See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329611815

The use of MFA and LCA in the agriculture waste management

system in Kuala Terengganu

Article  in  Malaysian Construction Research Journal · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 2,241

3 authors:

Latifah A.Ghani Ali Nora'aini

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
32 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   1,608 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Noor Zalina Mahmood

University of Malaya
134 PUBLICATIONS   1,179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lysozyme Adsorption Onto Immobilised Metal Affinity Chromatographic Adsorbent: Effect of pH and Ionic Strength View project

Energy Saving Culture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Latifah A.Ghani on 18 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 153

THE USE OF MFA AND LCA IN THE AGRICULTURE

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN KUALA
TERENGGANU
Latifah Abdul Ghani1, Noor Zalina Mahmood2 and Nora’aini Ali3
1School of Social Development and Economic, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Terengganu,

Malaysia
2ISB, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 51030 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
3School of Ocean Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Terengganu, Malaysia

Abstract
Agricultural waste management, as practiced by the vast majority of farmers and farm
owners in agricultural areas in the district of Kuala Terengganu, involves four process
scenarios, namely S1: On farm burial, S2: On-farm burning, S3: Landfill and S4: Recycled.
However, the disposal of agricultural waste has produced an environmental impact on the
ecosystem in different ways. The aim of this study is to compare the potential environmental
damage incurred from the disposal of agricultural waste in the four scenarios above. Data
collection was conducted in ten farms located in Kuala Terengganu. The research includes
the analysis of agricultural waste, the analysis of crop residue characteristics, and the
analysis of potential contamination using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach that
utilizes the Simapro software. The results showed that the scenarios S3 and S1 have
resulted in a value credit for the destruction of the environment, compared to the debit value
of both S2 and S4. In this study, Material Flow Analysis- Life Cycle Assessment model of
integration, with Integration of Material Flow Analysis-Life Cycle Assessment, has been
developed and tested based on real data to confirm their validity as a valuable tool for
assessing the environmental conditions for agricultural waste management system in the
study region.

Keywords: Material Flow Analysis (MFA); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Agriculture Waste; and
Terengganu

INTRODUCTION

Aspects of waste disposal or final waste management is a very important point of focus
given by managers of various interested parties because of their impact on the environment
in the short term or the long term. According to Hoornweg and Bhada (2012); Saifullah and
Tasbirul (2016), the factors of rapid population growth, socioeconomic development, and
urbanization will contribute to a two-fold increment of the current 1.3 billion tonnes of solid
waste in 2025. Hence, the improvement of solid waste management will be able to reduce
the hazards of greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the demand for natural resources, and
restore the source materials and energy resources.

In Malaysia, the problems associated with solid waste, including the category of
agricultural waste, have been given a special emphasis by the respective local authorities
with the introduction and use of management systems for the development of computer
models in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Examples of support models are the Holistic
Decision Modelling, such as model Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), model Material Flow
Analysis (MFA), Linear Programming with Visual Basic, and Multi Criteria Decision
Making Model, which have become the best choices in the evaluation of an integrated
management system in this century (Wrisberg, 2002; David et. al., 2016). LCA and MFA
are two examples taken from the literature that may help explain the context of efficiency
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 154

and performance in the ecological industry, particularly in the niche area of solid waste
management (Natthira, 2005; Huang Chu et. al., 2009; Tangsubkul, 2007) have confirmed
the extent of the efficiency of integrating MFA with LCA in the farming system, which is
used as a benchmark of pollutant accumulation level that poses a risk to agricultural lands
and agricultural waste. The same integration technique was presented by Azapagic et. al.
(2007) and Udo de Haes et. al., (1997) in the case of an integration between MFA and LCA,
where LCA was used to analyse the underlying causes of environmental impact products on
the micro level. Whereas at the macro level, the MFA was used to analyse the input and
output quantities of physical mass at a much aggregated level. As a result of major changes
over the performance improvement of the utilization of environmental decision support
tools, this paper was established to study the integration of the MFA and LCA techniques in
the evaluation process of agricultural waste flow in a different time and space scales in the
agricultural regions of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.

METHODS

Methodology of MFA-LCA (MALA)

The integration of the MFA and LCA method was simplified as MALA. This term of
the MFA was introduced based on this study and was not related or was used by other
researchers. LCA method was fully utilized in this study. The MFA procedure was only
applied in Step 1 and 2 of the LCA procedure, as shown in Figure 1. The approach taken to
develop the MALA model in this study followed three general steps: 1) system definition, 2)
inventory system development, and 3) life cycle impact analysis and result interpretation.

Figure 1. The Procedure for MFA and LCA Integration

Defining the MFA-LCA Research System

As mentioned, the MFA analysis system for the Kuala Terengganu agricultural region
only covered a period of one year (2015) and the Agricultural Wastes (AgW) was chosen as
the parameter for the subsequent study in this study. Additional MFA data collection in the
field was conducted at 10 harvesting sites, including corn field, fruit farm, leafy vegetable
farm, paddy field, rubber plantation, and oil palm plantation in Kuala Terengganu. The
waste composition was totalled and the value obtained was regarded as the average AgW
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 155

composition in the year. The LCA application of this phase started by identifying the main
objective of this study. The purpose of this study was to select the optimum AgW
management system for the KTRG by identifying the hot spots in the AgW life cycle that
can be targeted for recovery studies in the future. The aim of this LCA study was to provide
useful information to the governmental and private organizations regarding the
environmental impact of the current agricultural waste management in KTRG. From the
aspect of the analytical unit (or functional unit), it was defined as “the accumulation or
treatment of 7,160 tons of agricultural wastes produced from the agricultural regions in
KTRG for a period of one year”. According to Azapagic et al., (2007), the functional unit is
the contribution towards the pollution vector development. The boundary system began with
the AgW collection, followed by AgW transportation, and finally the AgW alternative final
treatment with open-dump, landfill, recycling, and open burning.

Developing the Life Cycle Inventory

In this phase, the input data from the MFA and LCA techniques was developed together
with their respective models. In Step 1, MFA was used to develop an AgW diagram model,
as shown in Figure 1. The environmental load produced from the AgW flow was identified.
Then, LCA method was added to the existing MFA model system and the material input and
output classification was done as outlined in Figure with2. Step 2 involved the calculation of
load and impact from the foreground and background (resource input and emissions) of
LCA. The final step was the presentation of MALA model produced from the combination
of results from Step 1 and 2 above.

Figure 2. The boundary system for AgW flow model in KTRG

Step 1: Developing MFA diagram model and calculating the AgW load

Most of the data gathered for this study were extracted from MFA inventory. Additional
data including waste characteristics, rate of waste accumulation, weight composition,
processing capacity, rate of fertilisation, rate of recycling and disposal site operation were
obtained from DOS-TRG (2015). At this stage, most of the input data were calculated and
analysed using the MFA method. The KTRG AgW flow diagram produced is shown in
Figure 2.
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 156

Step 2: Developing the LCA diagram model and identifying the AgW load and
impact

The LCA here involved three important aspects, on. a) scenario definition, b) data
source and collection, and c) transportation.

Step 3: Developing MALA integrated model (MFA-LCA)

The MFA model was used to achieve the LCA integration objective. Figure 3 shows
that a new system based on the MALA concept which involved many original elements of
the agricultural areas in KTRG including initial assessment has been produced.

LCI = Life Cycle Inventory;LCIA = Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Figure 3. MFA and LCA integrated flow chart for AgW assessment in KTRG, 2015

ANALYZING THE CYCLE EFFECT AND RESULT INTERPRETATION

This environmental impact of AgW was assessed using Eco-indicator 99 methodology.

Characterization, Normalisation, Weighting and Single Score procedures were conducted
according to the steps proposed by Guinée (2001) using the SimaPro software version 7.0.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The MFA and LCA techniques that were originally used separately were combined, as
shown in Figure 4. The combination of these two techniques formed the MALA model that
could provide several advantages, on (1) the benefit of MFA over LCA: complementary
platform for AgW analysis became more extensive, covering geographical boundary, time,
space, and indicator entities; (2) the benefit of LCA over MFA: The classification of
research processes could be analysed in more detailed without the need to include
unimportant phases; and (3) the benefit of combined MFA and LCA: data acquisition ability
increased and became more valuable in supporting a more accurate and wiser decision.
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 157

Figure 4. Coupling of MFA and LCA with GaBi software

Life Cycle Inventory

Table 1. AgW Waste fraction (%) in KTRG

GIS_Code Parish in KTRG Branches Wood Stones Foreign Small
items stuff
06 Bukit Besar 19.5 4.5 0.2 0.2 75.6
11 Gelugor Raja 18.3 4.2 0.1 0.3 77.1
02 Atas Tol 19.5 3.9 0.2 0.2 80.1
09 Cendering 19.1 4.5 0.1 0.3 8.6
14 Kuala Ibai 19.1 4.5 0.1 0.3 8.6
21 Pengaandg Buloh 18.3 4.2 0.1 0.3 77.1
71 Pekan Cabang 18.9 4 0.3 0.3 76.5
Tiga
26 Tok Jamal 19.3 4.1 0.1 0.3 75.9
25 Serada 19.3 4.4 0.1 0.3 75.9
03 Batu Burok 20.1 4.6 0.1 0.3 74.9
17 Losong 18.9 4 0.3 0.3 76.5
22 Pulau-Pulau 20.1 4.6 0.1 0.3 74.9
16 Kubang Parit 19.3 4.1 0.1 0.3 75.9
18 Manir 19.3 4.1 0.1 0.3 75.9
20 Paluh 18.9 4 0.3 0.3 76.5
24 Rengas 19.3 4.4 0.1 0.3 75.9
40 Bandar K. 18.9 4 0.3 0.3 76.5
Terengganu
13 Kepung 19.3 4.4 0.1 0.3 75.9
10 Gelugur Kedai 18.3 4.2 0.1 0.3 77.1
04 Batu Rakit 19.5 4.5 0.2 0.2 75.6
15 Kuala Nerus 19.5 4.5 0.2 0.2 75.6
05 Belara 19.5 4.5 0.2 0.2 75.6
23 Pulau Redang 20.1 4.6 0.1 0.3 74.9
Average 19.5 4.5 <0.2 <0.2 75.6

Based on Table 1, the data life cycle inventory used the waste characterization used by
Boldrin (2005). All four scenarios represented the following definitions:

S1: Scenario 1 represented the AgW disposal by means of burial of open dumping
S2: Scenario 2 represented the AgW disposal by means of open burning
S3: Scenario 3 represented the AgW disposal by means of transporting it to the landfill
S4: Scenario 4 represented the AgW disposal by means of recycling.
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 158

LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)

The calculation for all four scenarios was conducted using Ecoindicator 99 (H) method
Wenzel, Hauschild and Alting (1997). If the result bar showed negative indicator, the
environmental gain would be higher than the loss.

Characterization

Figure 5 shows the characterization graph for the destruction categories from the
current agro waste management scenario in the agricultural region of Kuala Terengganu
(KTRG). The result of the analysis showed that ecosystem quality category with -1.43E+04
PDF*m2yr was the main contributor towards the environmental destruction impact,
followed by the human health with -3.24E+00 Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) and
resources with -6.03E+06 MJ surplus categories. The study also found that the only
destruction impact produced by debit value of the ecosystem quality category was from the
eutrophication, as a result of mixed transportation and agricultural resources in the area of
study. The debit value was 1.61E+03 PDF*m2yr. Meanwhile, with regard to the
characterisation values for destruction categories, all four scenarios recorded credit values
for the all destruction categories. However, Scenario 1 seemed to have the highest potential
to create a positive impact with the current debit value of 8.66E-01 DALY and 1.51E+05
PDF*m2yr, recorded for human health and ecosystem quality categories, respectively. The
result of the analysis found that two types of destruction with high risk that could be created
from Scenario 1 were respiration inorganic with 9.03E-01 DALY and respiration organics
with 1.49E-04 DALY.
6.E-01

4.E-01

2.E-01

0.E+00

-2.E-01

-4.E-01

-6.E-01

-8.E-01

-1.E+00
Scenario 1: On-farm Scenario 2: On-farm
Scenario 3: Landfill Scenario 4: Recycled
burial burning
Resources -2.26E+05 -1.32E+04 -2.48E+04 -5.76E+06
Ecosystem Quality 1.51E+05 -2.21E+03 9.67E+02 -1.64E+05
Human Health 8.66E-01 -1.11E-02 3.88E-02 -4.14E+00

Figure 5. Characterization and normalization for destruction categories in KTRG

Normalization

Figure 5 shows the normalisation values and a graph for destruction categories in the
agricultural region of KTRG. From the normalisation analysis, it was found that destruction
towards human health with 51% and ecosystem quality with 31% produced debit values that
should be given a serious attention. However, resources depletion impact with 18%
contributed towards a credit value that benefited the environment. Eutrophication was
identified as the main contributor that provided the debit towards the environmental
destruction potential in KTRG. Normalisation analysis conducted in this study shows that
Scenario 1 received the highest impact, followed by Scenario 3, Scenario 2, and Scenario 4.
The three main types of potential destruction in Scenario 1 were acidification/eutrophication
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 159

with 2.89E+01 PDF*m2yr, respiration inorganic with 1.03E+02 DALY, and respiration
organics with 1.70E-02 DALY.

Weighting

From the weighting analysis in KTRG, it was found that the total weighted
environmental index value for all four scenarios was -3.53E+05 kpt. Based on the
percentage estimation, Scenario 1 has an adverse Environmental Index; whereas all others,
especially for scenario 2 and scenario 4 have benefited (is negative) for Environmental
Index. Referring to result in Figure 6, the two most dominant impact categories produced
from the agricultural waste disposal in the area of study were acidification/eutrophication
and ecotoxicity, with respective values of 1.12E+02 kpt and -1.11E+02 kpt. The quantity of
AgW disposal that did not undergo recovery treatment also influenced the increase of this
destruction category. However, almost 87% of the rest of the impact categories gave credit
readings. It shows that the zone of destruction categories was still safe.
100000
Scenario 4: Recycled 50000
Scenario 3: Landfill
0
Scenario 2: On-farm burning
50000
Scenario 1: On-farm burial
100000
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
150000
Scenario 1: On-farm Scenario 2: On-farm
Scenario 3: Landfill Scenario 4: Recycled 200000
burial burning
Carcinogens -6.52E+01 -8.48E+01 5.41E+00 -8.11E+00 250000
Resp. organics 5.11E+00 -1.11E-01 4.19E+00 -3.00E+01
300000
Resp. inorganics 3.09E+04 -1.86E+02 1.69E+03 -8.55E+04
Climate change -1.21E+03 -1.09E+02 -3.66E+02 -5.60E+04 350000
Radiation -1.01E+00 -3.25E-01 -1.57E+00 4.08E-03 400000
Ozone layer -2.51E-01 -1.89E-02 6.12E-02 6.45E-03
450000
Ecotoxicity -9.86E+01 -9.54E+00 -3.54E+00 5.21E-01 Single Score (pt)
Acidification/ Eutrophication 1.16E+04 -5.94E+01 1.03E+02 -1.15E+04 Scenario 4: Recycled 382110
Land use -2.88E+01 -2.48E+03 -2.91E+00 4.82E-03 Scenario 3: Landfill 440
Minerals -8.89E+01 -7.20E+00 -8.79E+00 8.96E-04 Scenario 2: On-farm burning 3455
Fossil fuels -8.90E+03 -5.18E+02 -9.76E+02 -2.29E+05 Scenario 1: On-farm burial 32085

Figure 6. Weighted normalized and Single score for each scenario in KTRG
(AgW analysis for 7260 ton/yr)

Single Score

Based on the analysis, Scenario 1 had the potential to give the highest impact on all
three destruction categories in KTRG with 42%. This was followed by Scenario 3 with
22%, Scenario 2 with 12%, and Scenario 4 with 11%. According to Figure 6, the
agricultural region in KTRG received the highest impact from the human health category
with -1.11E+05 Pt compared with resources depletion with -2.51E+03 Pt and ecosystem
quality with -2.40E+05 Pt. However, if all three results for the destruction categories are
observed, all readings actually recorded credit values for environmental destruction.

LCA INTERPRETATION

The environmental assessment and AgW flow modelling for four scenarios of actual
management practices with on-farm burial, on-farm burning, landfill and recycling in the
agricultural region of Kuala Terengganu are presented in this study. The results revealed
that Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 required the waste displacement initiative from the aspects of
the environment, finance, energy recovery, and treatment technology. Regardless, the
overall results showed that all four scenarios with S1 have a negative environmental impact.
MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 160

Meanwhile, S2, S3, and S4 had the potential to reduce the risk of environmental destruction.
According to Boldrin (2005), crop residues contain pollutants with low toxicity. Therefore,
the waste displacement strategy as a biomass energy recovery alternative has the potential to
be implemented in this region. This is further supported by the situation in KTRG itself,
which is still far from having heavy industries and power plants. It was assumed that the
amount of pollutants discharged from AgW life cycle in this region was still under control
(DOS-TRG, 2015).

Through the MFA and LCA integration in this paper, the waste indicator assessment has
become more solid and accurate, and the relevancy of LCA results has increased. In
addition, arising matters, including visualization, quantification, loss, and inefficiency of the
results has been solved. Through the MALA conceptual approach, the information gap with
regard to the quantity of agricultural wastes disposed in farms or sites, distance, farmer
behaviours, treatment facility and technology, as well as the recovery process, could be
filled. The results obtained in this study also revealed that some of the environmental issues
could be avoided from occurring in this region when the alternative effects, risk
consideration, and failure possibilities were understood by the environmental decision
makers. These issues were air acidification, human toxicity, greenhouse effect, and non-
renewable resource depletion. Most importantly, this MALA result might help the
stakeholders in this region to reduce the pollutant discharge into the environment, reduce the
cost, increase the efficiency of waste collection, and optimize the use of equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, the LCA approach was used to assess the current performance of
agricultural waste management in Kuala Terengganu. The MFA results were used and
integrated with the LCA technique to form the MALA model. Valuable findings revealed
that the overall agricultural waste management in this region still required better
arrangement and recovery from the environmental point of view. Although the pollutant
discharge seemed to be under control, small, and not high impact, an alternative
management with other treatment options was still considered to have its marginal
importance in this region. Overall, the MALA results of this study have successfully
provided a better understanding on the most ideal agriculture, waste management
mechanism for the Terengganu environment as well as for the whole Malaysia in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (The Incentives
Scheme of UMT Publication 2016/2017) for supporting this project.

REFERENCES

Alam Flora, S.B. (2015). Alam Flora Annually report in 2003-2008. Kuala Lumpur.
Malaysia.
Azapagic A., Carol P.,ad and Phil Sinclair (2007). A life cycle methodology for mapping
the flows of pollutants in the urban environment. Clean Technology Environment
Policy, 9: 199-214.
 MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 5 | No. 3 | 2018 161

Boldrin A. (2005). Environmental assessment of garden waste management. The Herning

case. Master Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Institute of Environment and
Resources DTU.
David A. Turner, Ian D. Williams, and Simon Kemp (2016). Combined material flow
analysis and life cycle assessment as a support tool for solid waste management
decision making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15: 234–248.
Department of Statistical (DOS-TRG) (2015). Statistical data 2015, Malaysia: Terengganu
Statistical Office Report. Malaysia (Unpublished)
D. Hoornweg, and P. Bhada-Tata (2012).What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Washington D.C., World Bank, Urban Development & Local
Government Unit 15: 98 pp.
Guinée JB. (2001). Handbook on life cycle assessment–Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. International Journal of LCA, 6: 255.
Huang Chu-L., Jonathan V., Hwong-Wen M., Yan Lib, and Chang-Ping Yub (2015).
Substance flow analysis for nickel in mainland China in 2009. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 84:450–458.
Ministry of Housing and Local Goverment (MHLG) (1998). National Strategic Plan for
Solid Waste management, Malaysia. Availabe: http://www.kpkt.gov.my.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG), (1998). Ministry of housing and local
government: Guidelines for developers- sewage treatment plant, Volume IV, second
edition. Malaysia.
Natthira T., (2005). Application of Material Flow Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment to
Sustainable Water Recycling Planning. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. University of New
South Wales, Australia.
Saifullah A.Z.A. and Md. Tasbirul Islam (2016). Municipal solid waste (MSW)
management in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. American Journal of Engineering Research
(AJER), 5: 88-100.
Tangsubkul Jakrawatana (2007). An Integrated Decision Support Tool for More Sustainable
Management of Biomass Resources in Agricultural Regions. Ph.D. thesis, University of
New South Wales Sydney, Australia.
Udo de Haes, HA., van der Voet, E. and Kleijn, R. (1997). Substance Flow Analysis
(SFA),an analytical tool for integrated chain management”. In Bringezu, S., Fischer-
Kowalski, M., Kleijn, R. and Palm, V. Regional and national Material Flow
Accounting: From paradigm to practice of sustainability. Proceedings of the
ConAccount workshop, January 21-23, 1997, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M and Alting, L. (1997). Environmental Assessment of Products.
Volume 1. Chapman and Hall, London.
Wrisberg, N. (2002). Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a
systems perspective: the combined use of analytical tools, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston.

View publication stats