be used within ranges for age and protei The next step was to look at the current diet against the recommendations and strategize about diet changes. As all three food items, calories, protein and fat, were well above recommended levels for healthy, active ind ividuals, reductions in food consumption could be reviewed. First reviewed was a reduced consumption diet which still meets the USDA energy intake recommendation for healthy active lifestyles (2013). This is followed by one that is also reduced consumpti on, isocaloric with the first reduced consumption diet, but which also meets the recommendations for protein levels for active people. Isocaloric and isoproteinic diets are then reviewed which are octo lavo and straight vegetarian. Relative reductions in 19 broad categories were made keeping food item levels at or above the minimum recommended levels. These 19 broad categories were then translated to all 116 FAOSTAT food categories for reductions. Next, the diets for these 116 FAOSTAT food sectors were c oupled with the IMPLAN 45 food sectors. IMPLAN provided the monetary flow data for the U.S. Economy, which was used to create the phosphorus input and sink footprints for the U.S. (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished A and C). While there were many more FA OSTAT food sectors than IMPLAN sectors, the majority of the FAOSTAT sectors

PAGE 92

92 were for primary, unprocessed foods. Therefore, assumptions were made to get basic equivalents between primary and processed foods, as explained in the data challenges section. Fi nally, changes in food consumption were related directly to monetary consumption for those primary and processed food categories, and the U.S. phosphorus footprint was calculated for each of the six scenarios. Reviews were made of the resulting monetary a nd phosphorus changes for each diet. 5.4 Specific Mitigation Strategies 5.4.1 Wastewater Recovery Struvite Wastewater treatment plants receive all the phosphorus ingested by humans in the US, as well as phosphorus in detergents and industrial chemicals washed down the drain. As shown in the phosphorus sinks and sources article (Knight and Ramaswami, unpublished C), these phosphorus flows are large. Current technology at wastewater treatment plants works to sequester this phosphorus into biosolids. However, the ph osphorus content is usually too high relative to nitrogen, and so the application of these biosolids to farms can end up not be used and lost to waterways in the end. Also, some strategies include chemical precipitation of phosphorus, but this is expensiv e and can make biosolids unfit for land application. A newer strategy utilizing the natural occurrence of struvite crystallization can be used to remove phosphorus as a slow release fertilizer, as well as keep the crystallization from stopping up sewer pi pes, as seen in Figure 5 1

PAGE 93

93 Figure 5 1 Struvite formation in a sewer pipe Struvite crystallization has been able to recover 85% of phosphorus and 40% of nitrogen flows (Mohan, 2 011; Britton, 2007). The struvite formed can be sold as fertilizer to farmers, and is much lighter and portable than biosolids (Booker, 1999). 5.4.2 Steel Slag Recovery Phosphorus is considered a contaminant in steel, but is found in steel raw materials of iron steel scrap, lime and other chemicals ( Matsubae Yokoyama et al., 2009 ). The slag or waste material from steel manufacturing can have phosphate (P 2 O 5 ) levels as high as 40%. Currently the magnetic field methods for recovery of the phosphorus from slag a re expensive, but are being employed in limited cases (EIA, 2013). 5.4.3 Fly Ash Recovery Coal is a major ingredient for electricity production in the United States (EIA, 2013). While there are minimal amounts of phosphorus found in coal, it is almost all found in fly ash. Because such large volumes of coal are burned each year, a significant amount of phosphorus ends up in the fly ash. The phosphorus content of fly ash is actually higher than manure ( Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay, 2002 ). The phosphorus in f ly ash is much less soluble than in manure, and therefore less bioavailable to plants.

PAGE 94

94 However, Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyay ( 2002 ) have researched a way to use vermiculture (work composting) to increase the solubility of phosphorus in fly ash, making i t a viable nutrient alternative to fertilizer. 5.4.4 Diet Changes Diet obviously has a big impact on the food demands of a society. Since food is the largest contributor to phosphorus footprints, it makes sense that this is reviewed as a strategy. Reviewed her e are five diets. The first is the current food supply in the US: two reduced consumption, one octo lavo vegetarian, and one strict vegetarian diet. 5.4.5 Landfill Barriers Stopping waste before it gets to the landfill are reviewed from a high level. These i nclude losses at manufacturing, mining, transportation and at the farm. Each of these types of losses has its own difficulties, and the possibility of complete efficiency is near impossible, but great gains have already been made just by the price of phos phorus fertilizer increasing by 400% in 2008, as seen in Figure 1 4 5.4.6 Household Changes Changes at the household level include incorporating composting an d bans. These kinds of bans have already happened in some states around the country, but could be made more uniform (Baker et al., 2009). 5.5 Data Challenges For the U.S. diet, only the 45 demand sectors for food were altered. We know this restaurants, hospitals, schools, etc. However, this research is only to look at the basic

PAGE 95

95 food demands. It is still believed that a useful, meaningful result is given for changes in diet shown only through demand for the food sectors themselves. It is hoped that th e indirect demands for food can be included in future research. For p rotein recommended levels, I u several sources research was b ased on laboratory measurements of moderately active individuals. For diet changes in the US, demands to processed foods had to be correlated to primary foods. In order to do this, the following assumptions were made: Assumed flavoring syrups & concentr ates were equal to the and Assumed orn ugar Assumed Soybean oil & cakes & other products Shortening & margarine and other fats & oils Assum chocolate bread and bakery products For the data year, 2010 was used, because economic and phosphorus footprint calculations had already been completed. FAO has not yet released Food Balance data for 2010. Therefore, it was assumed that the food balance for the U.S. in 2010 is close to that of 2009. 5.6 Results 5.6.1 Overall Strategies A review of all the phosphorus mitigation strategies is given in Table 5 1

PAGE 96

96 Table 5 1 Phosphorus Mitigation Strategies for the US All units are Tg P Sink/ Loss Strategy Loss/ Sink Potential Recovery Recover able Percent of Total Notes Landfill Fly ash, Slag 0.5 90% 0.5 12% Slag and Vermiculture Landfill Composting 1.0 70% 0.7 16% Austria, Bio Crops Landfill Mining, Transp, Mfg. E ff. 0.4 50% 0.2 5% Financial Incentive Sewer Struvite Recovery 0.4 85% 0.4 9% Already in place Waterway Crop 2.2 71% 1.6 38% Soil P Svys, P Limits, Less Till, Contouring, fertility enhancements, cover crops/mulches Waterway Diet 0.0 13% 0.3 8% R educed Consumption Waterway Livestock operations 0.5 85% 0.5 11% CAFOs/fish farms w/ recovery OR pasture reuse Stock Stays in Stock 0.03 0% 0.0 0% Stock in Infrastructure Stays All Average/Sum: 5.1 58% 4.1 100% Apparent Recovery: 79% As visible from the table there are several possibilities to use today for phosphorus mitigation in the U S. Mining, transportation and manufacturing waste are areas which already have an incentive to save phosphorus, as that also saves money. The mining and tra our phosphate rock ore was imported in 2010. However, the efficiency and waste recovery strategy applies to other places as well. This is evident by old phosphate mines being reopened to recover phosphate wasted in the past (USGS, 2013). Recovery from the wastewater treatment plant is a great possibility, and 1 1 % of total possibilities The amount listed here is for the total lost to wastewater treatment plants. Curre nt recovery rates are already at 85%, and increasing rates are possible (Britton et al., 2007) Coal recovery from fly ash is also very significant at 8%. As pointed out above, no other researcher, to our knowledge, has reviewed the potential for phosphorus recover y from

PAGE 97

97 fly ash at the national level. Matsuabe et al. (2009) has reviewed steel recovery of phosphorus, but as visible from the Figure, for the US, this would not be a very viable phosphorus mitigation option. Next are listed household strategies, includ ing a residential ban on phosphorus fertilizers, as well as a ban on phosphorus in detergents. Farming efficiencies are next, giving the largest amount of phosphorus mitigation possibilities. These strategies could be incentivized or required administrat ively of farmers, or phosphorus trading schemes could be used, as has been done in several states (Metro, 2011). Composting of food and crop residues can have a large impact on phosphorus use. This has the added benefit of reduced soil loss if completed as reduced tillage farming (Withers, 1998). Composting of yard waste has been reviewed by Baker effect at the national level. Lastly, the reduced consumption diet is seen as a large potential for savings of phosphorus. It should be noted that this is only applying to the consumption of food in the US, not changing production levels for export. Diet charges are explained further in the next section. 5.6.2 Diet Changes Accor ding to the FAO (2013) t he current diet in the U.S. provides for 3,689 kilocalories per capita per day, 113 grams of protein, and 156 grams of fat. The USDA (2013) and the literature provided general recommendations for all three of these items, as listed in Table 5 2

PAGE 98

98 Table 5 2 U.S. Nutrient Recommendations Description Value Unit Date of Value Notes US Population 308,745,538 capita 2010 1 Weight, US, Average, Healthy 55 kg 2010 1, 2 Protein, Recommended 1.7 g/kg/d Not listed 5 Protein, US, Recommended 94 g/capita d Not listed 5 Energy, US, Average, Recommended 2,123 kCal/capita d 2010 1, 6, 7, 8 Fat, US, Average, Recommended 70 g/capita d 2010 1,6 9 Notes 1 Howden & Mayor 2011 2 CDC 2003 3 Fryar & Ogden 2012 4 Calculation 5 Lemon 2000 6 USDA & DOH, 2010 7 Assume moderately active 8 Assume even distribution of ages 9 Assume line ar interpolation within range The actual diets reviewed are listed below in Table 5 3 for reduced consumption and Table 5 4 for vegetarian diets The first diet is the current diet of the US, which is simply the average of the food quantity that goes to human consumption. As visible, calories are about a third above recommendations, protein is about 20% above recommendations, and fat is over twice that of recommendations. The next section is for the s imple reduced diet to meet caloric needs. These reductions are similar to the slightly different reduced reduction diet in the next section, which includes lower reductions to meat, but slightly more reductions in grains. This was in order to increase th e protein content to that recommended by Lemon (2011). Further, in Table 5 4 an octo lavo and strict vegetarian

PAGE 99

99 diet are listed. As visible, large increases of food were necessary to meet calorie and protein recommendations.

PAGE 100

100 Table 5 3 U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including two reduced consumption diets. 2009. FAO (2012). Item Energy supply (kcal/c/d ) Protein supply quantity (g/c/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/c/day ) % Re d, Red Consu m Diet Energy supply (kcal/capita/day ) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/capita/day ) % Red Diet, isocaloric, isoproteini c Energy supply (kcal/capita/day ) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/day ) Fat supply quantity (g/ capita/day ) Pop/RDI 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70 Total 3,689 113 156 31% 2,125 69 72 12% 2,520 93 86 Vegetable 2,675 41 87 19% 1,606 31 37 12% 1,717 35 34 Animal 1,014 72 69 49% 519 38 35 11% 803 58 52 Oilcrops 66 3 6 65% 23 1 2 65% 23 1 2 Cereals Beer 827 24 4 20% 662 19 3 10% 744 22 3 Pulses 42 3 0 20% 34 2 0 10% 38 3 0 Roots 93 2 0 60% 37 1 0 0% 93 2 0 Vegetables 76 3 1 0% 76 3 1 0% 76 3 1 Fruit 116 1 1 0% 116 1 1 0% 116 1 1 Nuts 24 1 2 0% 24 1 2 0% 24 1 2 Stimulants 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1 Spices 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0 Sugar 603 0 65% 211 0 0 65% 211 0 0 Vege Oils 636 0 72 60% 254 0 29 65% 223 0 25 Alcohol 165 1 0% 165 1 0 0% 165 1 0 Meat 440 40 30 50% 220 20 15 30% 308 28 21 Offals 3 0 0 50% 2 0 0 30% 2 0 0 Animal F at 102 0 12 65% 36 0 4 65% 36 0 4 Eggs 54 4 4 0% 54 4 4 0% 54 4 4 Milk 376 22 22 50% 188 11 11 0% 376 22 22 Fish 39 6 2 50% 20 3 1 30% 27 4 1 Sea Plants 0 0 0 50% 0 0 0 30% 0 0 0

PAGE 101

101 Table 5 4 U.S. Food Supply to human consumption, including Octo Lavo and Strict Vegetarian diets. 2009. FAO (2012). Item Energy supply (kcal/c/ d) Protein supply quantit y (g/c/da y) Fat supply quantit y (g/c/da y) % Reduction Octo Lavo, isocaloric, isoprotein ic Energy su pply (kcal/capita/d ay) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/da y) Fat supply quantity (g/capita/da y) % Reduction Vegetaria n, isocaloric, isoprotein ic Energy supply (kcal/capita/d ay) Protein supply quantity (g/capita/da y) Fat supply quantity (g/capita/da y) Po p/RDI 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70 2,123 94 70 Total 3,689 113 156 34% 2,810 93 88 58% 3,988 91 93 Vegetable 2,675 41 87 43% 1,963 43 35 167% 3,988 91 93 Animal 1,014 72 69 20% 848 51 53 100% 0 0 0 Oilcrops 66 3 6 70% 20 1 2 0% 66 3 6 Cereals Be er 827 24 4 15% 703 21 3 100% 1,654 49 7 Pulses 42 3 0 15% 36 2 0 100% 84 6 0 Roots 93 2 0 125% 209 5 0 400% 465 12 1 Vegetables 76 3 1 125% 171 8 2 400% 380 17 4 Fruit 116 1 1 100% 232 3 2 200% 348 4 4 Nuts 24 1 2 100% 48 1 4 100% 48 1 4 S timulants 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1 0% 20 1 1 Spices 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0 0% 7 0 0 Sugar 603 0 70% 181 0 0 70% 181 0 0 Vege Oils 636 0 72 70% 191 0 22 0% 636 0 72 Alcohol 165 1 0% 165 1 0 0% 165 1 0 Meat 440 40 30 100% 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 Offals 3 0 0 100% 0 0 0 100 % 0 0 0 Animal Fat 102 0 12 70% 31 0 3 100% 0 0 0 Eggs 54 4 4 125% 122 9 9 100% 0 0 0 Milk 376 22 22 85% 696 41 41 100% 0 0 0 Fish 39 6 2 100% 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 Sea Plants 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0 100% 0 0 0

PAGE 102

102 The results of these five diets for both monet ary and phosphorus input footprints are listed below in Table 5 5 Table 5 5 Effects of diet changes in the U.S. on phosphorus footprint and cost Category Current Diet Reduced Consu mption Diet Reduced, isocaloric, isoproteinic Octo Lavo, isocaloric, isoproteinic Vegetarian, isocaloric, isoproteinic Diet P Footprint, Tg: 0.591 0.403 0.281 0.706 0.657 P Footprint per capita, kg/cap/yr 2 1 1 2 2 Reduction: N/A 32% 52% 19% 11% Monetary Value: $525,685 $386,160 $440,265 $453,508 $618,461 Monetary Reduction: N/A 27% 16% 14% 18% As visible, the reduced consumption diets provide the highest benefits to phosphorus footprints. It is apparent that a slight decrease in meat consumption can lead to both a cheaper diet and a lessened phosphorus footprint. On the other hand, both vegetarian diets increased the phosphorus footprint for diet, and the strict vegetarian diet actual cost more than the current U.S. diet. Note, to no rmalize the FAO Diet with the SFA performed for this study, the FAO phosphorus content was multiplied by 22.13 %. 5.7 Discussion Phosphorus mitigation strategies for the U.S. are reviewed for quantification and comparison in this study. Mapping demand changes to phosphorus inputs through economic input output analysis allows planners to assess ways to reduce phosphorus requirements. The results show that not only are the agriculture sectors important where significant phosphorus (87% of flows) is demanded, bu t that other sectors such as coal and wastewater recover are also important. In particular, new strategies for reclaiming P

PAGE 103

103 from the ash generated in utilities have been considered. While it may be a small % of the overall P flow, it is of the same magnit ude as P that could be recovered by composting. As has been shown by recent increases of 300% in the price of phosphorus, this is a limited resource and should be used wisely. At the global scale the goal should be to utilize phosphorus wisely and recycl e what is used. At the regional scale phosphorus recovery is an advantage for local waterways, as well as for less reliance on phosphate rock. The approach used in this paper gives an understanding of the size of different phosphorus mitigation strategie s available and can therefore be used to prioritize the best places to put resources to get the best phosphorus footprint reduction Future research could like at more reviews of diet effects on phosphorus. Specifically, low carb or low processed food di ets could be reviewed with a more in its Food Balance worksheets, so that would have to be done separately. Also, eets, assuming that the nutrients available in primary foods will also be available for processed foods. Also, the effects of staying home from restaurants could be reviewed. Diet changes have definite impacts on individuals, but can also have impacts on the environment, and more robust methods are necessary to link the two.

PAGE 104

104 6 Conclusions 6.1 Contributions to Literature This study has provided several contributions to the literature. 1. This is the first research to include mineral impurities as a phosphorus re source evaluated at global scale (Ch. 2). 2. T his is the first study to compute embodied and direct phosphorus intensity of final demand in the U.S. incorporating phosphorus from nature, phosphate rock and phosphorus in mineral impurities (Ch. 3). 3. T his re search develops new mathematical methods to model embodied phosphorus into the economy, sinks from the economy, and flows through an economy (Ch. 4). 4. T his is the first study to utilize demand based strategies for phosphorus mitigation, and quantifying th eir effect on phosphorus through the economy (Ch. 5). 6.2 Future Research This research has opened the way for linking economic and physical flows of phosphorus, through the whole life cycle, from the source of the phosphorus, to the inputs to the economy, and finally to the phosphorus final fate when it leaves the economy. There is still a great deal of research to be done in this field. 6.2.1 Incorporation of Full Input Output Models For this study. Phosphorus flows in mining, semi refined and refined states were not tracked through the input output tables, but were instead modeled as hidden flows for the 24 key sectors. This was done because data was lacking for these flows, as well as

PAGE 105

105 because the percentage of flows going to phosphorus for these sectors would ch ange for different levels in the US (between states, regions and areas). However, it would still be beneficial to complete this kind of study at the national level to verify the monetary model with known physical flow data. 6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis It would b e good to complete a sensitivity analysis on the Phosphorus Input and Sink Intensity Factor vectors of Production and Demand. This would allow planners to see which production and demand sectors provide the biggest change in phosphorus for a given change in dollar production or demand. 6.2.3 New Area Levels The Phosphorus Input and Sink Intensity Factor Vector s ( PIIF P and SIFP P ) were created in such a way that they could be used at the state, regional, county and city l evel s. This remains to be completed. When this is done, the data will need to be validated with as much physical phosphorus flow data as possible, as was done at the national level. It should be noted that this vector, as published, is only meant to be used for the US. However, the methodology is valid to be used for any country, and this is another area for future research, to recreate this vector at the international level using similar methodologies as was used here. 6.2.4 New Time Periods This research concentrated on 2009 for the world and 2010 f or the US. Historical reviews over time, as well as predictions into the future could be done. Historical reviews could include more physical data, to review the validity and calibration of the vector over time. Future scenarios could be based on estima tes of future economic

PAGE 106

106 growth from such public sources as the Bureau of Economic Affairs or private sources as MIG, Inc. 6.2.5 Infrastructure Footprint Complete Infrastructure Footprints like those completed for greenhouse gases and energy (Ramaswami et al., 200 8; Hillman and Ramaswami, 2010, Chavez and Ramaswami, 2013) and water (Cohen, 2013, accepted) could be completed for phosphorus for urban areas. 6.2.6 Mitigation Strategies: Production Based This project began to look at both production and demand based strate gies for managing quantification and prioritization of reduction capabilitie s based on cost benefit analyses could be completed. Also, more depth could be gotten into about current c onstruction practices, and what causes possible over fertilization in these areas. 6.2.7 Mitigation Strategies: Demand Based Diet For demand side strategies, different options for food could be reviewed. These include the following: l ow carb diets e ating less processed foods and s taying home from restaurants

PAGE 107

107 REFERENCES References Anthony, W. S., & Mayfield, W. D. (1995). Cotton ginners handbook : DIANE Publishing. Antikainen, R., Haapanen, R., & Rekolainen, S. (2004). Flows of nitrogen an d phosphorus in Finland the forest industry and use of wood fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12 (8), 919 934. Bertine, K., & Goldberg, E. D. (1971). Fossil fuel combustion and the major sedimentary cycle. Science, 173 (3993), 233 235. Bhattacharya, S. & Chattopadhyay, G. (2002). Increasing bioavailability of phosphorus from fly ash through vermicomposting. Journal of environmental quality, 31 (6), 2116 2119. Britton, A., Sacluti, F., Oldham, W., Mohammed, A., Mavinic, D., & Koch, F. (2007). Value from waste Paper presented at the IWA Wastewater Biosolids Sustainability: Technical, Managerial, and Public Bufe, M. ( 2011). About that phosphorus shortage...: All is a bit murky on the fertilizer front. Water environment & technology (2), 19 20. Carpenter, S. R., & Bennett, E. M. (2011). Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environmental Research Let ters, 6 (1), 014009. Cicas, G., Matthews, H. S., & Hendrickson, C. (2006). The 1997 benchmark version of the economic input output life cycle assessment (EIO LCA) model. Online] http://www eiolca. net/data/full document 11 1 06. pdf.(current July 2008) Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global environmental change, 19 (2), 292 305. Cordell, D., Rosemarin, A., Schrder, J., & Smit, A. (2011). Towa rds global phosphorus security: A systems framework for phosphorus recovery and reuse options. Chemosphere, 84 (6), 747 758.

PAGE 108

108 Cutshall, J. B., Greene, D., & Baker, S. IMPROVING WOODY BIOMASS FEEDSTOCK LOGISITICS BY REDUCING ASH AND MOISTURE CONTENT. Cutsha ll, J. B., Greene, D., & Baker, S. (2012). Improving woody biomass feedstock logistics by reducing ash and moisture content. Paper presented at the 35th Council on Forest Engineering Annual Meeting, New Bern, North Carolina. Drake, B. (2013). Tobacco Bioma ss. A Potentially Valuable Component of Texas Bioenergy Projects Great Spirit Bioenergy Partners. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad= rj a&ved=0CD4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treia.org%2Fassets%2Fdocu ments%2FTEIW09_02_GreatSpiritBioEnPartners_Project_presentation.ppt&ei= Rm72Ubb8NMXuyQHx1IGoCw&usg=AFQjCNEQBbemHbK_fASEPwM7BWu G2ms Rw&sig2=4RqAGxA1IJmvNxNRZVVO5w&bvm=bv.49784469,d.aWc Driver, J., Lijmbach, D., & Steen, I. (1999). Why recover phosphorus for recycling, and how? Environmental technology, 20 (7), 651 662. Drolc, A., & Zagorc Koncan, J. (2002). Estimation of sources of total phosphorus in a river basin and assessment of alternatives for river pollution reduction. Environment international, 28 (5), 393 400. Dry, P., & Anderson, B. (2007). Peak phosphorus. Energy Bulletin, 13 EIA, U. (2011). US Energy Information Administration. ent for sustainable biosolids recycling in the United States. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 39 (6), 1318 1327. FAOSTAT. (2011). FAOSTAT Agriculture Data. Retrieved 1 June 2013, from Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations http://faostat.fao.org/ Greaves, J., Hobbs, P., Chadwick, D., & Haygarth, P. (1999). Prospects for the recovery of phosphorus from animal manures: a review. Environmental Technology, 20 (7), 697 708. Gutirrez Boem, F. H., Alvarez, C. R., Cabello, M. J., Fernndez, P. L., Bono, A., Prystupa, P., & Taboada, M. A. (2008). Phosphorus retention on soil surface of

PAGE 109

109 tilled and no tilled soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 72 (4), 1158 1162. Jasinski, S. M. (2013). Phosphate rock mineral commodity summaries. US Geological Survey< minerals. usgs. gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_ rock Kelly, T. D., Matos, G. R., Buckingham, D., DiFrancesco, C., & Porter, K. (2013). Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States. Retrieved 29 Jul 2013, from US Geological Survey Reston, VA http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ Lindall, S. A., & Olson, D. C. (1996). The IMPLAN input output system. Stillwater MN Litke, D. W. (1999). Review of phosphorus control measures in the United States and their effects on water quality : US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. Liu, Y., Villalba, G., Ayres, R. U., & Schroder, H. (2008). Global phosphorus flo ws and environmental impacts from a consumption perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12 (2), 229 247. Mackenzie, F. T., Ver, L. M., & Lerman, A. (2002). Century scale nitrogen and phosphorus controls of the carbon cycle. Chemical Geology, 190 (1), 13 32. Matsubae Yokoyama, K., Kubo, H., Nakajima, K., & Nagasaka, T. (2009). A Material Flow Analysis of Phosphorus in Japan The Iron and Steel Industry as a Major Phosphorus Source, Journal of Industrial Ecology Volume 13, Issue 5. Journal of Industrial Ec ology, 13 (5), 687 705. biosolids. Florida Water Resources Journal Schindler, D. W. (2006). Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography, 51 (1), 356 363. Siau, J. F. (1984). Transport processes in wood. Transport processes in wood.

PAGE 110

110 Singh, S., & Bakshi, B. R. (2013). Accounting for the Biogeochemical Cycle of Nitrogen in Input Output Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental s cience & technology, 47 (16), 9388 9396. Sleeswijk, A. W., van Oers, L. F. C. M., Guine, J. B., Struijs, J., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2008). Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000 Science of The Total Environment, 390 (1), 227 240. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.040 Smil, V. (2000). Phosphorus in the environment: natural flows and human interferen ces. Annual review of energy and the environment, 25 (1), 53 88. Steen, I. (1998). Phosphorus availability in the 21st Century: management of a nonrenewable resource. Phosphorus and Potassium (217), 25 31. Suh, S., & Yee, S. (2011). Phosphorus use efficien cy of agriculture and food system in the US. Chemosphere, 84 (6), 806 813. Trapp, S., Rasmussen, D., & Samse Petersen, L. (2003). Fruit tree model for uptake of organic compounds from soil. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 14 (1), 17 26. Van Kauwen bergh, S. J. (2010). World phosphate rock reserves and resources : IFDC. Villalba, G., Liu, Y., Schroder, H., & Ayres, R. U. (2008). Global phosphorus flows in the industrial economy from a production perspective. Journal of Industrial ecology, 12 (4), 557 5 69. Xue, X., & Landis, A. E. (2010). Eutrophication potential of food consumption patterns. Environmental science & technology, 44 (16), 6450 6456. Zhang, Y. (2008). Ecologically Based LCA An Approach For Quantifying The Role Of Natural Capital In Product Life Cycles. Ohio State University.

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX A Appendix A 1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Input Datasets 1.1 Phosphorus Input Datasets Summarized here are the sources of data used to complete the phosphorus input inventory. Monetary US product ion value data came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996) Raw material flow data for agriculture ( Sectors 1 18 plus fertilizer, 130) came from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) via the following databases: Sectors codes 1 10: FAOSTAT Commodity Balances Crops Primary Equivalent; 11 14, 17 18: FAOSTAT Commodity Balances Livestock and Fish Primary Equivale nt; 15 16: ForesSTAT; and 130: FAOSTAT Resources Fertilizers Module. Slight inconsistencies between production and trade flows, as well as within agricultural usage groups were normalized. Material flow data for coal came from the US Energy Information A dministration (EIA, 2011) Iron, Cement and Lime flow data was sourced from the US Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the respective minerals. Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on Villalba et al. (2008) but flows to soaps, other non fertilizer phosphate rock uses, as well as mine waste for fertilizer, soap, other and supplements were all scaled back in order to meet the total amount of phosphate rock mined in 2010 (Kelly et al., 2013) plus a 10% total mine and transportation loss factor (Villalba et al., 2008) Plant phosphorus co ntent was calculated on a dry basis. Dry material content came for most crops (1 6, 9) from Liu et al. (2008) for nuts from Trapp et a l. (2003) for

PAGE 112

112 tobacco from Drake (2013) a nd for cotton from Anthony and Mayfield (1995) Forest products ( SECTORS 15 16) were assumed to contain 50% moi sture on a wet basis from Cutshall (2012) giving a dry material content of 67% (Siau, 1984) Phosphorus content for most crops ( Sectors 1 7, 9) came from Smil (2000) and for cotton ( Sectors 8) from an average of: Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robinson (1986), Hocking and Meyer (1991): (0.0041, 0.004, 0.0035). Total fertilizer nutrient material flow of 37 Tg was calculated based on FAO phosphate fertilizer flow of 9.4 Tg, a phosphate to total fertilizer ratio of 3% (USDA, 2013). Phosphorus content for forest products ( Sectors 15 16) was a calculation based on a 50% carbon content of dry material from Lamlom and Savadge (2003) and 0.0014% phosphorus to carb on ratio from Williams and Da Silva (1997). 1.2 Production Primary Phosphorus Input Inventory to Core Production Sectors Production Primary Phosphorus Inputs were inventoried for 24 Core Production Sectors in the US economy using a process based life cycle as sessment approach. Tables summarizing the work completed for each of the 24 Core Production Sectors are given counting, as Total Fertilizer Inputs (From mining to manufacturing to final fertilizer sale) are included for Fertilizer (Good), but only non fertilizer inputs (Hidden) are included for Crops, because the next step of this stud y, the Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO LCA), will incorporate fertilizer inputs for crops. Table A 1 1 provides m used to compute the total hidden inputs for US crops ( Sectors codes 1 10 and 15 16). Hidden inputs

PAGE 113

113 considered waste (Rogich, Cassa ra, Wernick, & Miranda, 2008) included here is fertilizer, which is paid for and so is accounted for through the US economic input output tables.

PAGE 114

114 Table A 1 1 Phosphorus In puts Footprint of Production for C rops and Forestry in the U.S., 2010 Harvested Crops Inputs # Crops Fresh Wt Dry Wt: Fresh Wt DM P Conc. in DM Item P, Harvest P in residue Sum of P uptake Fert (not in sum) Weather ing Atm. Deposit H ay Input Recycle P input Soil to Erosion Nat + Rec P Inputs Input: Item P Ratio Source: 1 2,3,4,9 5 5,6,10,11 Calc 2, 6 Calc 12 2 2 8 2 2 2,8 Calc Units: Tg % Tg t/t Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tp P Tg P t/t 1 Oilseed 101 73% 74 5E 3 4E 1 7E 2 4E 1 4E 1 7E 2 2E 2 5E 2 3E 1 4E 1 9E 1 2.3 2 Grains 401 88% 353 3E 3 1E+0 1E+0 2E+0 1E+0 2E 1 5E 2 1E 1 8E 1 1E+0 2E+0 2.3 3 Vege's 48 10% 5 1E 3 5E 3 8E 3 1E 2 5E 3 9E 4 2E 4 6E 4 4E 3 6E 3 1E 2 2.3 4 Fruit 23 15% 3 1E 3 3E 3 6E 3 9E 3 4E 3 7E 4 2E 4 4E 4 3E 3 4E 3 8E 3 2.3 5 Nuts 2 95% 2 1E 3 2E 3 6E 4 3E 3 2E 3 4E 4 1E 4 3E 4 2E 3 3E 3 5E 3 2.3 6 GH 4 75% 3 1E 3 3E 3 1E 3 4E 3 3E 3 6E 4 1E 4 4E 4 2E 3 4E 3 7E 3 2.3 7 Tobacco 0.3 15% 0.05 1E 3 5E 5 8E 5 1E 4 5E 5 1E 5 2E 6 6E 6 4E 5 6E 5 1E 4 2.3 8 Cotton 4 91% 4 4E 3 1E 2 1E 3 1E 2 2E 2 3E 3 7E 4 2E 3 1E 2 2E 2 3E 2 2.3 9 Sugar 54 31% 17 1E 3 2E 2 1E 2 3E 2 2E 2 3E 3 8E 4 2E 3 1E 2 2E 2 4E 2 2.3 10 Other 6 80% 5 2E 3 1E 2 1E 2 2E 2 1E 2 2E 3 5E 4 1E 3 8E 3 1E 2 2E 2 2.3 15 Fore st 38 67% 25 7E 6 2E 4 6E 5 2E 4 2E 4 3E 5 9E 6 2E 5 2E 4 3E 4 1.5 16 Logs 184 67% 123 7E 6 9E 4 3E 4 1E 3 9E 4 2E 4 4E 5 1E 4 1E 3 1E 3 1.5 Sum/Avg: 865 55% 614 0.002 1.48 1.16 2.64 1.63 0.29 0.07 0.19 1.12 1.74 3.41 2.30 Notes. Abbreviations: Atm. = Atmosphere; Avg = Average; Conc. = Concentration; Deposit'n = Deposition; DM = Dry Matter; F = Final Demand of Local Production; GH = Greenhouse; IFP = Phosphorus Intensity Factor; Nat = Nature P = phosphorus; Re c = Recycled; Tg = Teragram; TFC = Total Final Consumption = F + M F ; t/t = ton per ton (concentration); Ttl = Total; Vege's = Vegetables; Wt = Weight Source: 1 FAOSTAT (2013) 2 Liu et al. (2008) 3 Trapp et al. (2007) 4 Anthony and Mayf ield (1995) 5 Roundwood: C/Item = 50%: Lamlom and Savadge (2003); P/C = 0.0014%: Williams and Da Silva (1997) 6 Smil (2000) 7 Villalba et al. (2008) 8 Suh and Yee (2011) 9 Drake (Und). Tobacco Biomass 10 Avg: Rogers et al. (1993), Reuter and Robins on (1986), Hocking and Meyer (1991): (0.0041,0.004,0.0035) 11 Code 10 = average of sectors 1 through 9 12 USDA (2013). Fertilizer Use.

PAGE 115

115 The hidden inputs for primary animal products in the US ( Sectors 11 14 and 18) are included in Table A 1 2 Inputs feed because these inputs are paid for and therefore included in the economic input output tables. Subcategories used to create these main category sectors are included above the main sector for reference. That is the reason their weight is listed as zero. Subcategory P concentrations and feed ratios were averaged to get categor y concentrations and feed ratios. It is interesting to note that the major hidden input for fish is th e 50% of fish in the US that are still provided by catching, and all phosphorus in those fish come from nature. It is assumed that all phosphorus for farmed fish come s from food rather than supplements (no reference was found showing that fish were fed ph osphorus supplements) Also, no literature was found stating that farmed fish were fed phosphorus supplements, as is the case for other livestock, so

PAGE 116

116 Table A 1 2 Phosphorus Inputs Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010 # Item Wt P Conc. in item P in Item Feed: Product Ratio Total Feed P % in diet (DM Basis) P% Adj Feed: Item P in Diet Pasture, Grazing Roughage, hay Feed (N ot in Sum) Supple ment Recycle Ptn. An. Feed Ph Rock to Suppl. Inputs Input: Item P Source: Calc 1 Calc 2 Calc 3, 4, 5 9 6 6 6 Calc 10 9 8 Calc Calc Units: Tg % Tg P t/t Tg DM % % Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P t/t 11 Cattle 17 0.20% 0.0 4 12 213 0.35% 39% 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 1E 2 5E 2 2E 1 6 Milk 0 0.21% 0.6 0.36% 39% Dairy Beef 0 0.20% 12 0.35% 39% 12 Dairy 92 0.21% 0.19 1.4 129 0.36% 39% 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 8E 2 3E 1 5E 1 2 Chicken 0 0.18% 10 0.84% 39% Turkey 0 0.20% 3 0.84% 39% Eggs 0 0.30% 4 0.84% 39% 13 Poultry 25 0.22% 0.06 6 139 0.84% 39% 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2E 2 9E 2 3E 1 6 Pig 0 0.23% 5 0.50% 39% Sheep 0 0.20% 17 0.25% 39% 14 Other 9 0.22% 0.02 11 100 0.38% 39% 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.1 0.03 8E 3 3E 2 1E 1 6 17 Fish 5 0.25% 0.013 1 7 N/A 0% 0.05 0.025 0 0.025 18 Game 2 0.22% 0.003 11 17 0.38% 39% 0.03 0.03 0 0 Sum: 150 0.22% 0.32 7 605 0.52% 36% 1.1 0.41 0.19 0.55 0.42 1.3E 1 4.7E 1 9E 1 5 150 0.22% 0.32 7 605 0.52% 36% 1.144 0.406 0.190 0.548 0.423 0.127 0.471 0.871 5 Notes: Abbreviations: Avg = Average; Conc. = Concentration; DM = Dry matter; IFP = Phosphorus Intensity Factor; P = phosphorus; t/t = ton per ton (concentration); Suppl = Supplement; Tg = Teragram; Ttl = Total; UK = Unknown; Wt = Weight. Source: 1 Gebhardt et al. (2012) 2 USDA 2011, Tb 1 76. Fo r dairy, assumed product to Base Milk multiplier = Avg Dairy = 3.9. For Dairy, assume 93% milk, 7% dairy beef. 3 For Poultry, assumed average of chicken, turkey and eggs. For Other animals and wild game products, assumed average of pig a nd sheep. 4 Be ef: Erickson (1998) breeder 1% Ca diet 5 6 USDA (2011). Tb1 77, 2010: Concentrates 225, Ha rvested Roughage 82, Pasture 153, Ttl 460 7 Beef: Mehren (2008): P=4% 4 oz. Supplement, 70 lb total feed, Arthington (2009): 6% Supplement, 35 lb total feed; Chickens: M oreki (2005): Tb 5.1: 1.49% of Feed is Monocalcium phosphate (where P ration is 30.97/ 124.05). Assume Turkey, Eggs, Poultry=chicken. Assume Milk, Pig, Sheep, Other Animal Products = Cow. 8 Total P in Supplement: Villalba et al. (2008): 10% loss in Mining/ Trans; Suh and Yee (2011): 11% loss in Manuf. (assume ~ Fert Mfr) 9 Suh and Yee (20 11). Suppl: Item Ratio = 1.39, Feed: Item = 1.7 10 EU 2013

PAGE 117

117 The total inputs for other products in the US ( Sectors 17, 22, 130, 138, 160 and 164) are included in Table A 1 3 These hidden inputs consist of losses from mining, transportation and manufacturing. It was assumed that iron ore and coal are in a non manufactured state, so no hidden losses were included for these products for manufacturing. Table A 1 3 P hosphorus Inputs Footprint of P roduction for Goods in the U S ., 2010 IMPLAN Sector Code Sector Wt Produced P% in Product P in Product Loss from Mining/ Transp. Loss Mfr. P Rock Input Impurity Input Total Inputs Input: Item P Ratio Column Input: 9, 10, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Calc 7 8 Calc Calc Calc Calc Units: Tg % Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P/Tg P 21 Coal 986 0.05% 0.493 0.0493 0.542 0.542 1.1 22 Iron ore 50 0.06% 0.030 0.0030 0.033 0.033 1.1 130 Fertilizer 109 3.00% 3.261 0.3252 0.0444 3.631 3.631 1.1 138 Soap 6 0.30% 0.017 0.0017 0.0002 0.019 0.019 1.1 160 Cement 67 0.04% 0.029 0.0029 0.0031 0.035 0.035 1.2 164 Lime & gypsum 18 0.01% 0.002 0.0002 0.0002 0.002 0.002 1.2 Sum/Avg: 1,236 0.6% 3.832 0.3823 0.0479 3.650 0.613 4.262 1.1 Notes: Abbreviations: Calc = Calculation; Conc. = Concentration; DM = Dry Matter; F = Final Consumption of Local Production; Fert = Fertilizer; IFP = Phosphorus Intensit y Factor; Mfr = Manufacture; P = phosphorus; P2O5 = Phosphate; TFC = Total Final Consumption; Tg = Teragram; Transp = Transportation; Wt = Weight. Input: 1 Coal: Bertine & Goldberg (1971): P Content, Amounts: Steel Association 2 Iron Ore: Ma tsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 3 Fertilizer: FAOSTAT Inputs Fertilizers Module (2011) 4 Soap: Variable to get correct P in soap production relative to fertilizer production, assume similar to global 2004 (Villalba et al., 2008) 5 Cement: Hossain (2007): 0.1% P2O5 in Cement. 43.7% P in P2O5 6 Lime: Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 7 Assume ~ Mine/Transp loss for P Ore (10%). Input: Vi l lalba et al. (2008) 8 Assume ~ Mfr. Fert (11% of fert.) Input: Suh (2011) 9 MIG Implan, 2013 10 USGS, 2013

PAGE 118

118 11 EIA (20 10) 12 Actuals except for soap, completed with monetary flows

PAGE 119

119 1.3 Demand Based Complete Inventory The following table, Table A 1 4 describes the US monetary output, phosphorus intensity factor, total, direct and indirect (suppl y chain) phosphorus footprint, a demand based intensity factor vector (created from sector phosphorus footprint and US monetary output) for the US of all 440 IMPLAN sectors of the economy in 2010, as well as the relative percentage of the four inputs that goes to each demand.

PAGE 120

120 Table A 1 4 Complete 440 Sector Demand b ased Phosphorus Inputs Footprint in the U.S., 2010 # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 1 Oilseeds $34,224 0.415 0.385 0.030 12.11 15% 57% 28% 0% 2 Grains $60,974 0.952 0.873 0.079 15.61 23% 51% 25% 0% 3 Vegetables and melons $18,747 0.079 0.049 0.030 4.20 81% 12% 6% 0% 4 Fruit $21,516 0.073 0.040 0.033 3.39 81% 12% 6% 1% 5 Tree nuts $5,910 0.026 0.015 0.011 4.44 73% 18% 9% 1% 6 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture products $16,510 0.0 34 0.021 0.013 2.05 77% 15% 8% 0% 7 Tobacco $1,247 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.12 77% 16% 7% 0% 8 Cotton $6,267 0.064 0.048 0.016 10.29 59% 27% 13% 0% 9 Sugarcane and sugar beets $2,635 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.20 25% 50% 25% 0% 10 All other crop farming products $25,263 0.020 0.014 0.007 0.81 73% 18% 9% 0% 11 Cattle from ranches and farms $51,531 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.01 38% 47% 15% 0% 12 Dairy cattle and milk products $31,361 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.20 58% 23% 19% 0% 13 Poultry and e gg products $35,465 0.139 0.076 0.064 3.93 27% 53% 18% 1% 14 Animal products, except cattle, poultry and eggs $23,087 0.040 0.025 0.015 1.75 35% 50% 15% 0% 15 Forest, timber, and forest nursery products $5,279 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.11 72% 19 % 9% 0% 16 Logs and roundwood $11,736 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.24 67% 24% 8% 0% 17 Fish $5,658 0.017 0.017 0.000 3.08 1% 99% 0% 0% 18 Wild game products, pelts, and furs $3,347 0.026 0.025 0.001 7.72 2% 98% 0% 0% 19 Agriculture and forestry s upport services $22,600 0.012 0.009 0.003 0.52 98% 1% 0% 0% 20 Oil and natural gas $211,010 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.01 42% 7% 3% 48% 21 Coal $30,059 0.147 0.146 0.001 4.90 0% 0% 0% 100% 22 Iron ore $2,698 0.011 0.011 0.000 4.08 0% 0% 0% 99% 23 Copper, nickel, lead, and zinc $9,915 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 15% 3% 1% 81% 24 Gold, silver, and other metal ore $12,298 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.06 21% 7% 3% 69% 25 Natural stone $14,205 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 20% 4% 2% 74% 26 Sand, gr avel, clay, and ceramic and refractory minerals $5,900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 24% 4% 2% 70% 27 Other nonmetallic minerals $3,304 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 18% 3% 1% 78%

PAGE 121

121 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 28 Oil and gas wells $38,068 0.006 0.002 0.004 0.17 51% 9% 4% 36% 29 Support s ervices for oil and gas operations $48,629 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.16 33% 9% 4% 54% 30 Support services for other mining $5,313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 57% 5% 2% 35% 31 Electricity, and distribution services $261,183 0.067 0.062 0.005 0.26 1% 0 % 0% 98% 32 Natural gas, and distribution services $117,384 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 49% 10% 5% 36% 33 Water, sewage treatment, and other utility services $11,078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 72% 8% 4% 17% 34 Newly constructed nonresidential commercia l and health care structures $218,544 0.114 0.070 0.044 0.52 88% 2% 1% 8% 35 Newly constructed nonresidential manufacturing structures $41,807 0.009 0.005 0.004 0.21 84% 3% 1% 12% 36 Other newly constructed nonresidential structures $415,098 0 .199 0.118 0.081 0.48 85% 3% 1% 10% 37 Newly constructed residential permanent site single and multi family structures $134,288 0.096 0.058 0.038 0.72 87% 3% 1% 8% 38 Other newly constructed residential structures $205,103 0.108 0.058 0.050 0.53 83% 4% 2% 11% 39 Maintained and repaired nonresidential structures $173,176 0.015 0.008 0.007 0.09 82% 5% 2% 11% 40 Maintained and repaired residential structures $21,825 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 87% 3% 1% 8% 41 Dog and cat food $27,003 0.222 0.095 0.127 8.23 23% 52% 25% 1% 42 Other animal food $38,175 0.141 0.060 0.080 3.68 22% 52% 25% 0% 43 Flour and malt $22,246 0.132 0.093 0.039 5.92 23% 51% 25% 0% 44 Corn sweeteners, corn oils, and corn starches $28,550 0.075 0.054 0.021 2.64 23% 51% 25% 1% 45 Soybean oil and cakes and other oilseed products $34,869 0.140 0.095 0.045 4.02 16% 56% 27% 0% 46 Shortening and margarine and other fats and oils products $10,274 0.048 0.010 0.038 4.71 17% 55% 27% 1% 47 Break fast cereal products $13,488 0.073 0.027 0.046 5.43 22% 52% 25% 1%

PAGE 122

122 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 48 Raw and refined sugar from sugar cane $5,471 0.009 0.004 0.005 1.58 25% 49% 24% 2% 49 Refined sugar from sugar beets $3,487 0.017 0.012 0.005 4.75 25% 49% 24% 2% 50 Cho colate cacao products and chocolate confectioneries $4,548 0.010 0.000 0.010 2.29 44% 35% 19% 2% 51 Chocolate confectioneries from purchased chocolate $12,166 0.020 0.000 0.020 1.65 40% 37% 20% 3% 52 Non chocolate confectioneries $6,399 0.022 0.001 0.021 3.39 25% 50% 24% 2% 53 Frozen foods $29,801 0.141 0.056 0.086 4.74 31% 46% 22% 1% 54 Canned, pickled and dried fruits and vegetables $46,351 0.060 0.009 0.051 1.30 39% 39% 18% 5% 55 Fluid milk and butter $34,115 0.226 0.132 0.095 6.64 57% 23% 19% 1% 56 Cheese $32,450 0.173 0.088 0.086 5.35 58% 23% 19% 1% 57 Dry, condensed, and evaporated dairy products $16,111 0.087 0.042 0.045 5.39 54% 26% 19% 1% 58 Ice cream and frozen desserts $8,624 0.013 0.003 0.010 1. 47 47% 32% 19% 2% 59 Processed animal (except poultry) meat and rendered byproducts $120,190 0.403 0.104 0.299 3.35 36% 47% 15% 1% 60 Processed poultry meat products $54,039 0.347 0.111 0.235 6.42 28% 53% 18% 1% 61 Seafood products $12,844 0 .007 0.004 0.003 0.53 22% 63% 9% 5% 62 Bread and bakery products $34,434 0.135 0.016 0.119 3.91 24% 50% 24% 1% 63 Cookies, crackers, and pasta $25,117 0.124 0.016 0.109 4.95 25% 50% 24% 1% 64 Tortillas $3,808 0.027 0.007 0.020 7.03 23 % 51% 25% 1% 65 Snack foods including nuts, seeds and grains, and chips $34,032 0.108 0.020 0.088 3.18 37% 41% 20% 2% 66 Coffee and tea $10,171 0.010 0.001 0.010 1.03 77% 13% 6% 4% 67 Flavoring syrups and concentrates $33,782 0.002 0.000 0. 002 0.05 51% 31% 15% 3% 68 Seasonings and dressings $19,017 0.040 0.002 0.038 2.11 38% 41% 19% 2% 69 All other manufactured food products $19,994 0.055 0.012 0.043 2.75 33% 44% 21% 2% 70 Soft drinks and manufactured ice $69,870 0.119 0.001 0.119 1.71 30% 45% 22% 4% 71 Beer, ale, malt liquor and nonalcoholic beer $29,381 0.070 0.027 0.043 2.37 25% 49% 24% 3% 72 Wine and brandies $17,588 0.008 0.001 0.007 0.45 75% 12% 6% 8%

PAGE 123

123 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 73 Distilled liquors except brandies $9,688 0.005 0 .003 0.002 0.53 25% 49% 24% 2% 74 Cigarettes, cigars, smoking and chewing tobacco, and reconstituted tobacco $47,990 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.15 71% 17% 8% 4% 75 Fiber filaments, yarn, and thread $7,537 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.45 62% 23% 11% 4% 76 B road woven fabrics and felts $6,989 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.48 60% 24% 11% 5% 77 Woven and embroidered fabrics $1,076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.31 64% 18% 9% 9% 78 Nonwoven fabrics and felts $4,890 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.37 71% 16% 7% 6% 79 Knitted fa brics $1,165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.37 60% 19% 9% 12% 80 Finished textiles and fabrics $6,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 55% 15% 7% 23% 81 Coated fabric coating $2,151 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.25 66% 17% 8% 9% 82 Carpets and rugs $10,967 0.003 0.00 0 0.003 0.31 67% 18% 9% 6% 83 Curtains and linens $3,628 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.21 62% 20% 9% 9% 84 Textile bags and canvas $3,308 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 64% 17% 8% 10% 85 All other textile products $6,157 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.18 59% 22% 1 0% 8% 86 Knit apparel $3,183 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.27 59% 20% 10% 11% 87 Cut and sewn apparel from contractors $3,994 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 50% 18% 9% 24% 88 Men's and boys' cut and sewn apparel $4,229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.11 54% 19% 9% 19% 89 Women's and girls' cut and sewn apparel $11,061 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 56% 20% 9% 15% 90 Other cut and sew apparel $1,996 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 54% 20% 10% 15% 91 Apparel accessories and other apparel $1,838 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.13 56 % 20% 9% 14% 92 Tanned and finished leather and hides $1,144 0.003 0.000 0.003 2.40 42% 43% 14% 1% 93 Footwear $2,075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.22 65% 18% 8% 9% 94 Other leather and allied products $1,622 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.26 53% 30% 11% 7% 95 Dimension lumber and preserved wood products $20,295 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.12 69% 20% 8% 2% 96 Veneer and plywood $5,317 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.18 68% 20% 8% 3% 97 Engineered wood members and trusses $3,455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 66% 19% 8% 7% 98 Reconstituted wood products $4,525 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.17 71% 14% 6% 9%

PAGE 124

124 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 99 Wood windows and doors and millwork $15,832 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 66% 18% 8% 8% 100 Wood containers and pallets $6,778 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.12 59% 23% 10% 8% 101 Manufactured homes (mobile homes) $2,957 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.19 52% 17% 8% 23% 102 Prefabricated wood buildings $2,057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 63% 18% 8% 11% 103 All other miscellaneous wood products $3,111 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.17 66% 19% 8% 7% 104 Wood pulp $4,264 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.55 46% 21% 9% 24% 105 Paper from pulp $55,821 0.016 0.003 0.013 0.29 38% 29% 14% 19% 106 Paperboard from pulp $21,448 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.20 38% 23% 11% 28% 107 Paperboard containers $54 ,049 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 40% 23% 11% 26% 108 Coated and laminated paper, packaging paper and plastics film $18,088 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.14 60% 16% 8% 16% 109 All other paper bag and coated and treated paper $6,688 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 60% 17% 8% 15% 110 Paper and paperboard stationary products $7,909 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.25 43% 23% 11% 23% 111 Sanitary paper products $23,742 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.23 59% 16% 8% 18% 112 All other converted paper products $4,620 0.001 0.000 0. 001 0.15 44% 20% 9% 27% 113 Printed materials $76,967 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.06 43% 28% 14% 16% 114 Printing support services $4,192 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 59% 15% 7% 19% 115 Refined petroleum products $587,469 0.023 0.005 0.018 0.04 52% 8 % 4% 36% 116 Asphalt paving mixtures and blocks $12,720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 42% 19% 9% 30% 117 Asphalt shingles and coating materials $13,529 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 37% 10% 5% 48% 118 Petroleum lubricating oils and greases $11,223 0.001 0 .001 0.001 0.13 81% 9% 4% 5% 119 All other petroleum and coal products $6,140 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 60% 9% 4% 27% 120 Petrochemicals $145,227 0.054 0.021 0.033 0.37 80% 11% 5% 4% 121 Industrial gas $18,014 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.11 53% 2 0% 10% 17% 122 Synthetic dyes and pigments $9,377 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.31 82% 8% 4% 7% 123 Alkalies and chlorine $8,148 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.11 55% 3% 2% 41% 124 Carbon black $1,482 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 40% 7% 3% 50% 125 All other basic inorganic chemicals $22,751 0.019 0.013 0.006 0.82 92% 1% 0% 6%

PAGE 125

125 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 126 Other basic organic chemicals $57,266 0.025 0.011 0.014 0.43 79% 12% 6% 3% 127 Plastics materials and resins $65,265 0.037 0.014 0.022 0.56 82% 10% 5% 3% 128 Synthetic ru bber $7,079 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.40 76% 12% 6% 5% 129 Artificial and synthetic fibers and filaments $14,761 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.18 69% 17% 8% 6% 130 Fertilizer $30,728 1.082 1.025 0.056 35.20 100% 0% 0% 0% 131 Pesticides and other agricult ural chemicals $22,218 0.018 0.008 0.010 0.80 80% 12% 6% 2% 132 Medicines and botanicals $11,492 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 44% 28% 14% 14% 133 Pharmaceutical preparations $286,505 0.055 0.005 0.050 0.19 54% 26% 13% 7% 134 In vitro diagnostic substances $7,796 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 42% 29% 13% 16% 135 Biological products (except diagnostic) $19,433 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 44% 27% 12% 17% 136 Paints and coatings $22,996 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.13 73% 15% 7% 5% 137 Adhesives $10,83 9 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.26 68% 19% 9% 4% 138 Soaps and cleaning compounds $66,063 0.075 0.040 0.036 1.14 86% 8% 4% 2% 139 Toilet preparations $38,230 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.51 40% 37% 18% 6% 140 Printing inks $4,007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.11 75% 12% 6% 7% 141 All other chemical products and preparations $41,713 0.032 0.016 0.016 0.77 88% 7% 3% 2% 142 Plastics packaging materials and unlaminated films and sheets $29,318 0.007 0.000 0.006 0.23 78% 11% 5% 5% 143 Unlaminated plastics profile shapes $5,291 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 80% 10% 5% 5% 144 Plastics pipes and pipe fittings $8,474 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.14 80% 11% 5% 4% 145 Laminated plastics plates, sheets (except packaging), and shapes $4,243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 79% 10% 5% 7% 146 Polystyrene foam products $8,375 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 78% 10% 5% 6% 147 Urethane and other foam products (except polystyrene) $9,369 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.22 61% 24% 12% 3% 148 Plastics bottles $12,234 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 75% 13% 6% 6% 149 Other plastics products $63,768 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.17 78% 11% 5% 7% 150 Tires $17,968 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.33 71% 15% 7% 8% 151 Rubber and plastics hoses and belts $5,345 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.22 70% 14% 7% 8% 152 O ther rubber products $12,059 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.24 64% 18% 8% 10%

PAGE 126

126 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 153 Pottery, ceramics, and plumbing fixtures $2,572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.16 30% 9% 4% 57% 154 Bricks, tiles, and other structural clay products $2,637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 32% 4% 2% 63% 155 Clay and non clay refractory products $3,238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 30% 8% 4% 57% 156 Flat glass $3,052 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.28 39% 2% 1% 58% 157 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware $4,053 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.33 63% 3% 1% 33% 158 Glass containers $6,190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 16% 4% 2% 78% 159 Glass products made of purchased glass $8,331 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 62% 5% 3% 30% 160 Cement $5,538 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.18 1% 0% 0% 99% 161 Ready mix con crete $22,858 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 11% 3% 1% 85% 162 Concrete pipes, bricks, and blocks $6,415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 10% 2% 1% 87% 163 Other concrete products $8,486 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 15% 3% 2% 81% 164 Lime and gypsum products $5, 896 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.11 14% 24% 12% 50% 165 Abrasive products $2,836 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 67% 7% 3% 23% 166 Cut stone and stone products $2,716 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 46% 13% 6% 35% 167 Ground or treated mineral and earth products $4 ,146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 11% 4% 2% 84% 168 Mineral wool $5,397 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 54% 5% 3% 39% 169 Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products $3,798 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 18% 4% 2% 75% 170 Iron and steel and ferroalloy products $ 60,043 0.012 0.010 0.002 0.20 4% 1% 0% 94% 171 Steel products from purchased steel $23,428 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 14% 2% 1% 83% 172 Aluminum products $5,420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 18% 2% 1% 80% 173 Aluminum alloys $3,868 0.000 0.000 0 .000 0.02 20% 4% 2% 74% 174 Aluminum products from purchased aluminum $20,931 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.03 26% 4% 2% 67% 175 Copper $10,263 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 16% 3% 1% 80% 176 Nonferrous metals (except copper and aluminum) $5,605 0.000 0.00 0 0.000 0.08 15% 4% 2% 79% 177 Rolled, drawn, extruded and alloyed copper $21,462 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 47% 8% 4% 40%

PAGE 127

127 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 178 Rolled, drawn, extruded and alloyed nonferrous metals (except copper and aluminum) $13,867 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 26% 6% 3% 65% 179 Ferrous metals $15,086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 15% 3% 2% 80% 180 Nonferrous metals $9,148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 25% 6% 3% 66% 181 All other forged, stamped, and sintered metals $9,739 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 17% 3% 2% 78% 18 2 Custom roll formed metals $1,676 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 13% 3% 1% 83% 183 Crowned and stamped metals $11,791 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 39% 5% 3% 53% 184 Cutlery, utensils, pots, and pans $2,965 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.14 53% 9% 4% 34% 185 Hand tools $6,708 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 34% 6% 3% 56% 186 Plates and fabricated structural products $36,941 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 22% 4% 2% 72% 187 Ornamental and architectural metal products $33,929 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 34% 6% 3% 57% 188 Power boilers and heat exchangers $6,684 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 32% 5% 3% 59% 189 Metal tanks (heavy gauge) $6,192 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 23% 5% 2% 71% 190 Metal cans, boxes, and other metal containers (light gauge) $23,118 0.000 0.000 0.00 0 0.01 28% 5% 3% 64% 191 Ammunition $11,128 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.16 67% 7% 4% 22% 192 Arms, ordnance, and accessories $5,611 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 46% 8% 4% 42% 193 Hardware $6,188 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 39% 8% 4% 50% 194 Spring and wi re products $9,176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 23% 4% 2% 71% 195 Machined products $35,335 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 37% 9% 4% 49% 196 Turned products and screws, nuts, and bolts $14,219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 21% 5% 2% 72% 197 Coated, engraved, heat treated products $23,420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 61% 7% 3% 29% 198 Valves and fittings other than plumbing $21,263 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.04 31% 7% 3% 60% 199 Plumbing fixture fittings and trims $4,317 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 54% 10% 5% 31 % 200 Balls and roller bearings $9,384 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 20% 4% 2% 74% 201 Fabricated pipes and pipe fittings $7,306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 20% 4% 2% 74% 202 Other fabricated metals $13,886 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 44% 7% 4% 45%

PAGE 128

128 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 203 F arm machinery and equipment $27,891 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.15 39% 8% 4% 50% 204 Lawn and garden equipment $6,464 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 45% 9% 4% 42% 205 Construction machinery $37,440 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.12 39% 8% 4% 49% 206 Mining and oil and gas field machinery $34,207 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.14 27% 7% 3% 63% 207 Other industrial machinery $16,145 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.10 29% 6% 3% 61% 208 Plastics and rubber industry machinery $3,216 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 26% 6% 3% 66% 209 Se miconductor machinery $6,171 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 57% 12% 6% 26% 210 Vending, commercial, industrial, and office machinery $4,543 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.15 51% 10% 5% 34% 211 Optical instruments and lens $6,774 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 65% 10 % 5% 20% 212 Photographic and photocopying equipment $4,748 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.41 79% 8% 4% 8% 213 Other commercial and service industry machinery $14,006 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.11 53% 10% 5% 33% 214 Air purification and ventilation equipment $5 ,652 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 40% 9% 4% 47% 215 Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) $3,487 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 41% 9% 4% 46% 216 Air conditioning, refrigeration, and warm air heating equipment $29,319 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.05 41% 9 % 4% 46% 217 Industrial molds $4,554 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 28% 5% 3% 65% 218 Metal cutting and forming machine tools $6,327 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 34% 8% 4% 54% 219 Special tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures $8,357 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.09 21 % 5% 3% 71% 220 Cutting tools and machine tool accessories $3,046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 23% 5% 3% 69% 221 Rolling mills and other metalworking machinery $2,471 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 34% 7% 3% 55% 222 Turbines and turbine generator set units $13,621 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 27% 5% 3% 65% 223 Speed changers, industrial high speed drives, and gears $3,264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 25% 6% 3% 66% 224 Mechanical power transmission equipment $3,382 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 24% 5% 3% 68%

PAGE 129

129 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 2 25 Other engine equipment $26,275 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 41% 9% 4% 45% 226 Pumps and pumping equipment $11,179 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 39% 8% 4% 49% 227 Air and gas compressors $9,559 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 39% 9% 4% 48% 228 Material handl ing equipment $21,238 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 28% 6% 3% 63% 229 Power driven hand tools $2,724 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.13 51% 8% 4% 36% 230 Other general purpose machinery $12,978 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.13 43% 9% 4% 43% 231 Packaging machinery $4 ,030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 42% 10% 5% 43% 232 Industrial process furnaces and ovens $2,314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 25% 8% 4% 63% 233 Fluid power process machinery $8,506 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 26% 5% 3% 67% 234 Electronic computers $143,7 18 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.06 71% 9% 4% 16% 235 Computer storage devices $19,521 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.03 57% 10% 5% 28% 236 Computer terminals and other computer peripheral equipment $20,983 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 55% 10% 5% 30% 237 Telephone apparatus $17,319 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 71% 8% 4% 17% 238 Broadcast and wireless communications equipment $33,743 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.06 67% 9% 4% 19% 239 Other communications equipment $8,026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 58% 12% 6% 25% 240 Au dio and video equipment $9,023 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.09 65% 11% 5% 19% 241 Electron tubes $1,629 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 51% 9% 4% 36% 242 Bare printed circuit boards $7,425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 67% 8% 4% 21% 243 Semiconductor and related devices $135,125 0.014 0.005 0.009 0.10 83% 4% 2% 11% 244 Electronic capacitors, resistors, coils, transformers, and other inductors $3,137 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 47% 8% 4% 42% 245 Electronic connectors $4,218 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.12 68% 9% 4% 20% 246 Printed circuit assemblies (electronic assemblies) $15,368 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 77% 5% 3% 15% 247 Other electronic components $12,496 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.04 70% 7% 3% 20% 248 Electro medical and electrotherapeutic apparatus $25,7 74 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.11 62% 14% 7% 18%

PAGE 130

130 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 249 Search, detection, and navigation instruments $60,480 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.05 58% 11% 5% 26% 250 Automatic environmental controls $4,618 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 61% 10% 5% 24% 251 Industrial proc ess variable instruments $15,304 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 49% 11% 5% 35% 252 Totalizing fluid meters and counting devices $4,522 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 65% 10% 5% 21% 253 Electricity and signal testing instruments $13,150 0.001 0.000 0.001 0. 05 58% 12% 6% 25% 254 Analytical laboratory instruments $11,946 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 62% 12% 6% 20% 255 Irradiation apparatus $5,529 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 48% 9% 4% 40% 256 Watches, clocks, and other measuring and controlling devices $8,60 0 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 55% 11% 5% 29% 257 Software, blank audio and video media, mass reproduction $7,328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 72% 12% 6% 11% 258 Magnetic and optical recording media $2,335 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 73% 10% 5% 13% 259 El ectric lamp bulbs and parts $2,637 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.24 81% 4% 2% 13% 260 Lighting fixtures $9,248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 53% 9% 5% 33% 261 Small electrical appliances $5,653 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.25 71% 11% 5% 13% 262 Household cooking a ppliances $4,640 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.22 48% 8% 4% 41% 263 Household refrigerators and home freezers $6,671 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.34 63% 9% 5% 23% 264 Household laundry equipment $7,074 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.21 50% 8% 4% 38% 265 Other major ho usehold appliances $5,588 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.21 62% 9% 5% 24% 266 Power, distribution, and specialty transformers $8,968 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.12 26% 6% 3% 66% 267 Motor and generators $12,985 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 36% 6% 3% 55% 268 Switc hgear and switchboard apparatus $9,555 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 53% 8% 4% 35% 269 Relay and industrial controls $14,983 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 57% 8% 4% 31% 270 Storage batteries $4,639 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.11 70% 6% 3% 21% 271 Primary batte ries $5,869 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.16 57% 7% 3% 33% 272 Communication and energy wires and cables $9,798 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 71% 10% 5% 14%

PAGE 131

131 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 273 Wiring devices $11,878 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 66% 9% 4% 20% 274 Carbon and graphite products $ 2,031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 46% 16% 8% 30% 275 All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and components $6,375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 49% 10% 5% 36% 276 Automobiles $122,987 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.13 55% 10% 5% 31% 277 Light trucks and u tility vehicles $62,663 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.14 55% 10% 5% 30% 278 Heavy duty trucks $20,441 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.11 51% 10% 5% 35% 279 Motor vehicle bodies $15,122 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 42% 9% 4% 45% 280 Truck trailers $5,466 0.001 0.00 0 0.001 0.16 43% 10% 4% 43% 281 Motor homes $3,110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.14 58% 14% 6% 22% 282 Travel trailers and campers $5,704 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.18 53% 12% 5% 30% 283 Motor vehicle parts $158,339 0.007 0.001 0.006 0.04 51% 8% 4% 37% 284 Aircraft $143,807 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.05 46% 9% 4% 41% 285 Aircraft engines and engine parts $38,972 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 36% 10% 5% 49% 286 Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment $27,918 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 44% 9% 4% 43% 287 Guided missiles and space vehicles $22,692 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 50% 15% 7% 28% 288 Propulsion units and parts for space vehicles and guided missiles $5,698 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 60% 10% 5% 25% 289 Railroad rolling stock $8,752 0.001 0 .000 0.001 0.06 36% 9% 4% 51% 290 Ships $22,336 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.09 43% 10% 5% 42% 291 Boats $5,379 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.21 68% 11% 5% 15% 292 Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts $7,595 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.13 25% 7% 3% 65% 293 Military armored vehicles, tanks, and tank components $7,421 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.25 66% 6% 3% 25% 294 All other transportation equipment $5,294 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.18 52% 10% 5% 34% 295 Wood kitchen cabinets and countertops $12,987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 65% 17% 7% 11% 296 Upholstered household furniture $8,695 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.29 59% 20% 10% 11% 297 Non upholstered wood household furniture $5,027 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.17 63% 17% 7% 13% 298 Metal and other household furniture $2,877 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.45 70% 13% 6% 12% 299 Institutional furniture $4,818 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.16 48% 12% 5% 34%

PAGE 132

132 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 300 Office Furniture $9,909 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.16 64% 16% 7% 13% 301 Custom architectural woodwork and millwork $2,198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.14 54% 12% 6% 27% 302 Showcases, partitions, shelving, and lockers $7,942 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.17 47% 9% 4% 40% 303 Mattresses $8,315 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.30 59% 21% 10% 10% 304 Blinds and shades $1,958 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.1 8 59% 12% 6% 23% 305 Surgical and medical instrument, laboratory and medical instruments $42,835 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.12 69% 12% 6% 13% 306 Surgical appliances and supplies $35,398 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.10 61% 13% 6% 19% 307 Dental equipment and supplies $4,593 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 40% 19% 9% 32% 308 Ophthalmic goods $8,340 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.12 73% 11% 5% 11% 309 Dental laboratories $4,004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 50% 16% 8% 27% 310 Jewelry and silverware $8,623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 45% 11% 5% 39% 311 Sporting and athletic goods $11,158 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.29 71% 10% 5% 14% 312 Dolls, toys, and games $3,868 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.32 75% 12% 6% 8% 313 Office supplies (except paper) $3,336 0.001 0.000 0.001 0 .27 76% 11% 6% 8% 314 Signs $8,815 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.14 65% 12% 6% 18% 315 Gaskets, packing and sealing devices $5,840 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.10 66% 11% 5% 17% 316 Musical instruments $1,461 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 62% 16% 7% 15% 317 All other miscellaneous manufactured products $13,773 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.18 65% 11% 5% 18% 318 Brooms, brushes, and mops $2,534 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.11 68% 14% 7% 11% 319 Wholesale trade distribution services $1,007,611 0.031 0.009 0.022 0.03 65% 15% 7% 13% 320 Retail Services Motor vehicle and parts OR BEA ALL RETAIL $178,121 0.011 0.001 0.010 0.06 46% 16% 8% 30% 321 Retail Services Furniture and home furnishings $44,259 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 322 Retail Service s Electronics and appliances $55,765 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.06 46% 16% 8% 30% 323 Retail Services Building material and garden supply $93,163 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 324 Retail Services Food and beverage $168,168 0.007 0.001 0.006 0.04 46% 16% 8% 30%

PAGE 133

133 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 325 Retail Services Health and personal care $84,293 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 326 Retail Services Gasoline stations $63,384 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 327 Retail Services Clothing and clothing accessories $88,318 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.07 46% 16% 8% 30% 328 Retail Services Sporting goods, hobby, book and music $36,395 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 329 Retail Services General merchandise $161,142 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.04 46% 16% 8% 30% 330 Retail Services Miscellaneous $70,094 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.05 46% 16% 8% 30% 331 Retail Services Non store, direct and electronic sales $93,614 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.06 46% 16% 8% 30% 332 Air transportation services $127,479 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.04 49% 24% 11% 16% 333 Rail transportation services $54,583 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 66% 11% 5% 18% 334 Water transportation services $33,691 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.05 42% 9% 4% 45% 335 Truck transportation servic es $213,334 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.02 58% 11% 5% 25% 336 Transit and ground passenger transportation services $30,544 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 48% 9% 4% 38% 337 Pipeline transportation services $28,665 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 56% 8% 4% 31% 338 Scenic and sightseeing transportation services and support activities for transportation $71,219 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 56% 14% 6% 24% 339 Couriers and messengers services $67,337 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 56% 12% 6% 27% 340 Warehousing and storag e services $61,957 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 40% 7% 3% 50% 341 Newspapers $34,962 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.03 42% 24% 11% 23% 342 Periodicals $40,402 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.04 38% 33% 16% 12% 343 Books $27,519 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 49% 20% 10% 21% 344 Directories and mailing lists $22,967 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 50% 21% 10% 19% 345 Software $154,489 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.02 53% 23% 11% 13% 346 Motion pictures and videos $85,759 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 55% 14% 7% 24% 347 Sound rec ordings $20,369 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.04 52% 20% 9% 19% 348 Radio and television entertainment $49,403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 46% 23% 11% 20%

PAGE 134

134 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 349 Cable and other subscription services $46,076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 52% 18% 9% 21% 350 Intern et publishing and broadcasting services $26,045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 40% 33% 16% 10% 351 Telecommunications $491,556 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.01 55% 14% 7% 24% 352 Data processing hosting ISP web search portals $86,835 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.0 1 54% 20% 9% 17% 353 Other information services $9,982 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 43% 18% 9% 30% 354 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation services $627,329 0.016 0.000 0.015 0.02 50% 26% 13% 11% 355 Non depository credit inte rmediation and related services $414,285 0.005 0.000 0.004 0.01 45% 26% 13% 16% 356 Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related services $536,882 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.02 48% 22% 11% 20% 357 Insurance $472,307 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.00 48% 22% 11% 19% 358 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related services $167,198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 359 Funds, trusts, and other financial services $115,517 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.02 48% 22% 11% 19% 360 Real estate buying a nd selling, leasing, managing, and related services $973,358 0.011 0.001 0.009 0.01 49% 10% 5% 36% 361 Imputed rental services of owner occupied dwellings $1,203,100 0.081 0.044 0.036 0.07 91% 3% 2% 4% 362 Automotive equipment rental and leasin g services $51,401 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 57% 17% 8% 18% 363 General and consumer goods rental services except video tapes and discs $23,110 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.04 42% 17% 8% 33% 364 Video tape and disc rental services $4,811 0.000 0.000 0.0 00 0.05 31% 12% 6% 52% 365 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and leasing services $53,088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 46% 21% 10% 23% 366 Leasing of nonfinancial intangible assets $172,784 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 32% 10% 5% 5 3% 367 Legal services $274,535 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.01 47% 24% 11% 18%

PAGE 135

135 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 368 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services $142,996 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 42% 25% 12% 21% 369 Architectural, engineering, and related services $232, 891 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.02 45% 24% 11% 21% 370 Specialized design services $22,183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 58% 20% 10% 12% 371 Custom computer programming services $175,521 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.03 34% 13% 6% 47% 372 Computer systems design services $89,587 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.03 46% 27% 13% 15% 373 Other computer related services, including facilities management $53,062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 43% 29% 14% 15% 374 Management, scientific, and technical consulting services $158,699 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 46% 28% 13% 12% 375 Environmental and other technical consulting services $38,186 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 46% 23% 11% 20% 376 Scientific research and development services $164,876 0.016 0.005 0.010 0.09 47% 25% 12% 16% 377 Advertising and related services $105,684 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.00 85% 6% 3% 6% 378 Photographic services $9,758 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 63% 16% 8% 13% 379 Veterinary services $22,642 0.013 0.001 0.012 0.56 32% 45% 22% 2% 380 All other miscellaneous professional, scientific, and technical services $71,962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 49% 21% 10% 19% 381 Management of companies and enterprises $373,701 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.01 47% 20% 10% 23% 382 Employment services $141,781 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 40% 28% 13% 19% 383 Travel arrangement and reservation services $34,752 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.03 46% 26% 12% 16% 384 Office administrative services $61,524 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.01 43% 28% 14% 15% 385 Facilities support service s $20,993 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.03 41% 19% 9% 31% 386 Business support services $59,513 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 47% 23% 11% 19% 387 Investigation and security services $43,908 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 49% 21% 10% 20% 388 Services to buildings and dwellings $139,808 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.03 89% 5% 2% 4% 389 Other support services $38,508 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 49% 22% 10% 19%

PAGE 136

136 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 390 Waste management and remediation services $76,587 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 51% 18% 9% 22% 391 Elementar y and secondary education from private schools $50,201 0.010 0.003 0.007 0.19 65% 19% 9% 8% 392 Education from private junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools $159,218 0.050 0.002 0.048 0.31 40% 33% 15% 12% 393 Other p rivate educational services $55,597 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.04 61% 14% 7% 18% 394 Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners $568,519 0.027 0.001 0.026 0.05 52% 22% 11% 15% 395 Home health care services $67,444 0.003 0.000 0 .003 0.04 58% 18% 9% 15% 396 Medical and diagnostic labs and outpatient and other ambulatory care services $179,771 0.013 0.001 0.012 0.07 61% 17% 8% 14% 397 Private hospital services $592,001 0.106 0.004 0.102 0.18 46% 30% 13% 10% 398 Nursi ng and residential care services $178,740 0.036 0.000 0.035 0.20 39% 37% 15% 9% 399 Child day care services $44,554 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.22 42% 34% 18% 6% 400 Individual and family services $64,631 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.08 41% 34% 15% 10% 40 1 Community food, housing, and other relief services, including rehabilitation services $30,365 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.13 36% 37% 14% 12% 402 Performing arts $14,027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 52% 15% 7% 25% 403 Spectator sports $29,083 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.06 36% 37% 18% 9% 404 Promotional services for performing arts and sports and public figures $24,164 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.02 42% 22% 10% 26% 405 Independent artists, writers, and performers $24,541 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 45% 21% 10% 2 3% 406 Museum, heritage, zoo, and recreational services $12,815 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.05 35% 10% 4% 50% 407 Fitness and recreational sports center services $19,661 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 36% 19% 9% 36% 408 Bowling activities $2,514 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.32 33% 35% 17% 14% 409 Amusement parks, arcades, and gambling recreation $67,403 0.012 0.003 0.009 0.17 55% 23% 10% 12%

PAGE 137

137 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 410 Other amusements and recreation $27,459 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.15 61% 18% 7% 14% 411 Hotels and motel services including casino hotels $123,030 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.08 37% 25% 11% 27% 412 Other accommodation services $17,209 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.16 37% 27% 11% 24% 413 Restaurant, bar, and drinking place services $580,880 0.354 0.030 0.324 0.61 34% 42% 20% 4% 414 Automotive repair and maintenance services, except car washes $101,126 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.03 52% 11% 5% 31% 415 Car wash services $8,203 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.07 49% 10% 5% 36% 416 Electronic and precision equipment repairs and m aintenance $33,242 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.03 62% 10% 5% 23% 417 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repairs and maintenance $39,023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 51% 15% 7% 26% 418 Personal and household goods repairs and maintenance $21,55 9 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 53% 16% 8% 24% 419 Personal care services $62,627 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.06 39% 19% 9% 33% 420 Death care services $17,016 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.06 50% 13% 6% 31% 421 Dry cleaning and laundry services $28,362 0.001 0 .000 0.001 0.03 57% 9% 4% 30% 422 Other personal services $56,124 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.10 58% 18% 9% 15% 423 Services from religious organizations $58,799 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.08 57% 20% 10% 13% 424 Grant making, giving, and social advocacy s ervices $77,734 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.05 47% 23% 11% 18% 425 Civic, social, and professional services $152,142 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.06 42% 26% 12% 19% 426 Cooking, housecleaning, gardening, and other services to private households $23,295 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 427 US Postal delivery services $66,811 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 52% 18% 8% 22% 428 Not a unique commodity (electricity from fed gov't utilities) $8,012 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.08 54% 21% 10% 15%

PAGE 138

138 Table A 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PIF, Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Direct Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Inputs (Tg P) Demand Intensity PIIFP Dem (mt P/M$) P Rock Na ture Re cycle Im purity 429 Products & serv ices of Fed Govt enterprises (except electric utilities) $32,270 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.25 43% 32% 18% 7% 430 Not a unique commodity (passenger transit by state & local gov't) $13,454 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.09 50% 14% 7% 29% 431 Not a unique comm odity (electricity from state & local gov't utilities) $25,368 0.056 0.052 0.003 2.19 0% 0% 0% 99% 432 Products & services of State & Local Govt enterprises (except electric utilities) $211,436 0.069 0.037 0.032 0.33 87% 3% 1% 9% 433 Used and s econdhand goods $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 434 Scrap $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 435 Rest of the world adjustment $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 436 Noncomparable foreign imports $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 437 Employment and payroll only (state & local gov't, non education) $549,196 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 438 Employment and payroll only (state & local gov't, education) $648,745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 439 Employment and payroll only (federal gov't, non military) $290,078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 440 Employment and payroll only (federal gov't, military) $325,803 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% Sum: $25,069,981 8.677 4.653 4.0 24 277.73 211.2 71.8 33.0 114.0 Average: $56,977 0.020 0.011 0.009 0.63 48% 16% 7% 26% 1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions The 440 IMPLAN sectors were categorized into eleven groups in order to provide more of a general view of the economy. The g roups were chosen based on similarities between sectors especially as pertained to phosphorus sources. Table A 1 5 gives descriptions of each group and which IMPLAN sectors went into it. For a few sectors

PAGE 139

139 there was adequate over lap between groups, so the sector phosphorus contribution was allocated equally between the two groups, as described in the notes below the table. Table A 1 5 IMPLAN Codes included in each Demand Group Consu mption Group IMPLAN Codes Number of Sectors Plant Crops/Products 1 10, 43 74, 41*0.5, 42*0.5, 46*0.5, 53*0.5, 69*0.5 41 Animal Products 11 14, 17, 92, 93*0.5, 94*0.5, 41*0.5, 42*0.5, 46*0.5, 53*0.5, 69*0.5 11 Textiles/Apparel 8, 75 91, 93*0.5, 94*0.5 2 0 Edu, Health, Art, Food Svcs 391 413 23 Construction 34 40 7.0 Wood & Products 15 16, 95 114, 108*0.5 22 Fert, Soap, Chemicals 115 169, 108*0.5 55.5 Other Goods 208 318 116 Gov/Services 319 390, 414 440 99 Metal & Products 22 24, 170 202 36 Mining /Utilities 20 21, 25 33 11 Sum: 440 Note: The following sectors were split evenly between two demand groups due to products overlapping the two demand groups included in the sector: Sectors 18 Wild game products, pelts, and furs; 19 Agriculture and forestry support services; 41 Dog and cat food; 42 Other animal food; 46 Shortening and margarine and other fats and oils products; 53 Frozen foods; 69 All other manufactured food products; 93 Footwear; 94 Other leather and allied products; 1 08 Coated and laminated paper, packaging paper and plastics film

PAGE 140

140 APPENDIX B Appendix B 1 Supporting Information Phosphorus Sink Datasets 1.1 Phosphorus Sink Datasets Summarized here are the sources of data used to complete the phosphorus sink inventory Monetary US production value data came from MIG Incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996) Raw material final interim an d fate data for agriculture ( Sectors 1 18) came from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2011) via the following database: Sectors codes 1 6, 9 14 : FAOSTAT Food Balance Crops Primary Equivalent. The Food Balance said whether food went to Feed, Seed, Fo od or Other Uses. For this study, Seed and Other Uses were grouped together. Also, because some processed food estimates were adjusted to meet that same ratio. For re cycled food, the percentage composted was taken from Baker et al. (2011). Excreta: Livestock, Manure: Excreta, as well as Protein Animal Feed: Livestock ratios were taken from Suh and Yee (2011). The amount of recycled crop residues was taken as the perc of total recycled inputs to U.S. crops. Trade flow data for coal came from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2011) Iron, Cement a nd Lime trade flow data was sourced from the US Geological Survey USGS (Kelly et al., 2013) Mineral Statistics Surveys for the respective minerals. Soap and detergent flows were estimated based on monetary flow data from MIG incorporated (Lindall & Olson, 1996)

PAGE 141

141 Final fate for C oal produced, minus that lost to trade, was assumed to all be burned Iron phosphorus was assumed to all go to slag except for that amount that wa s lost due to mine and manufacturing losses, which was assumed to go to landfills. Cement and Lime were assumed to be all lost to stock as concrete. Wood phosphorus was assumed to go to wood products. Some wood is actually burned, but wood phosphorus pr oduced is only 0.03% of fertilizer, so this assumption was reasonable. Soap and detergent was all assumed to go to sewers except for that lost in mine and manufacturing losses, which was assumed to go to landfills. 1.2 Phosphorus Sink Footprint Inventory fr om 24 Core Production Sectors Phosphorus Sinks were inventoried for 24 Core Production Sectors in the US economy using a process based life cycle assessment approach. Tables summarizing the work completed for each of the 24 Core Production Sectors are giv en below. Table B 1 1 provides data used to compute the total sinks for US crops (Sectors codes 1 10 and 15 16).

PAGE 142

142 Table B 1 1 Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Crops a nd Forestry in the U.S., 2010 Export s Inventor y Used Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks Sinks # Crops Item P, Harves t Net Export s Add to Inv Used Food Processe d Feed to Livestoc k Other uses (assume also processed ) Total processe d Sink L andfill Proc Waste Proc Wast e Food as Food Proc Wast e Food as Other Proc Wast e Other Proc Wast e Total Other Feed & Hay House hold Food Final Other Use Source: Calc 1 1 Calc 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 Calc Units: Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P 1 Oilseed 4E 1 2E 1 2E 3 2E 1 6E 2 1E 1 2E 2 8E 2 7E 3 5E 3 1E 3 0E+0 1E 3 2E 1 5E 2 2E 2 2 Grains 1E+0 3E 1 3E 3 7E 1 2E 1 4E 1 6E 2 3E 1 3E 2 2E 2 6E 3 0E+0 6E 3 6E 1 2E 1 6E 2 3 Vege's 5E 3 4E 4 1E 6 5E 3 2E 3 3 E 3 5E 4 2E 3 2E 4 2E 4 4E 5 0E+0 4E 5 4E 3 2E 3 4E 4 4 Fruit 3E 3 5E 4 7E 6 4E 3 1E 3 2E 3 3E 4 2E 3 1E 4 1E 4 3E 5 0E+0 3E 5 3E 3 1E 3 3E 4 5 Nuts 2E 3 6E 4 9E 7 2E 3 5E 4 9E 4 1E 4 6E 4 6E 5 4E 5 1E 5 0E+0 1E 5 1E 3 4E 4 1E 4 6 GH 3E 3 1E 4 1E 6 3E 3 5E 4 9E 4 1E 4 2E 3 2E 4 5E 5 1E 5 1E 4 2E 4 1E 3 5E 4 2E 3 7 Tobacc o 5E 5 9E 6 1E 8 4E 5 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E 5 4E 6 0E+0 0E+0 4E 6 4E 6 6E 6 0E+0 4E 5 8 Cotton 1E 2 1E 2 1E 4 4E 3 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 4E 3 4E 4 0E+0 0E+0 4E 4 4E 4 2E 3 0E+0 4E 3 9 Sugar 2E 2 2E 3 2E 3 2E 2 6E 3 1E 2 2E 3 7E 3 6E 4 5E 4 1E 4 0E+0 1E 4 1E 2 5E 3 1E 3 1 0 Other 1E 2 1E 3 8E 5 9E 3 1E 3 3E 3 4E 4 6E 3 6E 4 1E 4 4E 5 4E 4 4E 4 4E 3 1E 3 4E 3 1 5 Forest 2E 4 2E 5 5E 6 2E 4 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 2E 4 1E 5 0E+0 0E+0 1E 5 1E 5 2E 5 0E+0 1E 4 1 6 Logs 9E 4 2E 4 3E 5 6E 4 0E+0 0E+0 0E+0 6E 4 6E 5 0E+0 6E 5 6E 5 1E 4 1E 4 0E+0 5E 4 Sum/Avg: 1.48 5.3E 1 7E 3 9E 1 3E 1 5E 1 8E 2 4E 1 4E 2 3E 2 7E 3 1E 3 8E 3 7E 1 3E 1 9E 2 Notes. Abbreviations: Atm. = Atmosphere; Avg = Average; Conc. = Conce ntration; Deposit'n = Deposition; DM = Dry Matter; F = Final Demand of Local Production; GH = Greenhouse; IFP = Phosphorus Intensity Factor; Nat = Nature P = phosphorus; Rec = Recycled; Tg = Teragram; TFC = Total Final Consumption = F + M F ; t/t = ton per t on (concentration); Ttl = Total; Vege's = Vegetables; Wt = Weight Source: 1 MIG Implan, 2013 2 FAOSTAT (2013) 3 Villalba et al. (2008) The final fate for primary animal products in the US (Sectors 11 14 and 18) are included in Table B 1 2 Subcategories used to create these main category sectors are included above the main sector for reference. That is the reason their weight is

PAGE 143

143 listed as zero. Subcategory P con centrations and feed ratios were averaged to get category phosphorus concentrations and feed ratios. Table B 1 2 Phosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production for Animal Products in the U.S., 2010 # Item Wt P Co nc. in item P in Item Feed: Product Ratio Total Feed P % in diet (DM Basis) P% Adj Feed: Item P in Diet Pasture, Grazing Roughage, hay Feed (Not in Sum) Supple ment Recycle Ptn. An. Feed Ph Rock to Suppl. Inputs Input: Item P Source: Calc 1 Calc 2 Ca lc 3, 4, 5 9 6 6 6 Calc 10 9 8 Calc Calc Units: Tg % Tg P t/t Tg DM % % Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P t/t 11 Cattle 17 0.20% 0.04 12 213 0.35% 39% 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 1E 2 5E 2 2E 1 6 Milk 0 0.21% 0.6 0.36% 39% D airy Beef 0 0.20% 12 0.35% 39% 12 Dairy 92 0.21% 0.19 1.4 129 0.36% 39% 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 8E 2 3E 1 5E 1 2 Chicken 0 0.18% 10 0.84% 39% Turkey 0 0.20% 3 0.84% 39% Eggs 0 0.30% 4 0.84% 39% 13 Poultry 25 0.22% 0.06 6 139 0.84% 39% 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2E 2 9E 2 3E 1 6 Pig 0 0.23% 5 0.50% 39% Sheep 0 0.20% 17 0.25% 39% 14 Other 9 0.22% 0.02 11 100 0.38% 39% 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.1 0.03 8E 3 3 E 2 1E 1 6 17 Fish 5 0.25% 0.013 1 7 N/A 0% 0.05 0.025 0 0.025 18 Game 2 0.22% 0.003 11 17 0.38% 39% 0.03 0.03 0 0 Sum: 150 0.22% 0.32 7 605 0.52% 36% 1.1 0.41 0.19 0.55 0.42 1.3E 1 4.7E 1 9E 1 5 150 0.22% 0.32 7 605 0.52% 36% 1.144 0.406 0.190 0.548 0.423 0.127 0.471 0.871 5 Notes: Abbreviations: Avg = Average; Conc. = Concentration; DM = Dry matter; IFP = Phosphorus Intensity Factor; P = phosphorus; t/t = ton per ton (concentration); Suppl = Su pplement; Tg = Teragram; Ttl = Total; UK = Unknown; Wt = Weight. Source: 1 Gebhardt et al. (2012) 2 USDA 2011, Tb 1 76. For dairy, assumed product to Base Milk multiplier = Avg Dairy = 3.9. For Dairy, assume 93% milk, 7% dairy beef. 3 For Poultry, assumed average of chicken, turkey and eggs. For Other animals and wild game products, assumed average of pig a nd sheep. 4 Beef: Erickson (1998) breeder 1% Ca diet 5 Pig: Iowa State U 6 USDA (2011). Tb1 77, 2010: Concentrates 225, Harvested Roughage 82, Pasture 153, Ttl 460 7 Beef: Mehren (2008): P=4% 4 oz. Supplement, 70 lb total feed, Arthin gton (2009): 6% Supplement, 35 lb total feed; Chickens: Moreki (2005): Tb 5.1: 1.49% of Feed is Monocalcium phosphate (where P ration is 30.97/124.05). Assume Turkey, Eggs, Poultry=chicken. Assume Milk, Pig, Sheep, Other Animal Pro ducts = Cow. 8 Total P in Supplement: Villalba et al. (2008): 10% loss in Mining/ Trans; Suh and Yee (2011): 11% loss in Manuf. (assume ~ Fert Mfr) 9 Suh and Yee (2011). Suppl: Item Ratio = 1.39, Feed: Item = 1.7

PAGE 144

144 10 EU 2013 The total sinks for other products in the US ( Secto rs 17, 22, 130, 138, 160 and 164) are included in Table B 1 3 It was assumed that iron ore and coal are in a non manufactured state, so no hidden losses were included for these products for manufacturing. Table B 1 3 P hosphorus Sinks Footprint of Production of Goods in the U.S., 2010 Production Sinks IMPLAN Sector Code Sector P in Product Loss from Mining/ Transp. Loss Mfr. Net Exports Add to Inv Apparent Use Cr op Application Crop Uptake Loss to Waterway Fert to Non Crops Column Input: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 7 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 Calc 13 14 14 Calc Units: Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P Tg P 21 Coal 0.493 0.0493 3E 2 4E 3 0.460 22 Iron ore 0.030 0.0030 2E 3 2E 3 0.026 130 Fertilizer 3.261 0.3252 0.0444 9E 1 4E 1 1.997 1.626 1.380 0.246 0.370 138 Soap 0.017 0.0017 0.0002 1E 3 4E 4 0.015 160 Cement 0.029 0.0029 0.0031 2E 3 3E 3 0.029 164 Lime & gypsum 0.002 0.0002 0.0002 2E 5 3E 5 0.0018 Sum/Avg: 3.832 0.3823 0.0479 0.9299 4E 1 2.5 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 Notes: Abbreviations: Calc = Calculation; Conc. = Concentration; DM = Dry Matter; F = Final Consumption of Local Production; Fert = Fertilizer; IFP = Phosphorus Intensity Factor; Mfr = Manufacture; P = phosphorus; P2O5 = Phosphate; TFC = Total Final Consum ption; Tg = Teragram; Transp = Transportation; Wt = Weight. Input: 1 Coal: Bertine & Goldberg (1971): P Content, Amounts: Steel Association 2 Iron Ore: Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 3 Fertilizer: FAOSTAT Inputs Fertilizers Module (2011) 4 Soap: Variable to get correct P in soap production relative to fertilizer production, assume similar to global 2004 (Villalba et al., 2008) 5 Cement: Hossain (2007): 0.1% P2O5 in Cement. 43.7% P in P2O5 6 Lime: Matsubae Yokoyama et al. (2009) 7 Assu me ~ Mine/Transp loss for P Ore (10%). Input: Vil l alba et al. (2008)

PAGE 145

145 8 Assume ~ Mfr. Fert (11% of fert.) Input: Suh (2011) 9 MIG Implan, 2013 10 USGS, 2013 11 EIA (2010) 12 Actuals except for soap, completed with monetary flows 13 USDA (2013). Ferti lizer Use. 14 Villalba et al. (2008)

PAGE 146

146 1.3 Demand Based Complete Inventory The following table, Table B 1 4 describes the US monetary output, phosphorus intensity factor, total, direct and indirect (supply chain) phosphorus footpr int, a demand based intensity factor vector (created from sector phosphorus footprint and US monetary output) for the US of all 440 IMPLAN sectors of the economy in 2010, as well as the relative percentage of the five sinks that for phosphorus, and how the y relate to each demand and the phosphorus intensity vector

PAGE 147

147 Table B 1 4 Complete 440 Sector Demand based Phosphorus Sinks Footprint in the U S 2010 # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF Demand for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Demand for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Demand for Sinks (Tg P) Demand Intensity PSIFP Dem (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycled Sink Water way Sink Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stock Infr 1 Oilseeds $34,224 0.026 0.024 0.001 0.75 11% 58% 3% 28% 0% 2 Grains $60,974 0.051 0.048 0.002 0.83 2% 61% 1% 37% 0% 3 Vegetables and melons $18,747 0.021 0.020 0.001 1.15 7% 58% 2% 33% 0% 4 Fruit $21,516 0.023 0.022 0.001 1.08 8% 58% 3% 31% 0% 5 Tree nuts $5,910 0.008 0.007 0.00 0 1.30 9% 58% 3% 31% 0% 6 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture products $16,510 0.009 0.008 0.001 0.54 7% 58% 2% 33% 0% 7 Tobacco $1,247 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.42 14% 56% 3% 27% 0% 8 Cotton $6,267 0.012 0.011 0.001 1.88 7% 58% 2% 33% 0% 9 Sugarcane and sugar beets $2,635 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 6% 58% 2% 34% 0% 10 All other crop farming products $25,263 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.25 13% 56% 3% 28% 0% 11 Cattle from ranches and farms $51,531 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 22% 54% 5% 19% 0 % 12 Dairy cattle and milk products $31,361 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.07 21% 57% 5% 17% 0% 13 Poultry and egg products $35,465 0.097 0.077 0.019 2.73 21% 58% 5% 15% 0% 14 Animal products, except cattle, poultry and eggs $23,087 0.020 0.017 0.003 0.87 21% 56% 5% 17% 0% 15 Forest, timber, and forest nursery products $5,279 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 12% 58% 3% 27% 0% 16 Logs and roundwood $11,736 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.16 14% 56% 4% 26% 0% 17 Fish $5,658 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 15% 39% 7 % 39% 1%

PAGE 148

148 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 18 Wild game products, pelts, and furs $3,347 0.026 0.026 0.000 7.73 1% 2% 10% 88% 0% 19 Agriculture and forestry support services $22,600 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.11 3% 61% 1% 35% 0% 20 Oil and natural gas $211,010 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.01 7% 27% 3% 60% 3% 21 Coal $30,059 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.02 9% 33% 3% 53% 2% 22 Iron ore $2,698 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 4% 13% 1% 82% 1% 23 Copper, nickel, lead, and zinc $9,915 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 3% 11 % 1% 84% 1% 24 Gold, silver, and other metal ore $12,298 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.06 6% 18% 2% 73% 2% 25 Natural stone $14,205 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 4% 15% 2% 78% 1% 26 Sand, gravel, clay, and ceramic and refractory minerals $5,900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 4% 16% 1% 77% 1% 27 Other nonmetallic minerals $3,304 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 3% 12% 1% 82% 1% 28 Oil and gas wells $38,068 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.13 8% 31% 3% 51% 7% 29 Support services for oil and gas operations $48,629 0.008 0.00 6 0.002 0.16 8% 26% 3% 58% 5% 30 Support services for other mining $5,313 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 6% 26% 2% 64% 2% 31 Electricity, and distribution services $261,183 0.043 0.042 0.001 0.17 1% 2% 0% 96% 0% 32 Natural gas, and distribution ser vices $117,384 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.02 9% 31% 4% 54% 3% 33 Water, sewage treatment, and other utility services $11,078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 10% 39% 4% 43% 4% 34 Newly constructed nonresidential commercial and health care structures $218,544 0 .050 0.036 0.014 0.23 6% 41% 2% 46% 5% 35 Newly constructed nonresidential manufacturing structures $41,807 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.11 6% 35% 2% 49% 7% 36 Other newly constructed nonresidential structures $415,098 0.092 0.068 0.024 0.22 7% 39% 2% 43% 8% 37 Newly constructed residential permanent site single and multi family structures $134,288 0.041 0.031 0.010 0.30 7% 43% 2% 40% 8%

PAGE 149

149 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 38 Other newly constructed residential structures $205,103 0.055 0.041 0.015 0.27 8% 40% 2% 41% 8% 3 9 Maintained and repaired nonresidential structures $173,176 0.008 0.006 0.002 0.05 8% 41% 3% 43% 5% 40 Maintained and repaired residential structures $21,825 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 7% 43% 2% 39% 9% 41 Dog and cat food $27,003 0.205 0.186 0. 019 7.59 21% 57% 5% 17% 0% 42 Other animal food $38,175 0.127 0.114 0.013 3.32 20% 60% 5% 15% 0% 43 Flour and malt $22,246 0.084 0.083 0.002 3.79 26% 52% 5% 17% 0% 44 Corn sweeteners, corn oils, and corn starches $28,550 0.047 0.047 0.001 1.66 25% 52% 5% 18% 0% 45 Soybean oil and cakes and other oilseed products $34,869 0.091 0.087 0.004 2.60 9% 76% 5% 10% 0% 46 Shortening and margarine and other fats and oils products $10,274 0.052 0.045 0.007 5.03 11% 73% 5% 11% 0% 47 Brea kfast cereal products $13,488 0.067 0.061 0.006 4.96 19% 61% 5% 15% 0% 48 Raw and refined sugar from sugar cane $5,471 0.007 0.006 0.001 1.19 19% 53% 7% 20% 0% 49 Refined sugar from sugar beets $3,487 0.009 0.009 0.000 2.64 19% 54% 7% 20% 0% 50 Chocolate cacao products and chocolate confectioneries $4,548 0.013 0.010 0.002 2.78 20% 50% 9% 21% 0% 51 Chocolate confectioneries from purchased chocolate $12,166 0.028 0.022 0.006 2.29 21% 49% 9% 22% 0% 52 Non chocolate confectionerie s $6,399 0.028 0.024 0.004 4.32 18% 59% 6% 17% 0% 53 Frozen foods $29,801 0.170 0.140 0.030 5.70 23% 48% 7% 22% 0% 54 Canned, pickled and dried fruits and vegetables $46,351 0.084 0.065 0.018 1.81 22% 48% 6% 25% 0% 55 Fluid milk and butte r $34,115 0.257 0.212 0.045 7.53 23% 38% 16% 24% 0% 56 Cheese $32,450 0.219 0.174 0.045 6.76 23% 37% 16% 24% 0% 57 Dry, condensed, and evaporated dairy products $16,111 0.105 0.085 0.020 6.53 23% 40% 15% 23% 0% 58 Ice cream and frozen des serts $8,624 0.020 0.015 0.004 2.26 23% 41% 13% 23% 0%

PAGE 150

150 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 59 Processed animal (except poultry) meat and rendered byproducts $120,190 0.682 0.533 0.149 5.67 22% 47% 6% 25% 0% 60 Processed poultry meat products $54,039 0.680 0.534 0.146 12.58 2 2% 49% 6% 23% 0% 61 Seafood products $12,844 0.017 0.016 0.001 1.31 9% 20% 13% 58% 0% 62 Bread and bakery products $34,434 0.161 0.144 0.017 4.67 24% 53% 6% 17% 0% 63 Cookies, crackers, and pasta $25,117 0.151 0.134 0.017 6.01 24% 53% 6% 17% 0% 64 Tortillas $3,808 0.027 0.026 0.002 7.17 25% 53% 5% 17% 0% 65 Snack foods including nuts, seeds and grains, and chips $34,032 0.106 0.091 0.015 3.11 16% 62% 5% 17% 0% 66 Coffee and tea $10,171 0.008 0.007 0.001 0.78 16% 49% 4% 31 % 0% 67 Flavoring syrups and concentrates $33,782 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.06 21% 50% 5% 23% 0% 68 Seasonings and dressings $19,017 0.050 0.040 0.010 2.64 18% 57% 6% 19% 0% 69 All other manufactured food products $19,994 0.066 0.057 0.009 3.30 23% 51% 6% 20% 0% 70 Soft drinks and manufactured ice $69,870 0.153 0.129 0.024 2.19 24% 50% 5% 21% 0% 71 Beer, ale, malt liquor and nonalcoholic beer $29,381 0.063 0.059 0.004 2.16 25% 49% 5% 21% 0% 72 Wine and brandies $17,588 0.007 0.005 0.001 0.39 15% 45% 4% 36% 0% 73 Distilled liquors except brandies $9,688 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.39 25% 50% 5% 20% 0% 74 Cigarettes, cigars, smoking and chewing tobacco, and reconstituted tobacco $47,990 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.13 14% 53% 5% 28% 0% 75 Fiber filaments, yarn, and thread $7,537 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.44 9% 64% 2% 24% 0% 76 Broad woven fabrics and felts $6,989 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.48 9% 64% 2% 25% 0% 77 Woven and embroidered fabrics $1,076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.41 11% 56% 3% 29% 0% 78 Nonwoven fabrics and felts $4,890 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.39 12% 49% 10% 29% 0% 79 Knitted fabrics $1,165 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.50 10% 58% 3% 29% 0% 80 Finished textiles and fabrics $6,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 8% 53% 2% 36% 0% 81 Coated fabric coating $2,151 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.27 13% 50% 5% 31% 0%

PAGE 151

151 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 82 Carpets and rugs $10,967 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.41 12% 57% 4% 28% 0% 83 Curtains and linens $3,628 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.30 10% 59% 3% 28% 0% 84 Textile bags and canvas $ 3,308 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.16 11% 53% 4% 31% 0% 85 All other textile products $6,157 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.23 12% 55% 4% 29% 0% 86 Knit apparel $3,183 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.39 9% 59% 3% 29% 0% 87 Cut and sewn apparel from contractors $3,994 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.01 10% 47% 4% 38% 0% 88 Men's and boys' cut and sewn apparel $4,229 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.18 9% 53% 3% 34% 0% 89 Women's and girls' cut and sewn apparel $11,061 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.22 10% 55% 3% 32% 0% 90 Other cut and sew apparel $1,996 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.15 10% 53% 4% 32% 0% 91 Apparel accessories and other apparel $1,838 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.20 12% 51% 4% 32% 0% 92 Tanned and finished leather and hides $1,144 0.006 0.005 0.002 5.64 22% 46% 6% 26% 0% 93 Footwear $2,075 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.32 15% 48% 4% 32% 0% 94 Other leather and allied products $1,622 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.51 18% 44% 9% 29% 0% 95 Dimension lumber and preserved wood products $20,295 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.11 15% 54% 4% 28% 0% 96 Veneer and plywood $5,317 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.16 15% 53% 4% 29% 0% 97 Engineered wood members and trusses $3,455 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 15% 50% 4% 32% 0% 98 Reconstituted wood products $4,525 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.16 13% 49% 3% 35% 0% 9 9 Wood windows and doors and millwork $15,832 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 14% 49% 4% 33% 0% 10 0 Wood containers and pallets $6,778 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.15 12% 50% 8% 30% 0% 10 1 Manufactured homes (mobile homes) $2,957 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.28 13% 42% 4% 39% 2% 10 2 Prefabricated wood buildings $2,057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 14% 47% 4% 35% 1% 10 3 All other miscellaneous wood products $3,111 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.20 14% 49% 4% 33% 0%

PAGE 152

152 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 10 4 Wood pulp $4,264 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.50 16% 43% 4 % 38% 0% 10 5 Paper from pulp $55,821 0.017 0.014 0.002 0.30 18% 45% 4% 33% 0% 10 6 Paperboard from pulp $21,448 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.20 16% 41% 4% 39% 0% 10 7 Paperboard containers $54,049 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.03 16% 40% 4% 40% 0% 10 8 Coated and laminated paper, packaging paper and plastics film $18,088 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.15 14% 44% 4% 37% 0% 10 9 All other paper bag and coated and treated paper $6,688 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.16 15% 45% 4% 36% 0% 11 0 Paper and paperboard stationary pr oducts $7,909 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.36 16% 41% 4% 39% 0% 11 1 Sanitary paper products $23,742 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.27 14% 44% 4% 38% 0% 11 2 All other converted paper products $4,620 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.20 15% 40% 4% 41% 0% 11 3 Printed materia ls $76,967 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.08 18% 44% 4% 34% 0% 11 4 Printing support services $4,192 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 13% 40% 4% 42% 0% 11 5 Refined petroleum products $587,469 0.024 0.017 0.008 0.04 8% 30% 4% 57% 2% 11 6 Asphalt paving mixtures and blocks $12,720 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 9% 39% 7% 42% 2% 11 7 Asphalt shingles and coating materials $13,529 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 9% 27% 3% 48% 14% 11 8 Petroleum lubricating oils and greases $11,223 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.07 10% 51% 3% 35% 0% 11 9 All other petroleum and coal products $6,140 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 9% 36% 3% 51% 1% 12 0 Petrochemicals $145,227 0.031 0.024 0.007 0.21 14% 52% 4% 30% 0% 12 1 Industrial gas $18,014 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.07 12% 37% 3% 48% 0%

PAGE 153

153 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 12 2 Syn thetic dyes and pigments $9,377 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.16 11% 46% 3% 40% 0% 12 3 Alkalies and chlorine $8,148 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.08 4% 23% 2% 71% 0% 12 4 Carbon black $1,482 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 7% 25% 3% 64% 1% 12 5 All other basic inorgani c chemicals $22,751 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.23 3% 46% 1% 50% 0% 12 6 Other basic organic chemicals $57,266 0.013 0.011 0.003 0.23 12% 55% 4% 30% 0% 12 7 Plastics materials and resins $65,265 0.021 0.016 0.004 0.32 14% 52% 4% 31% 0% 12 8 Syntheti c rubber $7,079 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.31 14% 51% 4% 32% 0% 12 9 Artificial and synthetic fibers and filaments $14,761 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.16 15% 50% 4% 31% 0% 13 0 Fertilizer $30,728 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.04 6% 19% 3% 70% 1% 13 1 Pesticides and other agricultural chemicals $22,218 0.010 0.008 0.002 0.44 15% 52% 5% 28% 0% 13 2 Medicines and botanicals $11,492 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.07 15% 45% 5% 34% 0% 13 3 Pharmaceutical preparations $286,505 0.062 0.046 0.016 0.22 18% 48% 5% 29% 0% 13 4 In vitro diagnostic substances $7,796 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 15% 44% 6% 35% 0% 13 5 Biological products (except diagnostic) $19,433 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.08 16% 43% 6% 36% 0% 13 6 Paints and coatings $22,996 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.10 13% 53% 4% 31% 0% 13 7 Adhesives $10,839 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.20 17% 51% 4% 28% 0% 13 8 Soaps and cleaning compounds $66,063 0.034 0.026 0.008 0.52 10% 56% 3% 30% 0% 13 9 Toilet preparations $38,230 0.023 0.018 0.005 0.61 13% 59% 6% 22% 0% 14 0 Print ing inks $4,007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 12% 48% 4% 36% 0%

PAGE 154

154 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 14 1 All other chemical products and preparations $41,713 0.015 0.011 0.003 0.35 9% 55% 3% 32% 0% 14 2 Plastics packaging materials and unlaminated films and sheets $29,318 0.006 0.004 0 .002 0.19 13% 51% 3% 33% 0% 14 3 Unlaminated plastics profile shapes $5,291 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 12% 51% 3% 33% 0% 14 4 Plastics pipes and pipe fittings $8,474 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.12 13% 52% 3% 32% 0% 14 5 Laminated plastics plates, sheets (e xcept packaging), and shapes $4,243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 13% 49% 3% 35% 0% 14 6 Polystyrene foam products $8,375 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.08 12% 50% 3% 34% 0% 14 7 Urethane and other foam products (except polystyrene) $9,369 0.002 0.001 0.000 0. 19 19% 51% 4% 25% 0% 14 8 Plastics bottles $12,234 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.04 13% 50% 4% 33% 0% 14 9 Other plastics products $63,768 0.010 0.006 0.004 0.15 12% 50% 3% 34% 0% 15 0 Tires $17,968 0.005 0.004 0.001 0.28 13% 49% 4% 34% 0% 15 1 Rubbe r and plastics hoses and belts $5,345 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.20 14% 49% 4% 34% 0% 15 2 Other rubber products $12,059 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.23 14% 47% 4% 35% 0% 15 3 Pottery, ceramics, and plumbing fixtures $2,572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.17 9% 26% 3% 61% 2% 15 4 Bricks, tiles, and other structural clay products $2,637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 5% 19% 1% 75% 0% 15 5 Clay and non clay refractory products $3,238 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 8% 26% 3% 63% 1% 15 6 Flat glass $3,052 0.001 0.000 0.000 0. 17 4% 18% 1% 77% 0% 15 7 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware $4,053 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.18 5% 28% 2% 64% 0% 15 8 Glass containers $6,190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 5% 17% 2% 75% 1%

PAGE 155

155 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 15 9 Glass products made of purchased glass $8,331 0.001 0 .001 0.000 0.11 7% 30% 3% 59% 0% 16 0 Cement $5,538 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 3% 11% 1% 84% 1% 16 1 Ready mix concrete $22,858 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 4% 11% 1% 36% 48% 16 2 Concrete pipes, bricks, and blocks $6,415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 3% 11% 1% 41% 43% 16 3 Other concrete products $8,486 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 4% 15% 2% 48% 31% 16 4 Lime and gypsum products $5,896 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.09 19% 39% 4% 38% 0% 16 5 Abrasive products $2,836 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 9% 37% 3% 51% 1% 16 6 Cut stone and stone products $2,716 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 10% 32% 7% 50% 0% 16 7 Ground or treated mineral and earth products $4,146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 4% 12% 2% 80% 2% 16 8 Mineral wool $5,397 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 7% 30% 2% 58% 2 % 16 9 Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products $3,798 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 6% 19% 2% 38% 35% 17 0 Iron and steel and ferroalloy products $60,043 0.008 0.008 0.001 0.14 1% 4% 0% 94% 0% 17 1 Steel products from purchased steel $23,428 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.07 2% 8% 1% 88% 0% 17 2 Aluminum products $5,420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 2% 8% 1% 89% 0% 17 3 Aluminum alloys $3,868 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 5% 16% 2% 78% 0% 17 4 Aluminum products from purchased aluminum $20,931 0.001 0.001 0. 000 0.04 5% 17% 2% 76% 0% 17 5 Copper $10,263 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 3% 11% 1% 84% 1% 17 6 Nonferrous metals (except copper and aluminum) $5,605 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.10 5% 13% 2% 80% 1% 17 7 Rolled, drawn, extruded and alloyed copper $21,462 0. 001 0.000 0.000 0.03 8% 26% 2% 64% 0%

PAGE 156

156 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 17 8 Rolled, drawn, extruded and alloyed nonferrous metals (except copper and aluminum) $13,867 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.08 5% 18% 2% 74% 1% 17 9 Ferrous metals $15,086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 4% 12% 1% 82% 1% 18 0 Nonferrous metals $9,148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 6% 19% 2% 72% 0% 18 1 All other forged, stamped, and sintered metals $9,739 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 3% 11% 1% 84% 0% 18 2 Custom roll formed metals $1,676 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 3% 9% 1% 87 % 0% 18 3 Crowned and stamped metals $11,791 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 5% 19% 2% 74% 0% 18 4 Cutlery, utensils, pots, and pans $2,965 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.16 8% 31% 3% 58% 0% 18 5 Hand tools $6,708 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.13 6% 21% 2% 71% 0% 18 6 Pl ates and fabricated structural products $36,941 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.02 4% 13% 2% 81% 0% 18 7 Ornamental and architectural metal products $33,929 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 5% 20% 2% 73% 0% 18 8 Power boilers and heat exchangers $6,684 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.11 5% 18% 2% 75% 0% 18 9 Metal tanks (heavy gauge) $6,192 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.18 4% 14% 2% 80% 0% 19 0 Metal cans, boxes, and other metal containers (light gauge) $23,118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 5% 16% 2% 77% 0% 19 1 Ammunition $11,128 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.15 8% 35% 3% 54% 0% 19 2 Arms, ordnance, and accessories $5,611 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.12 7% 26% 3% 64% 0% 19 3 Hardware $6,188 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 7% 23% 3% 67% 0% 19 4 Spring and wire products $9,176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 4% 14% 1% 80% 0% 19 5 Machined products $35,335 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 8% 24% 3% 65% 0%

PAGE 157

157 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 19 6 Turned products and screws, nuts, and bolts $14,219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 4% 14% 2% 79% 0% 19 7 Coated, engraved, heat treated products $23,420 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 7% 31% 3% 59% 0% 19 8 Valves and fittings other than plumbing $21,263 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.06 6% 19% 2% 72% 0% 19 9 Plumbing fixture fittings and trims $4,317 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 9% 32% 3% 56% 0% 20 0 Balls and rolle r bearings $9,384 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 4% 12% 2% 82% 0% 20 1 Fabricated pipes and pipe fittings $7,306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 4% 12% 1% 82% 0% 20 2 Other fabricated metals $13,886 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.10 7% 25% 2% 65% 0% 20 3 Farm machinery and equipment $27,891 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.21 7% 24% 2% 65% 1% 20 4 Lawn and garden equipment $6,464 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.19 8% 27% 3% 62% 1% 20 5 Construction machinery $37,440 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.17 7% 24% 2% 66% 1% 20 6 Mining and oil and gas field machinery $34,207 0.007 0.005 0.002 0.20 6% 19% 2% 71% 2% 20 7 Other industrial machinery $16,145 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.14 6% 19% 2% 73% 0% 20 8 Plastics and rubber industry machinery $3,216 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.13 5% 17% 2% 75% 0% 2 0 9 Semiconductor machinery $6,171 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 11% 35% 4% 50% 1% 21 0 Vending, commercial, industrial, and office machinery $4,543 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.21 9% 32% 3% 56% 0% 21 1 Optical instruments and lens $6,774 0.001 0.001 0.000 0. 14 10% 39% 4% 47% 0% 21 2 Photographic and photocopying equipment $4,748 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.30 11% 45% 3% 40% 0% 21 3 Other commercial and service industry machinery $14,006 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.15 9% 32% 3% 56% 0%

PAGE 158

158 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 21 4 Air purification and vent ilation equipment $5,652 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.12 7% 26% 3% 63% 0% 21 5 Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) $3,487 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 8% 27% 3% 62% 0% 21 6 Air conditioning, refrigeration, and warm air heating equipment $29,319 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.07 7% 25% 3% 65% 0% 21 7 Industrial molds $4,554 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.13 5% 17% 2% 74% 2% 21 8 Metal cutting and forming machine tools $6,327 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.14 7% 23% 3% 67% 0% 21 9 Special tools, dies, jigs, and fixtures $8 ,357 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.14 5% 15% 2% 78% 1% 22 0 Cutting tools and machine tool accessories $3,046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 5% 16% 2% 74% 3% 22 1 Rolling mills and other metalworking machinery $2,471 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 6% 22% 3% 69% 0% 2 2 2 Turbines and turbine generator set units $13,621 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.13 5% 16% 2% 76% 1% 22 3 Speed changers, industrial high speed drives, and gears $3,264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.05 5% 16% 2% 76% 1% 22 4 Mechanical power transmission equipment $ 3,382 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 5% 16% 2% 77% 1% 22 5 Other engine equipment $26,275 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.07 8% 27% 3% 59% 4% 22 6 Pumps and pumping equipment $11,179 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.14 7% 24% 3% 66% 0% 22 7 Air and gas compressors $9,559 0 .001 0.001 0.001 0.15 8% 25% 3% 64% 1% 22 8 Material handling equipment $21,238 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.10 5% 18% 2% 75% 0% 22 9 Power driven hand tools $2,724 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.17 8% 30% 3% 59% 0% 23 0 Other general purpose machinery $12,978 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.18 8% 27% 3% 61% 0% 23 1 Packaging machinery $4,030 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.14 8% 27% 4% 61% 0%

PAGE 159

159 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 23 2 Industrial process furnaces and ovens $2,314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.09 7% 19% 3% 70% 0% 23 3 Fluid power process machinery $8,50 6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 5% 16% 2% 77% 0% 23 4 Electronic computers $143,718 0.010 0.006 0.005 0.07 9% 39% 4% 47% 1% 23 5 Computer storage devices $19,521 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.04 10% 34% 4% 51% 1% 23 6 Computer terminals and other computer pe ripheral equipment $20,983 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.09 9% 33% 3% 52% 3% 23 7 Telephone apparatus $17,319 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.08 9% 38% 4% 48% 1% 23 8 Broadcast and wireless communications equipment $33,743 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.08 9% 37% 4% 48% 1% 23 9 Other communications equipment $8,026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 11% 36% 4% 49% 1% 24 0 Audio and video equipment $9,023 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.12 10% 39% 4% 46% 0% 24 1 Electron tubes $1,629 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 7% 28% 4% 60% 0% 24 2 Bare p rinted circuit boards $7,425 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 9% 37% 4% 50% 1% 24 3 Semiconductor and related devices $135,125 0.008 0.006 0.002 0.06 7% 40% 4% 49% 1% 24 4 Electronic capacitors, resistors, coils, transformers, and other inductors $3,137 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.07 7% 26% 3% 63% 0% 24 5 Electronic connectors $4,218 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.13 9% 38% 3% 49% 0% 24 6 Printed circuit assemblies (electronic assemblies) $15,368 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 7% 39% 4% 49% 1% 24 7 Other electronic com ponents $12,496 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.04 8% 36% 3% 52% 0% 24 8 Electro medical and electrotherapeutic apparatus $25,774 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.15 12% 40% 4% 44% 0%

PAGE 160

160 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 24 9 Search, detection, and navigation instruments $60,480 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.08 10% 35% 5% 50% 1% 25 0 Automatic environmental controls $4,618 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 10% 35% 4% 51% 0% 25 1 Industrial process variable instruments $15,304 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.08 10% 31% 4% 55% 0% 25 2 Totalizing fluid meters and counting device s $4,522 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 10% 38% 4% 48% 0% 25 3 Electricity and signal testing instruments $13,150 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.07 11% 36% 4% 49% 1% 25 4 Analytical laboratory instruments $11,946 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.11 11% 38% 4% 46% 0% 25 5 I rradiation apparatus $5,529 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.11 8% 27% 3% 61% 1% 25 6 Watches, clocks, and other measuring and controlling devices $8,600 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.09 10% 34% 4% 51% 0% 25 7 Software, blank audio and video media, mass reproduction $7 ,328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 12% 46% 4% 38% 0% 25 8 Magnetic and optical recording media $2,335 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 11% 44% 4% 41% 0% 25 9 Electric lamp bulbs and parts $2,637 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.14 7% 37% 2% 54% 0% 26 0 Lighting fixtures $9,248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 8% 31% 4% 56% 0% 26 1 Small electrical appliances $5,653 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.26 11% 44% 3% 41% 0% 26 2 Household cooking appliances $4,640 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.29 7% 28% 2% 62% 1% 26 3 Household refrigerators and home freezers $6,671 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.38 10% 38% 3% 49% 0% 26 4 Household laundry equipment $7,074 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.25 7% 29% 2% 61% 0% 26 5 Other major household appliances $5,588 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.23 10% 37% 3% 50% 0% 26 6 Power, distribution, and specialty transformers $8,968 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.17 5% 17% 2% 76% 0%

PAGE 161

161 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 26 7 Motor and generators $12,985 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.07 6% 21% 2% 71% 1% 26 8 Switchgear and switchboard apparatus $9,555 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 8% 30% 3% 59% 0% 26 9 Relay and industrial controls $14,983 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 8% 32% 3% 56% 0% 27 0 Storage batteries $4,639 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 9% 36% 3% 52% 0% 27 1 Primary batteries $5,869 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.18 7% 29% 2% 61% 0% 27 2 Com munication and energy wires and cables $9,798 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.10 11% 42% 3% 43% 0% 27 3 Wiring devices $11,878 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.08 10% 39% 3% 48% 0% 27 4 Carbon and graphite products $2,031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 11% 35% 3% 45% 6% 27 5 All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and components $6,375 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 9% 30% 4% 57% 1% 27 6 Automobiles $122,987 0.024 0.012 0.011 0.19 8% 32% 3% 56% 1% 27 7 Light trucks and utility vehicles $62,663 0.013 0.007 0.006 0. 21 8% 32% 3% 56% 1% 27 8 Heavy duty trucks $20,441 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.17 8% 30% 3% 58% 1% 27 9 Motor vehicle bodies $15,122 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.12 8% 27% 3% 62% 0% 28 0 Truck trailers $5,466 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.23 8% 28% 3% 61% 0% 28 1 Mot or homes $3,110 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.19 11% 38% 3% 47% 1% 28 2 Travel trailers and campers $5,704 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.24 9% 34% 3% 53% 0% 28 3 Motor vehicle parts $158,339 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.05 8% 28% 2% 61% 1% 28 4 Aircraft $143,807 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.08 8% 28% 3% 60% 1% 28 5 Aircraft engines and engine parts $38,972 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.03 8% 25% 4% 63% 1%

PAGE 162

162 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 28 6 Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment $27,918 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.03 8% 27% 3% 61% 1% 28 7 Guided missiles an d space vehicles $22,692 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.10 11% 34% 5% 50% 1% 28 8 Propulsion units and parts for space vehicles and guided missiles $5,698 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 10% 34% 4% 52% 0% 28 9 Railroad rolling stock $8,752 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.10 7% 24% 3% 67% 0% 29 0 Ships $22,336 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.13 9% 29% 3% 58% 1% 29 1 Boats $5,379 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.24 11% 42% 3% 43% 0% 29 2 Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts $7,595 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.20 6% 17% 2% 74% 0% 29 3 Military armor ed vehicles, tanks, and tank components $7,421 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.24 7% 30% 2% 60% 0% 29 4 All other transportation equipment $5,294 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.25 9% 32% 3% 57% 0% 29 5 Wood kitchen cabinets and countertops $12,987 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 14% 46% 4% 36% 0% 29 6 Upholstered household furniture $8,695 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.39 14% 50% 4% 32% 0% 29 7 Non upholstered wood household furniture $5,027 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.22 13% 46% 4% 37% 0% 29 8 Metal and other household furniture $ 2,877 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.44 12% 46% 3% 39% 0% 29 9 Institutional furniture $4,818 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.21 10% 34% 3% 53% 0% 30 0 Office Furniture $9,909 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.20 13% 45% 4% 38% 0% 30 1 Custom architectural woodwork and millwork $2,198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.18 10% 38% 3% 48% 0% 30 2 Showcases, partitions, shelving, and lockers $7,942 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.20 8% 30% 2% 59% 0%

PAGE 163

163 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 30 3 Mattresses $8,315 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.40 15% 48% 4% 33% 0% 30 4 Blinds and shades $1,958 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.24 11% 40% 4% 45% 0% 30 5 Surgical and medical instrument, laboratory and medical instruments $42,835 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.14 12% 45% 4% 39% 0% 30 6 Surgical appliances and supplies $35,398 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.12 12% 42% 4% 42% 1% 30 7 Dental equipment and supplies $4,593 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 14% 35% 4% 43% 4% 30 8 Ophthalmic goods $8,340 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.13 12% 46% 4% 38% 0% 30 9 Dental laboratories $4,004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 13% 35% 5% 46% 2% 31 0 Je welry and silverware $8,623 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.06 9% 28% 3% 58% 1% 31 1 Sporting and athletic goods $11,158 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.28 11% 42% 3% 43% 0% 31 2 Dolls, toys, and games $3,868 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.33 12% 49% 4% 35% 0% 31 3 Office sup plies (except paper) $3,336 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.21 13% 47% 4% 36% 0% 31 4 Signs $8,815 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.17 11% 42% 4% 43% 0% 31 5 Gaskets, packing and sealing devices $5,840 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.10 11% 42% 3% 44% 0% 31 6 Musical instrument s $1,461 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.12 13% 44% 4% 39% 0% 31 7 All other miscellaneous manufactured products $13,773 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.20 11% 41% 3% 44% 0% 31 8 Brooms, brushes, and mops $2,534 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.13 11% 51% 3% 35% 0% 31 9 Wholesa le trade distribution services ######### # 0.032 0.020 0.011 0.03 13% 43% 5% 39% 1% 32 0 Retail Services Motor vehicle and parts OR BEA ALL RETAIL $178,121 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.08 12% 35% 5% 48% 1%

PAGE 164

164 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 32 1 Retail Services Furniture and home furnish ings $44,259 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.07 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 2 Retail Services Electronics and appliances $55,765 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.08 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 3 Retail Services Building material and garden supply $93,163 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.06 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 4 Retail Services Food and beverage $168,168 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.06 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 5 Retail Services Health and personal care $84,293 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.07 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 6 Retail Services Gasoline statio ns $63,384 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.06 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 7 Retail Services Clothing and clothing accessories $88,318 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.09 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 8 Retail Services Sporting goods, hobby, book and music $36,395 0.003 0.002 0.00 1 0.07 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 32 9 Retail Services General merchandise $161,142 0.008 0.005 0.002 0.05 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 33 0 Retail Services Miscellaneous $70,094 0.005 0.004 0.002 0.07 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 33 1 Retail Services Non store, direct and electronic sales $93,614 0.008 0.006 0.003 0.09 12% 35% 5% 48% 1% 33 2 Air transportation services $127,479 0.010 0.005 0.004 0.07 16% 40% 7% 36% 1% 33 3 Rail transportation services $54,583 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.02 11% 39% 4% 44% 2% 33 4 Water transportation services $33,691 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.07 9% 27% 4% 60% 1% 33 5 Truck transportation services $213,334 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.02 10% 35% 4% 49% 1% 33 6 Transit and ground passenger transportation services $30,544 0.001 0.000 0 .000 0.02 9% 29% 4% 58% 1% 33 7 Pipeline transportation services $28,665 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 9% 31% 3% 55% 2%

PAGE 165

165 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 33 8 Scenic and sightseeing transportation services and support activities for transportation $71,219 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.02 11% 36 % 5% 47% 1% 33 9 Couriers and messengers services $67,337 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 11% 35% 5% 49% 1% 34 0 Warehousing and storage services $61,957 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 7% 24% 3% 65% 1% 34 1 Newspapers $34,962 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.05 16% 40% 4 % 39% 0% 34 2 Periodicals $40,402 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.05 19% 44% 5% 32% 0% 34 3 Books $27,519 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.08 15% 40% 5% 40% 0% 34 4 Directories and mailing lists $22,967 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 15% 41% 5% 39% 0% 34 5 Software $154,489 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.04 16% 41% 7% 35% 0% 34 6 Motion pictures and videos $85,759 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.02 12% 38% 5% 44% 1% 34 7 Sound recordings $20,369 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.07 15% 40% 6% 39% 0% 34 8 Radio and television entertainment $49,403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 16% 40% 6% 37% 0% 34 9 Cable and other subscription services $46,076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 14% 39% 5% 41% 0% 35 0 Internet publishing and broadcasting services $26,045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 19% 45% 5% 30% 0% 35 1 Te lecommunicatio ns $491,556 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.02 13% 37% 5% 43% 2% 35 2 Data processing hosting ISP web search portals $86,835 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.02 15% 40% 6% 39% 1% 35 3 Other information services $9,982 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02 14% 35% 5% 45% 1% 35 4 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation services $627,329 0.032 0.017 0.016 0.05 18% 42% 8% 32% 1%

PAGE 166

166 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 35 5 Non depository credit intermediation and related services $414,285 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.02 18% 39% 8% 35% 0% 35 6 Securities, commodity contracts, investments, and related services $536,882 0.022 0.011 0.011 0.04 16% 38% 7% 38% 1% 35 7 Insurance $472,307 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.01 16% 39% 6% 38% 1% 35 8 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related services $1 67,198 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35 9 Funds, trusts, and other financial services $115,517 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.05 16% 38% 7% 37% 1% 36 0 Real estate buying and selling, leasing, managing, and related services $973,358 0.012 0.009 0 .003 0.01 9% 29% 4% 57% 1% 36 1 Imputed rental services of owner occupied dwellings ######### # 0.040 0.027 0.014 0.03 9% 46% 4% 38% 3% 36 2 Automotive equipment rental and leasing services $51,401 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.04 14% 39% 6% 39% 1% 36 3 Ge neral and consumer goods rental services except video tapes and discs $23,110 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.06 13% 35% 5% 47% 1% 36 4 Video tape and disc rental services $4,811 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.08 10% 27% 4% 59% 0% 36 5 Commercial and industrial machine ry and equipment rental and leasing services $53,088 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.01 15% 39% 6% 38% 2% 36 6 Leasing of nonfinancial intangible assets $172,784 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.01 9% 25% 4% 61% 1% 36 7 Legal services $274,535 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.01 16% 40% 7% 37% 1% 36 8 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services $142,996 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.01 16% 39% 7% 37% 0%

PAGE 167

167 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 36 9 Architectural, engineering, and related services $232,891 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.03 16% 40% 7% 35% 1% 37 0 Specialized design services $22,183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 16% 43% 6% 34% 0% 37 1 Custom computer programming services $175,521 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.05 11% 28% 5% 55% 1% 37 2 Computer systems design services $89,587 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.05 17% 41% 7% 34% 1% 37 3 Other computer related services, including facilities management $53,062 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.02 17% 41% 7% 34% 0% 37 4 Management, scientific, and technical consulting services $158,699 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.01 18% 42% 7% 33% 0% 37 5 Environmental and other technical consulting services $38,186 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.04 16% 40% 6% 37% 1% 37 6 Scientific research and development services $164,876 0.016 0.012 0.004 0.09 16% 43% 6% 35% 1% 37 7 Advertising and related services $105,684 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 12% 45% 5% 39% 0% 37 8 Photographic services $9,758 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.04 14% 43% 6% 36% 0% 37 9 Veterinary services $22,642 0.018 0.013 0.005 0.79 21% 55% 6% 18% 0% 38 0 All other miscellaneous professional scientific, and technical services $71,962 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 16% 39% 6% 38% 0% 38 1 Management of companies and enterprises $373,701 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.01 14% 37% 9% 40% 1% 38 2 Employment services $141,781 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.01 17% 40% 7% 35% 0% 38 3 Travel arrangement and reservation services $34,752 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.05 17% 41% 7% 35% 0% 38 4 Office administrative services $61,524 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.02 17% 41% 7% 34% 0%

PAGE 168

168 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 38 5 Facilities support services $20,993 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.04 14% 36% 6% 43% 2% 38 6 Business support services $59,513 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.01 16% 40% 7% 37% 0% 38 7 Investigation and security services $43,908 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.03 15% 40% 6% 39% 0% 38 8 Services to buildings and dwelli ngs $139,808 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.01 9% 47% 6% 38% 1% 38 9 Other support services $38,508 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.02 16% 41% 6% 37% 0% 39 0 Waste management and remediation services $76,587 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.03 14% 37% 5% 43% 1% 39 1 Elementary and secondary education from private schools $50,201 0.013 0.009 0.004 0.26 18% 39% 10% 33% 0% 39 2 Education from private junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools $159,218 0.090 0.065 0.025 0.57 20% 41% 8% 30% 0% 39 3 O ther private educational services $55,597 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.06 13% 39% 5% 42% 1% 39 4 Offices of physicians, dentists, and other health practitioners $568,519 0.041 0.024 0.017 0.07 16% 42% 6% 36% 1% 39 5 Home health care services $67,444 0.00 4 0.002 0.002 0.06 15% 42% 6% 37% 0% 39 6 Medical and diagnostic labs and outpatient and other ambulatory care services $179,771 0.016 0.010 0.006 0.09 14% 42% 6% 38% 1% 39 7 Private hospital services $592,001 0.206 0.143 0.063 0.35 20% 41% 8 % 31% 0% 39 8 Nursing and residential care services $178,740 0.080 0.056 0.024 0.45 21% 43% 8% 29% 0% 39 9 Child day care services $44,554 0.018 0.013 0.005 0.40 21% 42% 10% 26% 0% 40 0 Individual and family services $64,631 0.010 0.006 0.003 0.15 19% 45% 6% 29% 1%

PAGE 169

169 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 40 1 Community food, housing, and other relief services, including rehabilitation services $30,365 0.009 0.006 0.003 0.29 20% 44% 6% 30% 0% 40 2 Performing arts $14,027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.03 13% 37% 5% 44% 1% 40 3 Specta tor sports $29,083 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.11 21% 45% 7% 27% 0% 40 4 Promotional services for performing arts and sports and public figures $24,164 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.04 15% 37% 6% 41% 1% 40 5 Independent artists, writers, and performers $24,541 0. 000 0.000 0.000 0.01 15% 38% 6% 40% 0% 40 6 Museum, heritage, zoo, and recreational services $12,815 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.08 9% 25% 3% 62% 1% 40 7 Fitness and recreational sports center services $19,661 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.11 14% 32% 6% 48% 0% 40 8 Bowling activities $2,514 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.54 20% 44% 7% 29% 0% 40 9 Amusement parks, arcades, and gambling recreation $67,403 0.016 0.012 0.005 0.24 18% 42% 7% 33% 0% 41 0 Other amusements and recreation $27,459 0.004 0.003 0.001 0. 15 15% 40% 5% 40% 1% 41 1 Hotels and motel services, including casino hotels $123,030 0.017 0.012 0.005 0.14 16% 37% 7% 40% 0% 41 2 Other accommodation services $17,209 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.28 17% 39% 7% 37% 0% 41 3 Restaurant, bar, and drinking place services $580,880 0.642 0.477 0.165 1.10 21% 45% 9% 25% 0% 41 4 Automotive repair and maintenance services, except car washes $101,126 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.05 10% 33% 4% 53% 1% 41 5 Car wash services $8,203 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.09 9% 29% 12% 51% 1% 41 6 Electronic and precision equipment repairs and maintenance $33,242 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.04 10% 36% 5% 49% 1%

PAGE 170

170 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 41 7 Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repairs and maintenance $39,023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 12% 36% 4% 48% 1% 41 8 Personal and household goods repairs and maintenance $21,559 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.09 12% 38% 5% 44% 0% 41 9 Personal care services $62,627 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.10 11% 37% 6% 45% 0% 42 0 Death care services $17,016 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.08 11% 36% 4% 45% 4% 42 1 Dry cleaning and laundry services $28,362 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.05 7% 29% 18% 45% 0% 42 2 Other personal services $56,124 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.12 14% 43% 5% 37% 0% 42 3 Services from religious organizations $58,799 0.00 8 0.004 0.003 0.13 17% 39% 8% 35% 1% 42 4 Grant making, giving, and social advocacy services $77,734 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.09 16% 40% 7% 37% 1% 42 5 Civic, social, and professional services $152,142 0.017 0.011 0.006 0.11 17% 39% 7% 36% 1% 42 6 Cooking, housecleaning, gardening, and other services to private households $23,295 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42 7 US Postal delivery services $66,811 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.01 14% 38% 6% 41% 1% 42 8 Not a unique commodity (electricit y from fed gov't utilities) $8,012 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.11 16% 41% 6% 36% 1% 42 9 Products & services of Fed Govt enterprises (except electric utilities) $32,270 0.015 0.011 0.004 0.47 21% 40% 11% 28% 0% 43 0 Not a unique commodity (passenger tr ansit by state & local gov't) $13,454 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.12 11% 35% 4% 47% 3% 43 1 Not a unique commodity (electricity from state & local gov't utilities) $25,368 0.035 0.035 0.000 1.37 0% 1% 0% 99% 0%

PAGE 171

171 Table B 1 4 Continued. # Commodity Description Xi, US, 2010, Total Output PSF, Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Direct Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Supply Chain Deman d for Sinks (Tg P) Deman d Intensit y PSIFP De m (mt P/M$) Sink, Re cycle d Sink Water way Si nk Sew er Sink Land fill Sink Stoc k Infr 43 2 Products & services of State & Local Govt enterprises (except electric utilities) $211,436 0.034 0.024 0.009 0.16 7% 41% 3% 45% 5% 43 3 Used and secondhand goods $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 4 Scrap $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 5 Rest of the world adjustment $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 6 Noncomparable foreign imports $0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 7 Employment and payroll only (state & local gov't, non education) $549,196 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 8 Employment and payroll only (state & local gov't, education) $648,745 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 9 Employment and payroll only (federal gov't, non military) $290,078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 4 0 Employment and payroll only (federal gov't, military) $325,803 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sum: $25,069,981 6.741 5.307 1.434 199.52 49.3 161 17.9 197. 6 4.6 Average: $56,977 0.015 0.012 0.003 0.46 11% 37% 4% 45% 1% 1.4 Commodity Group Descriptions The 440 IMPLAN sectors were categorized into ten groups in order to provide more of a general view of the economy. The groups were chosen based on similarities between sectors especially as pertained to phosphorus sources. Table A 1 5 gives descriptions of each group and which IMPLAN sectors went into it. For a few sectors

PAGE 172

172 there was adequate overlap between groups, so the sector phosphorus contribution was allocated equally between the two groups, as described in the notes below the table.