Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five

processes for municipal solid waste treatment
Hassan A. Arafat a, *, Kenan Jijakli a, Amimul Ahsan b
a
Institute Center for Water and Environment (iWATER), Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
b
Department of Civil Engineering and Institute of Advanced Technology, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the environmental impacts were assessed for five municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment
Received 15 July 2013 processes with energy recovery potential. The life cycle assessment (LCA) tool was used to quantify the
Received in revised form environmental impacts. The five processes considered are incineration, gasification, anaerobic digestion,
17 November 2013
bio-landfills, and composting. In addition, these processes were compared to recycling where applicable.
Accepted 22 November 2013
Available online xxx
In addition to environmental impacts quantification, the energy production potentials for the five pro-
cesses were compared to provide a thorough assessment. To maximize the future applicability of our
findings, the analyses were based on the waste treatment technologies as they apply to individual waste
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment
streams, but not for a specific MSW mixture at a particular location. Six MSW streams were considered;
Municipal solid waste food, yard, plastic, paper, wood and textile wastes. From an energy recovery viewpoint, it was found that
Energy it is best to recycle paper, wood and plastics; to anaerobically digest food and yard wastes; and to
Environmental impact incinerate textile waste. On the other hand, the level of environmental impact for each process depends
Sustainability on the considered impact category. Generally, anaerobic digestion and gasification were found to
Modeling perform better environmentally than the other processes, while composting had the least environmental
benefit.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction undertaken. The ultimate analysis of different MSW streams is

Treatment and processing of municipal solid waste (MSW)
should target minimizing the volume of landfilled waste whilst
recovering as much resources out of it as possible. MSW is actually a
resource with huge potential in terms of material and energy re-
covery. Thus, waste-to-energy operations have the advantages of
resource generation and the minimization of landfilled waste. MSW
is a heterogeneous resource that is a bundle of different waste
types. The portion of each waste stream within the total amount of
MSW differs according to several factors (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013).
Waste streams that are classified as organic can be combusted or
composted, whereas, waste streams that are classified as inorganic
cannot. Organic waste streams include paper, plastics, textiles,
wood, food wastes, and yard wastes; while the inorganic waste
streams include glass and metals.
To fully understand the condition of MSW and its potential in
energy generation, proximate and ultimate analyses are usually
* Corresponding author. Present address: Masdar Institute of Science and Tech-
nology, P.O. Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Tel.: þ971 28109119.
E-mail address: harafat@masdar.ac.ae (H.A. Arafat).
presented in Table 1, which was obtained from two studies
(Niessen, 2010; Themelis et al. 2002). Results of the proximate
analysis are presented in (Niessen, 2010). While the analysis results
will not be exactly the same for different countries, since MSW is a
heterogeneous resource, a review of published results at various
localities showed only slight discrepancies (Niessen, 2010;
Themelis et al. 2002). Relative amounts of the MSW constituents
in the MSW, on the other hand, can vary significantly by locality.
1.1. Waste-to-energy processes
Incineration is a direct combustion technology in which the
feedstock is directly transformed into energy. Carbon dioxide and
water vapor are the major compounds emitted through the incin-
eration of MSW (Johnke, 2012). Additionally, the incombustible ash
usually constitutes a concentrated inorganic waste that has to be
disposed of properly.
Gasification is the process of converting organic compounds,
under controlled oxygen flow, into a mixture of gaseous species
that is dominated by carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrogen (H2), and methane (CH4). A summary of the products of
gasification is given in Table 2 (Higman and van der Burgt, 2008).

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
2 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8

Table 1 pathway, since the landfills are covered and void of large amounts
Ultimate analysis of MSW streams as mass percentage of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), of air, leading to biogas formation. Some landfills (usually termed
oxygen (O), nitrogen (N) and ash and the resulting chemical formula (Niessen, 2010;
Themelis et al., 2002).
bioreactor landfills) are designed and operated under conditions
that will enhance biodegradation and biogas production (Davis and
MSW category %C %H %O %N % Ash Chemical formula Cornwell, 2008).
Paper waste 43.41 5.82 44.32 0.25 6.0 C3.6H5.8O2.8N0.02
Plastic waste 60.0 7.2 22.8 0 10.0 C5.0H7.1O1.4 1.2. Environmental impact and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of MSW
Textile waste 55.0 6.6 31.2 4.6 2.4 CH1.7O0.7N0.04
Wood waste 49.4 6.1 43.7 0.1 0.6 C4.1H6.1O2.7N0.007
treatment options
Food waste 44.99 6.43 28.76 3.3 16.0 C3.7H6.4O1.8N0.2
Yard waste 40.31 5.64 39.0 2.0 13.0 C3.4H5.6O2.4N0.1 LCA is a cradle-to-grave analysis of the environmental impacts
associated with a product or system. It analyzes all the stages in the
life of the product/system including raw material extraction, pro-
Table 2 duction, usage, and disposal, focusing on the environmental impact
Major products of gasification and the common health/environmental risks asso- of those stages. LCA’s are now standardized through the ISO14000
ciated with those products (Higman and van der Burgt, 2008).
standards (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b). Impact assessment methods
Product Health/environmental hazard congregate different scientific methods and models to calculate the
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Green house gas environmental impact. An example is the International Panel on
Methane (CH4) Potent green house gas but also a combustible fuel Climate Change impact model (Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007).
Ammonia (NH3) Eutrophication Several LCA studies on MSW treatment are found in literature. A
Hydrogen Cyanide Poisonous gas and explosive at high concentrations comprehensive summary of other LCAs found in literature is pro-
(HCN)
vided in Table 3 and in (Cleary, 2009). A major finding in most
Carbon monoxide Toxic gas that causes asphyxiation. Also, a
(CO) combustible gas studies listed in Table 3 is that the production of energy or
Hydrogen gas (H2) Explosive gas and combustible fuel. replacement of virgin materials associated with waste to energy
Can also cause asphyxiation and recycling technologies has tremendous environmental benefits
over landfilling. In all the LCA studies on MSW encountered in
literature, the focus was on applying the LCA methodology to assess
specific MSW treatment scenario for a particular locality and as
Anaerobic Digestion is used to treat organic waste with the
practiced in a given city with existing facilities. Hence, these studies
ability to recover energy in the form of biogas (mainly methane)
have classically been too site specific. Yet, the analysis of waste
(Tchobanoglous et al. 2004). Residence times of anaerobic digestion
management technologies from a technology centered perspective
reactors can be greater than 30 days (Tchobanoglous et al. 2004).
that extends beyond conditional location specific analyses could
However, an advantage of anaerobic digestion is that the process
elucidate the true performance of those technologies.
will produce less solid sludge than aerobic digestion (Henze et al.
The objective of this research work is to evaluate and compare
2008).
different MSW treatment methods with energy recovery potential,
In composting, organic waste is transformed aerobically into soil
from an energy, CO2 footprint and environmental performance
conditioners and water, with some emissions of NH3 and CO2
viewpoints. To generate the inventory for the LCA, energy genera-
(Polprasert, 2007). In landfills, on the other hand, the organic
tion from MSW was first modeled based on thermodynamic and
fraction of MSW can decompose through an anaerobic digestion
process models. Next, this inventory was used for environmental

Table 3
A summary of literature on LCA studies on MSW management and treatment options.

Reference Technology scope Boundary Conclusions/summary

(Aye and Widjaya, 2006)
(Beigl and Salhofer, 2004)
(Bjorklund and Finnveden,
2005)
(Buttol et al. 2007)
(Chaya and Gheewala, 2007)
(Eriksson et al., 2005)
(Koroneos and Nanaki, 2012)
(Moberg et al. 2005)
(Mendesa and Aramaki, 2004)
(Menikpura et al. 2013)
Composting, and bio-landfill as
compared to current open dumping
Recycling and landfilling
A review of different case studies that
compare recycling to landfilling and
incineration
Recycling, incineration composting
and landfilling
Incineration and anaerobic digestion
Incineration, recycling, composting, and
anaerobic digestion
Recycling and anaerobic digestion
Recycling, incineration, and landfilling
Incineration and landfilling
Integrated MSW management (including
recycling and energy recovery)
Waste from traditional
markets in Indonesia
Selected area in Austria
A review. Each reviewed
case study is site specific
and material specific
Bologna district, Italy
Thailand
Sweden
Greece
Sweden
Sao Paolo, Brazil
Thailand
Bio-landfill had the least environmental impact and
open dumping had the highest
A quantification of the environmental impact from
recycling is compared to non-recycling. Recycling,
ultimately has lower environmental impact
The paper confirms the environmental advantage
of recycling and provides a quick review of major
case studies
Recycling and incineration have a clear environmental
benefit
Anaerobic digestion performs better environmentally
than incineration
Differences between recycling, and incineration are
small but in general recycling of plastic is somewhat
better than incineration and biological treatment
somewhat worse.
Paper recycling and anaerobic digestion of food waste
is better than landfilling
Recycling prevails as the treatment with most
environmental benefit followed by incineration then
landfilling
Different incineration and landfill scenarios were
compared but incineration performed better than
landfilling
Materials recycling offers the largest reductions in
GHG emission

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8 3

impact assessment, within the framework of LCA. In addition to
attempting to present a holistic comparison, the novelty of the
work presented here is that the analysis is based on different waste
treatment technologies as they apply technically to different waste
streams, not to a fixed MSW mix at a specific location. In other
words, the inventory for the LCA was created based on technical
modeling and not on specific case accounting. This means that the
energy model, life cycle and environmental impact assessments
were generalized as to accommodate a generic MSW stream not
exclusive to a given locality and accommodating as little condi-
tional parameters as possible. This way, the results of this study,
along with the assessment framework, can be applied to different
cases in different places; thus, providing a valuable tool to decision
makers and interested parties when evaluating their waste to en-
ergy and MSW management options. This approach takes advan-
tage of the reported observation that the composition of individual
MSW constituents, or streams, (but not the MSW as a mixture) does
not change much by location (Niessen, 2010; Themelis et al. 2002).
This validates the attempted reduction in specificity of the work
and increases its future global and unconditional applicability. It is
also worthy to reiterate here the value of the framework followed in
this study; from a technical evaluation that relies on engineering
principles, to a product value assessment (in this case in terms of
energy), to an environmental impact assessment. When combined
with an economical and financial evaluation of MSW conversion to
energy (discussed in detail in the literature), this work is a good first
attempt at providing a holistic decision enabling framework for
waste to energy operations.
2. Methodology
2.1. Process modeling
In this study, five technologies (incineration, gasification,
anaerobic digestion, composting, and bio-landfilling) were
considered, in addition to a sixth alternative; recycling. Appropriate
models were established for evaluating each alternative. Those
models, briefly described next, are based on chemistry/thermody-
namics and engineering principles. The goal of the models is to
quantify the major inventory components (e.g., material emissions
and energy yields) associated with each of the alternatives. The
results of the models provide the input to the following energy
analysis and environmental impact assessment.
2.2. Inventory analysis
2.2.1. Incineration
Detailed modeling and inventory analysis for incineration of
MSW streams, having the composition shown in Table 1, were
performed by the authors and are reported in (Arafat and Jijakli,
2013). In brief, prediction of the major pollutants from the incin-
eration of different waste streams will follow the stoichiometry of
the combustion reaction. A fair assumption is that the carbon in the
waste stream is converted to CO2, hydrogen to H2O, and nitrogen to
N2 (Niessen, 2010). This assumption primarily signifies that com-
bustion is complete. The assumption is reasonable given that the
combustion reactor operates with an excess supply of oxygen
(Niessen, 2010). This gives the following overall combustion
reaction:
These stoichiometric ratios (a, b, c, and d) are given in (Arafat and
Jijakli, 2013). Ash inventory data was obtained from the experi-
mental results by (Niessen, 2010). Finally, energy inventory for
incineration process is generated based on the heat of combustion
for reaction (1), as it applies to the various MSW streams and is
detailed in (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013).
2.2.2. Gasification
Detailed modeling and analysis for gasification were performed
by the authors and are reported in (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013). The
MSW streams to which gasification is applicable were assumed to
be yard waste, food, paper, plastic, textiles, and wood wastes. Based
on the study reported in (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013), we generated the
inventory here based on the gasification output at the temperature
which produced the most energy; 800  C. Table 4 provides the
inventory of gasification products for each of the MSW constituents
at 800  C.
2.2.3. Anaerobic digestion
Digestion is in a series of reductioneoxidation reactions that
will lead to the production of methane. The oxidation state is a
number assigned to an atom or compound highlighting its electric
charge. This number is used to estimate the number of electrons
that transfer around in an oxidationereduction reaction (Ebbing
and Gammon, 2009). The oxidation state of an organic compound
can be estimated by (Henze et al. 2008):
2y  x þ 3z
Oxidation state ¼ (2)
n
where n, x, y, and z are the number of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen atoms in that compound, respectively.
At this point, it is important to note that the biogas produced
from anaerobic digestion is primarily methane (CH4) and CO2. A
relationship can be established, based on (Henze et al. 2008), be-
tween the oxidation state and methane yield in the biogas as
follows:
%Methane in biogas ¼ 12:3*Oxidation State þ 50:4 (3)
The results of methane yield from an MSW stream are shown in
Table 5. Plastic is not included in Table 5 as it is resistant to
anaerobic digestion.
Assuming that the nitrogen conversion in the organic waste
does not produce a significant amount of gases, which is a valid
assumption since the amount of nitrogen in degradable MSW is
relatively low, the remainder of the biogas will primarily be CO2.
The results in Table 5 were translated into volume or mass based
results using the yield of methane from each waste stream (m3 or
kg CH4/kg waste). The yield is usually determined experimentally
and was reported for four waste streams in (Gunaseelan, 1997;
Steffen et al. 1998). Volumetric and mass results of biogas compo-
sition are reported in Table 6. The biogas is assumed to be com-
busted for energy production after adjusting for the energy
Table 4
Products of gasifying the MSW streams at 800  C, expressed in mol product/mol
waste component.
MSW stream CO2 CO H2 CH4 N2 NH3 HCN H2O

Paper 0.802 1.288 1.413 0.063 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.522

Cn Hx Oy Nz þ aO2 /bCO2 þ cH2 O þ dN2 (1) Plastics 0.044 4.917 3.579 0.014 0 0 0 0.053
Textiles 0.354 1.709 1.395 0.225 0.033 0.050 0.050 0.108
where a, b, c, and d are the stoichiometric ratios of O2, CO2, H2O, and Wood 0.681 1.427 1.433 0.231 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.255
N2 respectively, and n, x, y, and z are the number of carbon, Food 0.219 0.014 0.160 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.957
Yard 0.286 0.027 0.230 0.016 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.908
hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms in the waste (fuel) molecule.

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
4 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8

Table 5 equipment to the environmental impact is much lower than that of

Biogas composition (%CH4 and % CO2) from the anaerobic digestion of organic waste
streams, as calculated using the oxidation state method.
Waste stream Oxidation state %CH4
Food waste 0.548 57.1
Yard waste 0.089 51.5
Wood waste 0.138 52.1
Textile waste 0.575 57.5
Paper waste 0.049 51.0
consumed by the anaerobic digestion process itself. It has been
reported that 20%e30% of the energy produced by anaerobically
digesting waste is consumed by the process itself (RIS, 2005).
2.2.4. Composting
Composting, like anaerobic digestion, is a biochemical conver-
sion that requires yield estimates in order to determine the quan-
tity of products. Average compost emissions and energy figures are
published as part of the EcoInvent Life Cycle Assessment inventory
(Althaus et al. 2007). Production of 1 kg of compost releases
0.522 kg of CO2 via the process itself (i.e. digestion). Since com-
posting is an aerobic digestion process, CO2 constitutes the sole
major emission out of the process (Tchobanoglous et al. 2004).
2.2.5. Bioreactor landfilling
Bio-landfills are in some sense anaerobic digesters. They employ
the same conversion principles and pathways, except that the
reactor in case of bio-landfills is the landfill itself. Therefore, our
estimates of biogas production in bio-landfills are similar to those
in Tables 5 and 6. For the purpose of this LCA inventory, landfill
leachate concentrations were estimated based on average data
obtained from the Eco-Invent LCA database (Hischier and
Weidema, 2010).
2.3. Environmental impact assessment
The life cycle assessment (LCA) software SimaPro V.7.3.2 (PRé
Consultants, the Netherlands) was used to assess the environ-
mental impact of the six different waste treatment alternatives
considered for this study. SimaPro includes a large number of tools
for environmental impact assessment and a huge database of ma-
terials and emissions.
The scope of this LCA focused on the treatment processes and
their operation. The main focus in this study was on energy and
materials inputs and outputs for each process. Materials outputs
include emissions, including utilizable product gases. Energy inputs
and outputs include the energy needed to operate the process and
the energy produced by the process itself or that which can be
generated from its products. Environmental impacts of waste
generation were excluded, and so were the impacts associated with
the making, transport, and disposal/recycle of equipment for all the
evaluated waste treatment technologies. The contribution of capital
Table 6
Volumetric biogas composition from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic
waste streams.
the operation stage of the processes (Brogaard, 2011). To support
this assumption, we calculated the environmental impact contri-
% CO2 bution of incineration equipment and found it to be negligible
42.9 compared to operational impacts of that process. This latter anal-
48.5 ysis was done using the SimaPro Eco-Invent database which con-
47.9 tains impact data for the capital equipment involved in incineration
42.5
(Hischier and Weidema, 2010). The transportation of waste to the
49.0
energy recovery facility was also excluded as it was assumed to be
the same for all the recovery processes.
The CML 2001 environmental impact assessment method was
used for the environmental assessment in this LCA. Developed at
the University of Leiden (Leiden, The Netherlands) and incorpo-
rated into SimaPro, this impact assessment method assesses the
environmental impact of a product, process, or system using
average world figures and through ten categories. These are:
depletion of abiotic resources, climate change, stratospheric ozone
depletion, human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine
water ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, photo-oxidant formation,
acidification, and eutrophication (University of Leiden, 2011). These
ten categories offer a thorough evaluation of the possible envi-
ronmental hazards of the evaluated process. Each of those impact
categories are expressed in terms of chemical equivalent. For
instance, kg CO2 equivalent translates to the global warming impact
that is equivalent to the global warming potential from a given
amount of CO2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Energy and CO2 comparisons
The energy saved from recycling a product as compared to
producing it from raw virgin materials is presented in Table 7 for
the three recyclable MSW components; paper, plastic, and wood.
Those figures were obtained from (Morris, 1996) and account for
energy required to segregate the MSW into separate streams. The
efficiency adjusted energy (electrical) output from the different
technologies as they apply to different waste streams is shown in
Fig. 1, along with energy savings from recycling. The values in Fig. 1
were calculated based on energy yields obtained from combusting
gas products (e.g., methane, H2) resulting from a MSW treatment
method, as described in Section 2.2. Not all technologies are
applicable to treating all the waste streams, and the results are
presented accordingly. Calculation of efficiency adjusted energy
outputs, for the case of electricity production from incineration,
was presented in details in (Arafat and Jijakli, 2013). As for gasifi-
cation, overall electricity production efficiency using a gas turbine
is around 40%, and that represents the maximum efficiency
obtainable from electricity production through gasification. This is
because gas turbines do not require a pretreatment of the products
of gasification (Belgiorno et al. 2003). As for anaerobic digestion,
electrical efficiencies as high as 39% have been reported (Braun and
Laaber, 2007). Fig. 1 shows that it is optimal to recycle wood, paper
and plastics, while anaerobic digestion dominates as the optimum
technology for treating food and yard wastes. As for textile waste,
incineration will provide the largest amount of energy. These

Waste Volumetric Volumetric Mass methane Mass CO2 yield Table 7

stream methane yield CO2 yield yield (kg/kmol (kg/kmol Energy saved by recycling three MSW components: paper, plastic, and wood.
(m3/kmol (m3/kmol waste) waste)
waste) waste) Category Energy saved low Energy saved high Average energy
estimate (kJ/kg) estimate (kJ/kg) saved estimate kJ/kg
Food 46.2 37.8 29.25 65.81
Yard 30.45 56.55 19.28 98.45 Paper 18,863 30,264 24,563
Wood 34.79 64.61 22.02 112.48 Plastic 59,934 87,877 73,905
Paper 34.78 59.22 22.02 103.10 Wood 6422 6422 6422

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8 5

Fig. 1. Electrical efficiency-adjusted energy obtained from applying waste to energy
technologies or recycling to the different MSW streams.
results show a major limitation in the use of gasification for waste
treatment when energy production is the dominant criteria.
However, gasification remains an attractive option in the sense that
it converts waste to fuel and not directly to energy and is applicable
to many waste streams. The results also show the tremendous
energy benefits obtained from recycling. Overall, this shows the
dominance of recycling and anaerobic digestion as waste man-
agement technologies from an energy perspective; and, this result
is a powerful insight when it comes to planning waste management
infrastructure and facilities, along, with optimizing the benefit from
waste processing.
Total CO2 emissions from each waste treatment technology are
presented in Fig. 2. These are based on the inventory calculations
described in Section 2.2. The shown emissions also include com-
busting the combustible end product gases (H2 and CH4) for energy.
Overall, composting had the least CO2 emissions per kg of paper or
wood waste. However, as composting is not commercialized pri-
marily as an energy producing waste treatment technology, other
waste treatment technologies might be less CO2 intensive if the CO2
savings from displaced energy are accounted for. Gasification had
the least CO2 emissions when applied to plastic waste, textile waste,
food waste and yard waste. Incineration and anaerobic digestion
(where applicable) had the highest CO2 emissions alternatively
across the six waste streams. This analysis indicates that gasifica-
tion has an advantage over other waste-to-energy processes, in
terms of CO2 emissions.
Fig. 2. Total CO2 emissions from waste treatment of different MSW streams.
treatment option for paper waste will depend on the impact cate-
gory. Similar analyses were conducted for all other waste streams
(figures not shown here for space limitation). Based on these ana-
lyses, Table 8 presents the optimum technology environmentally
for each waste stream based on the CML 2001 impact assessment.
Table 8 suggests that gasification and anaerobic digestion perform
well environmentally across most waste streams.
A key challenge, however, remains in determining which tech-
nology performs better environmentally for the treatment of a
given waste mixture across all impact categories. This analysis
would require a rather subjective scoring and weighting of various
impact categories that is not supported by the CML 2001 impact
assessment method, yet supported by another impact assessment
method, the Eco-Indicator 99 (H). Eco-Indicator 99 (H) offers a
middle-ground impact assessment method. This is apparent in its
temporal boundary, which is neither short nor long, and in the fact
that it considers all possible contributors to an impact if they are
backed up by scientific and political bodies widely recognized by
the environmental community (Baumann and Tillman, 2004;
Thompson, 1997). In Eco-Indicator 99(H), impacts from carcino-
gens, respiratory organics, respiratory inorganics, climate change,

3.2. Environmental impact assessment

Based on the inventory data presented so far for each waste

treatment alternative, the environmental impact assessment was
performed using the CML 2001 method. The environmental impact
results from different waste treatment options are shown in Fig. 3
for the treatment of paper waste as an example. All waste to en-
ergy technologies produce energy and therefore reduce the envi-
ronmental impact by relieving an energy burden. For that, they
have a positive or beneficial contribution to the environment.
Negative results in Fig. 3 signify a beneficial environmental
contribution. Moreover, the results are shown as a fraction of the
highest environmental impact in each category which is assigned a
value of one (in this case it is a positive one for harmful environ- Fig. 3. Environmental impact assessment of the applicable waste treatment pathways
mental impact). Fig. 3 shows that the most environmentally sound for paper waste.

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
6 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8

radiation, and ozone layer depletion are calculated using the

common unit of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY). On the other
hand, eco-toxicity is measured using the Potentially Affected
Fraction of Species (PAF), while acidification/eutrophication and
land use are measured using the Potentially Disappearing Fraction
of Species (PDF). Minerals and fossil fuels are measured using
Mega-Joule (MJ) surplus (additional energy required to compensate
lower grade materials). The Eco-Indicator method can lump those
impact categories into a single environmental scoring based on a

Table 8
CML 2001 impact assessment results for applying different waste treatment tech-
nologies to the different waste streams.

Impact Category Waste stream Optimum technology

Abiotic depletion Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion

Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Paper Gasification
Plastics Gasification Fig. 4. Single score environmental impact results for paper waste.
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Acidification Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion weighting method developed by a panel of impact assessment
Paper Anaerobic Digestion experts (Baumann and Tillman, 2004). A single score is an aggre-
Plastics Gasification gated environmental impact score. It is aggregated in the sense that
Textiles Incineration all the individual environmental impacts are normalized and added
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Eutrophication Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
resulting in a single number that makes comparisons easier and
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion that is a major advantage. The disadvantage of using a single score
Paper Anaerobic Digestion is that the normalization process requires weighting of different
Plastics Gasification environmental impacts and that is subjective. For instance, if hu-
Textiles Incineration
man toxicity and global warming are to be aggregated into a single
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Global warming Food Waste Gasification score, the normalization can give both the same weight (one unit of
Yard Waste Gasification human toxicity impact is equivalent to global warming) or different
Paper Gasification weights. Single score weights are usually determined by panels of
Plastics Gasification experts and that is the case for the Eco-Indicator 99 (H) method.
Textiles Gasification
Wood Gasification
The result of the single score assessment of different technolo-
Ozone layer depletion Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion gies for the treatment of the six MSW streams are presented in
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion Figs. 4e9. The results indicate that anaerobic digestion has the least
Paper Anaerobic Digestion environmental impact when applied for the treatment of paper,
Plastics Gasification
food, yard, and wood wastes; gasification has the least environ-
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion mental impact when applied for the treatment of plastic waste; and
Human toxicity Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion incineration for the treatment of textile waste. The impact assess-
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion ment presented so far does not include recycling. Recycling, when
Paper Anaerobic Digestion applicable, has the largest energy saving (as shown in Fig. 1) and,
Plastics Gasification
Textiles Incineration
consequently, the most environmental benefit in both cases (CML
Wood Anaerobic Digestion 2001 and Eco-Indicator 99 (H)). This means that, ultimately, the
Fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Paper Anaerobic Digestion
Plastics Gasification
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Paper Anaerobic Digestion
Plastics Gasification
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Terrestrial ecotoxicity Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Paper Anaerobic Digestion
Plastics Gasification
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Photochemical oxidation Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Yard Waste Anaerobic Digestion
Paper Anaerobic Digestion
Plastics Gasification
Textiles Incineration
Wood Anaerobic Digestion
Fig. 5. Single score impact assessment results for yard waste.

Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8
Fig. 6. Single score impact assessment results for wood waste.
Fig. 7. Single score impact assessment results for textile waste.
best waste treatment practice environmentally is to recycle paper,
plastics and wood waste; incinerate textiles; and anaerobically
digest food waste and yard waste.
Finally, it is important to bear in mind that the analyses we
described in this work apply to segregated waste streams. This
would be the case for example in localities that proactively practice
waste separation at the source. If co-mingled waste is collected, an
additional amount of energy will be needed for waste separation.
The environmental impacts of this latter energy have to be
accounted for, which may alter some of our conclusions.
Fig. 8. Single score impact assessment results for plastic waste.
Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
7
Fig. 9. Single score impact assessment results for food waste.
4. Conclusions
In this work, we explored five possible options for treatment
processes with energy recovery potential, namely; incineration,
gasification, anaerobic digestion, bio-landfills, and composting.
These processes were compared to recycling where applicable
(plastic, paper, and wood wastes). For optimal energy recovery, the
municipal waste was assumed to be segregated into six major
waste streams; food, yard, plastic, paper, wood and textile waste.
The waste treatment options were investigated as they apply to
those waste streams individually. The results indicate that, from an
energy recovery perspective, it is ideal to recycle paper, wood and
plastics, anaerobically digest food and yard wastes, and to incin-
erate textile waste.
In addition to energy recovery potential, an environmental
impact assessment using the life cycle assessment framework was
used to compare the different technologies and the different
products they produce. The least environmental impact varied
depending on the considered impact category, but anaerobic
digestion and gasification fared well environmentally as apparent
by the single score analysis. On the other hand, composting had the
least environmental benefit as a process since it does not yield a
valuable product which can be used to produce energy or practi-
cally replace virgin nutrient-rich fertilizers.
References
Althaus, H.-J., Chudacoff, M., Hischier, R., Jungbluth, N., Osses, M., Primas, A., 2007.
Life Cycle Inventories of Chemicals. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0 No. 8. Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Arafat, H.A., Jijakli, K., 2013. Modeling and comparative assessment of municipal
solid waste gasification for energy production. Waste Manage. 33, 1704e1713.
Aye, L., Widjaya, E.R., 2006. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal
options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage. 26, 1180e1191.
Baumann, H., Tillman, A.-M., 2004. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur
AB, Lund, Sweden.
Beigl, P., Salhofer, S., 2004. Comparison of ecological effects and costs of communal
waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 41, 83e102.
Belgiorno, V., De Feo, G., Della Rocca, C., Napoli, R., 2003. Energy from gasification of
solid wastes. Waste Manage. 23, 1e15.
Bjorklund, A., Finnveden, G., 2005. Recycling revisiteddlife cycle comparisons of
global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44, 309e317.
Braun, R., Laaber, M., 2007. Efficiency of Energy Crop Digestion: Evaluation of 41 Full
Scale Biogas Plants in Austria. Institute for Environmental Biotechnology,
Vienna.
Brogaard, L.K.-S., 2011. Life cycle assessment of capital goods related to waste
incineration. In: Proceedings of Thirteenth International Waste Management
and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, Italy.
8 H.A. Arafat et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e8
Buttol, P., Masoni, P., Bonoli, A., Goldon, S., 2007. LCA of integrated MSW manage-
ment systems: case study of the Bologna District. Waste Manage. 27 (8), 1059e
1070.
Chaya, W., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes
in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1463e1468.
Cleary, J., 2009. Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management sys-
tems: a comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ. Int.
35, 1256e1266.
Davis, M.L., Cornwell, A.D., 2008. Introduction to Environmental Engineering, fourth
ed. McGraw Hill.
Ebbing, D.D., Gammon, S.D., 2009. General Chemistry, ninth ed. Brooks/Cole, Bel-
mont, CA, U.S.A.
Eriksson, O., Carlsson Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bjorklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist, J.-O.,
Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste management
from a systems perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 241e252.
Gunaseelan, V.N., 1997. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a
review. Biomass and Bioenergy 13 (1/2), 83e114.
Henze, M., Mark, C.M., van Loosdrecht, M.C., Ekama, G.A., 2008. Biological Waste-
water Treatment, first ed. IWA Publisher, London, UK.
Higman, C., van der Burgt, M., 2008. Gasification, second ed. Gulf Professional
Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Hischier, R., Weidema, B., 2010. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Methods. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland
v2.2.
International Standard Organization (ISO), 2006a. Environmental Management: Life
Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework, ISO 14040:2006 (Switzerland).
International Standard Organization (ISO), 2006b. Environmental Management:
Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines, ISO 14044:2006
(Switzerland).
Johnke, B., 2012. (n.d.), Emissions from Waste Incineration. Good Practice Guidance
and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC.
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/bgp/5_3_Waste_Incineration.pdf.
December 13, 2012, pp. 455e468.
Please cite this article in press as: Arafat, H.A., et al., Environmental performance and energy recovery potential of five processes for municipal
solid waste treatment, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
Koroneos, C.J., Nanaki, E.A., 2012. Integrated solid waste management and energy
production e a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of
Thessaloniki. J. Clean. Prod. 27, 141e150.
Mendesa, M.R., Aramaki, T., 2004. Comparison of the environmental impact of
incineration and landfilling in São Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 41, 47e63.
Menikpura, S.N.M., Sang-Arun, J., Bengtsson, M., 2013. Integrated solid waste
management: an approach for enhancing climate co-benefits through resource
recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 58, 34e42.
Moberg, A., Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., 2005. Life cycle assessment of
energy from solid wastedpart 2: landfilling compared to other treatment
methods. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 231e240.
Morris, J., 1996. Recycling versus incineration: an energy conservation analysis.
J. Hazard. Mater., 277e293.
Niessen, W.R., 2010. Combustion and Incineration Processes: Applications in Envi-
ronmental Engineering, fourth ed. CRC Press, Massachusetts, USA.
Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A., 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
Polprasert, C., 2007. Organic Waste Recycling Technology and Management, third
ed. IWA, London, UK.
RIS International, 2005. Feasibility of Generating Green Power through Anaerobic
Digestion of Garden Refuse from the Sacramento Area. Feasibility Study. Sac-
ramento Municipal Utility District, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Steffen, R., Szolar, O., Braun, R., 1998. Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion. Institute
for Agrobiotechnology Tulln, Vienna.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2004. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw Hill, New York, NY, USA.
Themelis, N.J., Kim, Y.H., Brady, M.H., 2002. Energy recovery from New York City
solid wastes. Waste Manage. Res. 20, 223e233.
Thompson, M., 1997. Cultural theory and integrated assessment. Environ. Model.
Assess. 2 (3), 139e150.
University of Leiden, 2011. CML 2001 Impact Assessment Characterization Factors.
http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html (March 2, 2011).