Archives of

1. Introduction
Power plants that use fossil fuels for their processes [1] produce various pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, and particulate matter [2].
More than 40% of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are generated by power plants that burn fuel for electricity production [3]. Carbon compounds are one of the common pollutants in power plants that are considered greenhouse gases (GHG) and cause climate change and global warming [4].
One of the most dangerous and harmful effects of fossil-fuel power plants is global warming, which is mainly due to GHG emissions, causing widespread climate change and global warming [5,6], the details of which are provided in Table 1.
The consequences of rising GHGs and global warming include rising air temperatures, rising sea and ocean levels, severe rainstorms, drought, and loss of animal and plant species [4].
In addition to the threat of climate change and global warming, GHGs also endanger the health of humans and living organisms [7].
Various studies have reported the harmful and adverse effects of air pollutants caused by power plants on human health, ultimately causing asthma, allergies, carcinogenicity, and, in chronic cases, premature death in humans [8-10].
Carbon footprint is a term used to estimate air pollution based on the emissions of carbon compounds such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane [11].
The term carbon footprint actually derives from the term ecological footprint utilized in the 1990s and is a measure of the total amount of carbon compound output associated with a given population, system, or activity, taking into account all resources, subsides, and storage within the time and place of that population, system, or activity [12].
Carbon footprint is an indicator that shows the effect of activities on the production of carbon dioxide produced by the consumption of fossil fuels and is expressed as the weight of carbon dioxide produced per tonne [13]. It has Studying the Carbon Footprint of Carbon Dioxide Gas Coming Out of Chimneys and Electricity Production of Zahedan Gas Power Plant
one of the most important and dangerous impacts on the
environment, safety, and health of the human environment
[14]. The main contributor to global warming is the
carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil
fuels, producing approximately 4 g of carbon dioxide for
every g of combusted carbon and can contain 60%‒80%
carbon, depending on the fuel [15].
Gas fuel is now known as one of the cleanest types of fuel.
This type of fuel is available as natural gas in the vicinity of
crude oil tanks or gases produced in refineries or chemical
processes. Natural gas is the best fuel ready to use, with a
mixture of 80‒90% methane, and the remaining 20‒10%
is mainly ethane and other gases such as propane/butane
and nitrogen. Impurities, such as carbon dioxide and
sulfur hydrogen dioxide, and organic sulfur compounds
of 1% are also present in natural gas. The gas consumed
by the power plants is transferred to the site through
pressurized gas pipes, and after reducing the gas pressure
and passing through the cyclones, it is directly transferred
to the burners [16].
Several studies have been conducted on carbon
footprints in different countries around the world [3,7,11-
13]. Moreover, many studies have been performed in Iran
in this regard, which can be mentioned from this research
group to estimate the carbon emissions from fossil fuel
consumption during the years 1927‒2015 in Iran (16), due
to electricity consumption and fossil fuels during the years
2010‒2015 in Ahvaz [17,18], and evaluate the carbon
footprint and its relationship with energy consumption
in the Yadavaran oil field of Khuzestan province [19-
21]. The issue of pollution and increased carbon dioxide
emissions has become a global concern, and natural and
human resources are causing carbon dioxide emissions.
Natural resources include decomposition, release from
the oceans, respiration, and photosynthesis. Respiration
is a process in which organisms release energy from food
and emit carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis, the biochemical
process by which plants and some microbes produce food,
acts as a natural counterpart to breathing by absorbing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide
emissions from human activities are also a major factor, as
they change global average temperatures [22]. Therefore,
this study aimed to evaluate and estimate the carbon
footprint of the Zahedan Gas Power Plant due to fossil
fuel consumption and electricity generation and compare
it with the total costs of power plants in the country.
Materials and Methods
This study was performed at the Zahedan Gas Power
Plant in 2021, 2022, and 2023. This plant is located in
Sistan and Baluchestan Province, 5 km from Zahedan
Gloorband Road, which was first put into operation in
1986 (Figure 1). One of Iran’s power plants is gas-fired
with a production capacity of 2262 MW, which includes
9 units of the Frame 5 model. Zahedan Power Plant is a
construction of Hitachi, Brown Bowery, and AEG, and its
fuel type is natural gas and oil gas.
Gas exhaust chimneys were sampled according to the US
Environmental Protection Agency method [24] per day
with a calm and sunny climate at an altitude of 4 meters
above the ground (Table 2). The dioxide crane was read
directly in the exhaust chimneys. In each study season
(spring, summer, or autumn), CO2 was estimated with 3
replications.
TESTO (model 350, Germany) was employed to
measure carbon dioxide gas. For measurement, the
device was controlled from every point of view, and it was
ensured that the device was perfect for battery-charging
and calibration. By asking the corresponding person
responsible for the temperature of the chimney outlet, it
was ensured that its temperature was not higher than the
temperature tolerance range of the probe of the device and
did not cause damage to the temperature sensor, or filter
probes were used if the flue dust was high.
After the reliability and lack of a problem for
measurement, the probe was connected to the device, and
the device was turned on. After the Auto Zero stage, which
may last from 30 seconds to several minutes, the probe
was placed in the standard position, and the pump of the
device was started. The results were saved after waiting
for the numbers to be fixed and the measurements to be
completed. To re-measure, it is necessary to zero in the
next stations to obtain more accurate numbers.
The amounts of fuel consumed and power generated by
Zahedan and the country’s power plants were collected
using statistical yearbooks [25,26]. The carbon footprint
of fossil fuel consumption is an indirect emission;
therefore, carbon dioxide emissions from oil and natural
Table 1. Global warming potential value of greenhouse gases
Gas Chemical Global warming potential
Carbon dioxide CO2 1
Methane CH4 25
Nitrogen oxides N2O 298
Hydro chlorofluorocarbons HCFCs 124-14800
Chlorofluorocarbons CFCs 4760-14400 Figure 1. Geographical Location of Zahedan. Source. Mahjoob et al [23]
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 13, Number 1, 2024 25
Carbon footprint of carbon dioxide gas from Zahedan gas power plantgas power plant
gas consumption were calculated from relation 1 [27]:
CO2 Emissions = Activity Data (AD) × Emission Factor (EF) (1)
This relationship represents the amount of fossil fuel
consumption collected from the statistical yearbooks
[25,26], as well as the emission coefficient presented in
Table 3 [28].
Considering the total carbon footprint emissions from
the Carbon dioxide from electricity production per year
was obtained based on relation 2 [28]:
it it t
t j t
it t t
C C G G Y
G G Y
= Σ (2)
In this regard, Ct is the total CO2 emissions of the
power industry in year Cit, and t denotes the CO2
emissions of power plant i in year Cit. In addition, t
represents electricity generation i in year Yt, and t is the
added value of the electricity industry in year Cit/Git.
Further, t indicates the intensity of the CO2 generation
of electricity, and Git/Gt is the share of power generation
of power plant i. Finally, Gt/Yt denotes the intensity of
electricity in year t [28].
Per capita carbon footprint and CO2 emissions were
obtained from relations 3 and 4 [27]:
Carbon Emission = Total Carbon Emission ÷ Total Number
of Staff (3)
The Intensity of CO2 = CO2 Emissions ÷ Energy Consumption (4)
In this regard, carbon emissions per capita, total carbon
emissions, total number of staff, intensity of CO2, CO2
emissions, and energy consumption [27].
Total energy consumption was obtained from relation
(5), in which Total Energy Consumption TEC in terms
of GJ. Moreover, ei is the actual amount of energy
consumption, and pi represents the factor of the type of
energy consumed [29]:
Total Energy Consumption = £ ei × pi (5)
To calculate the ecological footprint, first, the annual
consumption per capita of the main consumables was
obtained based on the total data and divided by total
consumption by population. Then, the average of the
total ecological footprint of each person was computed by
collecting all the ecosystem areas assigned to each person,
and finally, the ecological footprint for the population of
each planned area was calculated based on relation 6 [29]:
EFP = EF × N (6)
The data were analyzed, and carbon footprint
relationships were computed using Excel 2007 software.
The tables were also drawn with the help of this software.
Results
The CO2 emissions from the fumes of Zahedan Gas Power
Plant in 2021, 2022, and 2023 are presented in Table 4.
The highest emission in 2023 came from chimney No. 4
at 3/20 ppm.
Total CO2 emissions during one day in the spring
and summer of 2021 were 15.22 ppm and 9.41 ppm,
respectively. The corresponding values were 12.44 ppm in
spring and autumn 2022 and 20.37 ppm in the summer
of 2023, respectively. In addition, it was 21.49 ppm in the
Table 2. Specifications of the sampling location of exhaust gases at the
Zahedan Power Plant
Chimney
Chimney
height
Sampling
height
Longitude Latitude
1 6 m 4 m 60.48° 22′ 67′′ 29.28° 32′ 12′′
2 6 m 4 m 60.48° 19′ 20′′ 29.28° 32′ 50′′
3 6 m 4 m 60.48° 20′ 89′′ 29.28° 31′ 59′′
4 6 m 4 m 60.48° 19′ 93′′ 29.28° 32′ 80′′
5 6 m 4 m 60.48° 23′ 18′′ 29.28° 32′ 34′′
6 6 m 4 m 60.48° 23′ 45′′ 29.28° 32′ 10′′
7 6 m 4 m 60.48° 23′ 45′′ 29.28° 32′ 10′′
8 6 m 4 m 60.48° 24′ 72′′ 29.28° 32′ 28′′
9 6 m 4 m 60.48° 24′ 74′′ 29.28° 32′ 52′′
Table 3. Carbon dioxide emission coefficient from natural gas consumption
in power plants
Release Source diffusion Coefficient Unit
Natural gas 0.0556 Ton CO2/MMBTU API/DEFRA
Natural gas 0.0542 Ton CO2/MMBTU AGO
Natural gas 0.0532 Ton CO2/MMBTU IPCC
Gas oil 2.68 Kg CH4/L fuel CAPP
API, American Petroleum Institute; DEFRA, Department for Environment,
Food, and Rural Affairs; AGO, Automotive Gas Oil; IPCC, Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change; CAPP, Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers.
Source. Ahmadi Moghadam et al [28].
Table 4. Carbon Dioxide Emissions (ppm) From the Chimneys of Zahedan
Power Plant
Chimney
2021 2022 2023
Spring Summer Spring Autumn Summer
1 1.63 1.41 0.94 2.46 2.63
2 1.47 0.59 0.92 2.50 2.62
3 1.67 1.06 1.42 2.45 2.56
4 1.17 0.74 3.03 3.02 3.20
5 2.34 1.21 1.29 2.45 2.60
6 2.40 1.51 1.35 2.50 2.61
7 2.08 2.04 1.19 2.46 2.62
8 1.46 0.85 2.30 2.53 2.65
9 1 0.80 1.99 2.54 2.66
Total 1998.57 1833.30 1156.92 875.13 1415.46
Moudi et al
26 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 13, Number 1, 2024
summer of 2023, which is for 3 months in each period.
According to the results, carbon dioxide emissions
increased in 2023 and 2022 compared to 2021.
In this study, to measure the per capita carbon footprint,
the population of Zahedan was considered based on
the last census in 2021, which was 770 800. The total
CO2 emissions for one year were calculated. Fossil fuel
consumption and electricity generation at the Zahedan
Gas Power Plant are presented for 2021 and 2022. Zahedan
Power Plant used two fuels (i.e., oil and natural gases) to
generate electricity, which consumed more natural gas
than oil gas in the two studied years (Table 5).
CO2 emissions in 2021 from natural gas consumption
were higher than oil. CO2 emissions in 2021 were higher
than in 2022. The highest CO2 emissions per capita and
CO2 emissions were 1742.58 and 288.73, respectively,
from oil consumption in 2021 for electricity generation at
Zahedan Gas Power Plant (Table 6).
Discussion
Carbon dioxide is one of the compounds in the exhaust
gases of industrial and manufacturing plants and is
probably the most important pollutant of air and GHGs
from human activities. Different amounts of carbon
dioxide (0.3‒5.20 ppm) obtained from the chimneys of the
Zahedan Gas Power Plant were measured and determined
in this study. Researchers reported CO2 emissions from
power plants such as Ramin Power Plant (12 600 tons per
day), Abadan Gas Power Plant (4.26 μg/m3), Genaveh
Combined Cycle Power Plant (CO2 466 kW/eq), coalfired
power plants (968 g/kWh), and combined cycle
sites (579 g/kWh) [30-33]. Power plants discharge a large
amount of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the
air in different parts of the country due to the factors of
pollution from fossil fuels, which have been measured
practically and theoretically. Other studies have reported
carbon dioxide emissions from the chimneys of the food
industry, as well as rubber and chemical production [34-
37]. According to the results, carbon dioxide emissions
increased in 2023 and 2022 compared to 2021. One study
reported that CO2 emissions from oil consumption were
higher compared to other fossil fuels [16].
After petroleum, gasoline had the highest carbon
dioxide emissions. The amount of fuel oil and kerosene
was followed by carbon dioxide emissions. Considering
the increasing consumption of fossil fuels and increasing
carbon emissions, air pollution, and global warming, it is
recommended that management strategies are provided
for the optimal use of fossil fuels, and clean and renewable
energies such as wind and solar energies are replaced
with the existing ones [16]. One of the most important
pollutants in the energy consumption sector is air
pollution due to emissions and leakage of pollutant gases
caused by burning fossil fuels [17]. Regarding the effect
of hydroelectric energy consumption on CO2 emissions,
ecological footprint, and carbon footprint in Iran, the
estimation of the models indicated that there is a longterm
relationship between the variables considered in
these models. It demonstrates that there is a significant
negative relationship between hydroelectric energy
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions and carbon
footprints in the short and long term. In other words,
the use of hydroelectric power in the short- and longterm
leads to a reduction in carbon footprint and carbon
dioxide emissions. Moreover, hydroelectric power has an
impact on the ecological footprint in the short term [38].
Another study reported higher carbon dioxide emissions
from oil consumption than from other fossil fuels [39],
confirming the results of this research.
The CO2 emissions from electricity generation in 2022 at
Zahedan Gas Power Plant were 1 343 183 554.98 tons per
year. The researchers reported that about 40% of carbon
dioxide emissions were attributed to power generation in
power plants [40,41].
Currently, the electricity industry, with about 30% of the
country’s GHG emissions, is the most serious cause of the
production of these gases; thus, reducing the amount of
emissions in the electricity sector can have a significant
impact on reducing the country’s overall emissions [42].
Considering that the power generation industry is a
Table 5. Fuel Consumption and Electricity Production of the Zahedan Gas
Power Plant
Fuel Type Unit 2022 2023
Gas/oil consumption L 4561394 3406860
Electricity production MW 11057 7916
Consumption of natural gas M3 491432590 527864110
Electricity production MW 1212481 1306999
Total of electricity production MW 1223538 1314915
Table 6. Evaluation of the carbon footprint (tons/year) of energy consumption and electricity production of zahedan gas power plant
Parameter Years Gas oil Natural gas Electricity production
Emission of carbon dioxide
2021 1317039341.2 26144213.78 1343183554.98
2022 9130384.8 28082370.65 37212755.45
Carbon dioxide emissions per capita
2021 1708.66 33.91 1742.58
2022 11.84 36.43 48.27
The intensity of carbon dioxide emissions
2021 288.73 0.053 1097.78
2022 2.68 0.053 28.30
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 13, Number 1, 2024 27
Carbon footprint of carbon dioxide gas from Zahedan gas power plantgas power plant
major polluting industry, it is important to examine the
carbon footprint in this sector, as fossil fuels continue to be
the number one source of energy for generating electricity.
Coal-fired power plants, which have the highest GHG
emissions, will occupy the first place in this field and will
even have a large share in the coming years [32].
The study of the carbon footprint in the electricity
industry in Pakistan showed that the average weighted
GHG emission factor in Pakistan’s electricity sector was
0.566 tons of carbon per cubic meter (tons of carbon
dioxide per megawatt hour) for wind and solar energy
projects and 0.478 tons of carbon per cubic meter for
hydropower projects. Pakistan’s electricity industry
is one of the major sources of GHG emissions in the
country. Pakistan’s national electricity is dominated by
thermal energy projects that emit large amounts of carbon
dioxide [43].
Between 1995 and 2014, carbon dioxide emissions from
the electricity industry fluctuated in the Beijing Tianjin
region of Hebei, China, and the overall annual growth was
5.93%. Factors affecting the growth of CO2 gas production
from the electricity industry in the Beijing Tianjin Hebei
region were the economic scale, population, transmission
and distribution losses, and industrial structure, with
a share rate of 150.70%, 20.80%, 8.86%, and 8.83%,
respectively.
The effective factors in reducing CO2 production were
power consumption of generators, coal consumption,
electricity consumption ratio, household electricity
consumption, power generation structure, and fuel
mixture, with interest rates of -45.97%, -22.38%, -19.41%,
-0.62%, -0.49%, and -0.32%, respectively [44]. Grilo et
al analyzed and compared the carbon footprint of solar
power supply and thermal power grid in Brazil. Carbon
footprints were calculated from two different scenarios
for electricity supply. The first scenario used the national
electricity grid (a combination of Brazilians), and the
second scenario utilized a solar power system connected
to the power grid. Solar energy provided significant
environmental benefits in comparison to the direct use
of electricity from the grid, which was associated with a
reduction of around 207/88 CO2-eq/year. The use of clean
energy sources, such as solar sources, could significantly
reduce the carbon footprint [45]. Electricity is one of
the most widely used and high-level energy carriers that
plays a significant role in the development process, but
electricity production depends on other energy sources,
especially fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are an important source
of GHG emissions and the main cause of global warming,
with 95% of Iran’s electricity generated from these sources.
Each kWh of electricity generation from thermal power
plants emits 817 g of carbon dioxide, which is the main
GHG [46]. In another study, the CO2 emission index from
electricity generation in Malaysia was calculated at 0.329
t/m2, and the amount of CO2 accumulation was 1825.96
million tons of CO2-eq [47].
A draft on carbon emissions and GHGs was presented
in the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon emissions can be reduced
through the use of solar, wind, farms, and more. There
are actually several ways to decrease GHGs. With several
simple and practical steps, one can successfully reduce
their personal carbon footprint and cause environmental
change. Reducing the carbon footprint can be brought
about through the economic use of electricity in the home.
Using fluorescent or low-energy lamps can reduce about
70 kg of carbon dioxide per household in a year.
Another way to reduce carbon dioxide is to plant trees.
A tree absorbs a ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime
and saves as much energy as possible. An effective way to
decrease the carbon footprint is to use energy star-rated
products. Energy-efficient devices save up to 15% on
electricity consumption, reducing your extra cost savings
as well [48].
Conclusion
Zahedan Power Plant has used two fuels, namely, oil and
natural gases, to generate electricity, which was more than
the oil gas in the two years under study. CO2 emissions
from natural gas consumption were higher in 2021
than in 2022.
According to the results, CO2 emissions increased in
2023 and 2022 compared to 2021. One of the limitations
of this study was the lack of data needed about other
power plants in each province and city. It seems that by
collecting power generation data from the existing power
plants in the country, the contribution of each of these
plants to the carbon footprint can be assessed equally and
simultaneously.
Acknowledgments
This article entitled “Evaluation of the Environmental Pollution
Effects of Zahedan Gas Power Plant” is part of the Master’s thesis (ID
Number: 09729436201589753010162609537) of the Department
of Environment, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan Branch. The
authors of the article would like to thank the dear colleagues who
helped us in the process of conducting this research.
Authors’ Contribution
Conceptualization: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad
Velayatzadeh, Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Data curtain: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Formal analysis: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad
Velayatzadeh, Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi .
Investigation: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Methodology: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Project administration: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad
Velayatzadeh, Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Resources: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Software: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Moudi et al
28 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 13, Number 1, 2024
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Validation: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Visualization: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad Velayatzadeh,
Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Writing–original draft: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad
Velayatzadeh, Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Writing–review & editing: Mohammad Reza Moudi, Mohammad
Velayatzadeh, Tayebeh Dadras Moghadam, Mahnaz Nasr Abadi.
Competing Interests
There is no conflict of interests between the authors.
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Funding
This article is not sponsored.
References
1. Vig N, Ravindra K, Mor S. Environmental impacts of Indian
coal thermal power plants and associated human health
risk to the nearby residential communities: a potential
review. Chemosphere. 2023;341:140103. doi: 10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2023.140103.
2. Reddy MS, Basha S, Joshi HV, Jha B. Evaluation of the emission
characteristics of trace metals from coal and fuel oil fired
power plants and their fate during combustion. J Hazard Mater.
2005;123(1-3):242-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.04.008.
3. Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Banja M, Solazzo E, Muntean M,
Schaaf E, et al. CO2 Emissions of All World Countries, EUR
31182 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
:union:; 2022. doi: 10.2760/730164.
4. Jozi SA, Saffarian S, Shafiee M. Environmental risk assessment
of a gas power plant exploitation unit using integrated TOPEFMEA
method. Pol J Environ Stud. 2012;21(1):95-105.
5. Roelfsema M, Fekete H, Höhne N, den Elzen M, Forsell N,
Kuramochi T, et al. Reducing global GHG emissions by
replicating successful sector examples: the ‘good practice
policies’ scenario. Clim Policy. 2018;18(9):1103-13. doi:
10.1080/14693062.2018.1481356.
6. Alaa Abbass R, Kumar P, El-Gendy A. An overview of
monitoring and reduction strategies for health and climate
change related emissions in the Middle East and North Africa
region. Atmos Environ. 2018;175:33-43. doi: 10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2017.11.061.
7. Guevara M, Enciso S, Tena C, Jorba O, Dellaert S, Denier
van der Gon H, et al. A global catalogue of CO2 emissions
and co-emitted species from power plants, including highresolution
vertical and temporal profiles. Earth Syst Sci Data.
2024;16(1):337-73. doi: 10.5194/essd-16-337-2024.
8. Skorek-Osikowska A, Bartela Ł, Kotowicz J. Thermodynamic
and ecological assessment of selected coal-fired power
plants integrated with carbon dioxide capture. Appl Energy.
2017;200:73-88. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.055.
9. Cushing LJ, Li S, Steiger BB, Casey JA. Historical red-lining
is associated with fossil fuel power plant siting and presentday
inequalities in air pollutant emissions. Nat Energy.
2023;8(1):52-61. doi: 10.1038/s41560-022-01162-y.
10. Tiwari MK, Bajpai S, Dewangan UK. Environmental issues in
thermal power plants–review in Chhattisgarh context. J Mater
Environ Sci. 2019;10(11):1123-34.
11. Müller LJ, Kätelhön A, Bringezu S, McCoy S, Suh S, Edwards R,
et al. The carbon footprint of the carbon feedstock CO2. Energy
Environ Sci. 2020;13(9):2979-92. doi: 10.1039/d0ee01530j.
12. Fenner AE, Kibert CJ, Woo J, Morque S, Razkenari M, Hakim
H, et al. The carbon footprint of buildings: a review of
methodologies and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2018;94:1142-52. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.012.
13. Lenzen M, Sun YY, Faturay F, Ting YP, Geschke A, Malik A.
The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nat Clim Chang.
2018;8(6):522-8. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0141-x.
14. Aichele R, Felbermayr G. Kyoto and the carbon footprint of
nations. J Environ Econ Manage. 2012;63(3):336-54. doi:
10.1016/j.jeem.2011.10.005.
15. Mancini MS, Galli A, Niccolucci V, Lin D, Bastianoni S,
Wackernagel M, et al. Ecological footprint: refining the carbon
footprint calculation. Ecol Indic. 2016;61(Pt 2):390-403. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.040.
16. Velayatzadeh M. The estimated carbon emissions from
fossil fuel consumption in the period 1306-1394 in Iran.
J Res Environ Health. 2018;4(3):237-46. doi: 10.22038/
jreh.2018.33883.1234. [Persian].
17. Velayatzadeh M. Evaluation of the carbon footprint caused
by the consumption of electricity and fossil fuels in the
city of Ahvaz during the years 2010-2015. Torang Journal.
2019;1(1):16-22. [Persian].
18. Mansoori ST, Zarghami E. Ecological footprint assessment of
the use of fossil fuels in the city of Ahvaz. J Environ Sci Technol.
2021;23(7):281-90. doi: 10.30495/jest.2022.55251.5156.
[Persian].
19. Velayatzadeh M, Davazdah Emami S. Carbon footprint
emissions and their relationship with energy consumption
in Yadavaran oil field in Khuzestan province, Iran. Journal
of School of Public Health and Institute of Public Health
Research. 2019;17(1):47-60. [Persian].
20. Velayatzadeh M, Davazdah Emami S. Investigating the effect
of vegetation on the absorption of carbon dioxide (case study:
Yadavaran oil field). Journal of Air Pollution and Health.
2019;4(3):147-54. doi: 10.18502/japh.v4i3.1544.
21. Velayatzadeh M, Mansouri Moghadam S. Relationship
between temperature, humidity, oxygen and carbon dioxide
in the air of Yadavaran oil field and neighboring cities
(Ahvaz and Azadegan plain). Environ Pollut Climate Change.
2022;6(10):302. doi: 10.4172/2573-458x.1000302.
22. Velayatzadeh M, Ahmadi Heydari H. The Role of Carbon and
the Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Air Pollution and Human
Health. The Second International Research Conference on
Agriculture and Environment; 2023. p. 7. [Persian].
23. Mahjoob M, Heydarian S, Nejati J, Ansari-Moghaddam A,
Ravandeh N. Prevalence of refractive errors among primary
school children in a tropical area, Southeastern Iran.
Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2016;6(2):181-4. doi: 10.1016/j.
apjtb.2015.10.008.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). EMC
Conditional Test Method (CTM-030). Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Emissions
from Natural Gas-Fired Engines, Boilers and Process Heaters
Using Portable Analyzers. USEPA; 1997.
25. Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI). Statistical Yearbook of 1400.
Program and Budget Organization of the Country. Office of
the President, Public Relations and International Cooperation.
1st ed. Tehran: SCI; 2023. p. 926. [Persian].
26. Domestic statistical monthly of thermal power generation
industry. Functional information until the end of March 2023.
2023;2(18). [Persian].
27. Lin B, Ahmad I. Analysis of energy related carbon dioxide
emission and reduction potential in Pakistan. J Clean Prod.
2017;143:278-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.113.
28. Ahmadi Moghadam M, Ghodrati S, Jaafarzadeh Haghighifard
N. CO2 and CH4 emission estimation using emission factors
from Sugarcane Development Company. Jentashapir Science
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 13, Number 1, 2024 29
Carbon footprint of carbon dioxide gas from Zahedan gas power plantgas power plant
Medicine Journal. 2013;Special Issue:9-17. [Persian].
29. Rees W, Wackernagel M. Urban ecological footprints: why
cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to
sustainability. In: Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Endlicher W,
Alberti M, Bradley G, Ryan C, et al, eds. Urban Ecology: An
International Perspective on the Interaction Between Humans
and Nature. Boston, MA: Springer; 2008. p. 537-55. doi:
10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_35.
30. Seydi Abdolli MB. Feasibility of reducing carbon dioxide
emissions of Ramin power plant by injecting this gas into
Ramshir field. Scientific Monthly Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production. 2013;(103):50-57. [Persian].
31. Jozi SA, Saffarian S. Environmental risk analysis of Abadan
gas power plant using TOPSIS method. J Environ Stud.
2011;37(58):53-66. [Persian].
32. Moosavian SF, Hajinezhad A, Hashemi Zonouzi S, Borzuei D.
Evaluation of carbon footprint in steam and combined cycle
power plants and comparison with coal-fired power plants.
Journal of Sustainable Energy Systems. 2022;1(2):97-110.
[Persian].
33. Dalir F, Shabani A, Radmehr H. Estimating the carbon footprint
of Ganave combined cycle power plant in the operation phase
of its life cycle. The 29th Annual International Conference
of the Mechanical Engineers Association of Iran and the
8th Conference of the Thermal Power Plant Industry; 2021;
Tehran. [Persian].
34. Ahmadi Shahrivar N, Alimohammadi M, Moattar F,
Dehghanifard E, Askari M. Evaluation of pollutants emission
from stack vegetable oil factory in north of Iran. J Environ
Health Eng. 2017;4(3):184-77. [Persian].
35. Razi Abadi M, Hassani F. Estimation of emission of pollutants
from chimneys of rubber mills (case study of Iran Yasa Tire and
Rubber). J Environ Sci Stud. 2019;4(1):945-53.
36. Omidi Khaniabadi Y, Rashidi R, Godarzi G, Zare S.
Measurement of mass emission values of gaseous pollutants
from the stack of Doroud cement plant. Journal of Health in
the Field. 2014;2(2):36-42. [Persian].
37. Joshani G, Motesaddi Zarandi S, Pirasteh MH, Momayezi MH,
Aghayani E, Taghavi M. Evaluation of carbon footprint and its
influencing factors in the cement factory of Abyek. Hozan j
Environ Sci. 2016;1(2):38-44. [Persian].
38. Safarzadeh E, Shad Ostanjin E. The effect of hydropower
energy consumption on carbon dioxide emissions,
ecological footprint, and carbon footprint in Iran. Iranian
Energy Economics. 2021;10(40):39-61. doi: 10.22054/
jiee.2022.67134.1901. [Persian].
39. Lau J, Dey G, Licht S. Thermodynamic assessment of CO2
to carbon nanofiber transformation for carbon sequestration
in a combined cycle gas or a coal power plant. Energy
Convers Manag. 2016;122:400-10. doi: 10.1016/j.
enconman.2016.06.007.
40. Delir F, Shafipourmutlaq M, Rouhi K. Reducing the carbon
footprint in the electricity industry to deal with climate change
(by examining the waste incineration plant). International
Conference on Climate Change, Consequences, Adaptation
and Adjustment; 2019; Tehran. [Persian].
41. Roy S, Lam YF, Hossain MU, Chan JCL. Comprehensive
evaluation of electricity generation and emission reduction
potential in the power sector using renewable alternatives in
Vietnam. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2022;157:112009. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2021.112009.
42. Anani Y, Delir F, Gamar Z. Reducing the carbon footprint of
Iran’s electricity grid from the perspective of increasing the
energy efficiency of thermal power plants. The 29th Annual
International Conference of the Mechanical Engineers
Association of Iran and the 8th Conference of the Thermal
Power Plant Industry; 2021; Tehran. [Persian].
43. Yousuf I, Ghumman AR, Hashmi HN, Kamal MA. Carbon
emissions from power sector in Pakistan and opportunities to
mitigate those. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;34:71-7. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2014.03.003.
44. Zhang C, Zhang M, Zhang N. CO2 emissions from the
power industry in the China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region:
decomposition and policy analysis. Pol J Environ Stud.
2017;26(2):903-16. doi: 10.15244/pjoes/66718.
45. de Souza Grilo MM, Fortes AF, de Souza RP, Silva JA, Carvalho
M. Carbon footprints for the supply of electricity to a heat
pump: solar energy vs. electric grid. J Renew Sustain Energy.
2018;10(2):023701. doi: 10.1063/1.4997306.
46. Sadeghi H, Nouri-Shirazi M, Biabani Khameneh K. The role
of electricity generation from renewable sources in reducing
greenhouse gases: an econometric approach. Iranian Journal
of Energy. 2014;17(3):23-38. [Persian].
47. Fairuz SM, Sulaiman MY, Lim CH, Mat S, Ali B, Saadatian O, et
al. Long-term strategy for electricity generation in Peninsular
Malaysia – analysis of cost and carbon footprint using
MESSAGE. Energy Policy. 2013;62:493-502. doi: 10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.08.005.
48. Velayatzadeh M, Ahmadi Heydari H. Principles and Basics
of Carbon Footprint. Simorgh Aseman Azargan Publications;
2024. p. 111. [Persian].