Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Sustainable mechanical biological treatment of solid waste in urbanized

areas with low recycling rates
Ettore Trulli a, Navarro Ferronato b, Vincenzo Torretta b,⇑, Massimiliano Piscitelli a, Salvatore Masi a,
Ignazio Mancini a
a
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano, 10, I-85100 Potenza, Italy
b
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, University of Insubria, Via G.B. Vico 46, I-21100 Varese, Italy

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

Article history: Landfill is still the main technological facility used to treat and dispose municipal solid waste (MSW)
Received 30 May 2017 worldwide. In developing countries, final dumping is applied without environmental monitoring and soil
Revised 21 September 2017 protection since solid waste is mostly sent to open dump sites while, in Europe, landfilling is considered
Accepted 16 October 2017
as the last option since reverse logistic approaches or energy recovery are generally encouraged.
Available online 21 October 2017
However, many regions within the European Union continue to dispose of MSW to landfill, since modern
facilities have not been introduced owing to unreliable regulations or financial sustainability. In this
Keywords:
paper, final disposal activities and pre-treatment operations in an area in southern Italy are discussed,
Low recycling rates
Mechanical biological treatment
where final disposal is still the main option for treating MSW and the recycling rate is still low.
Municipal solid waste management Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) facilities are examined in order to evaluate the organic stabiliza-
Respirometric analysis tion practices applied for MSW and the efficiencies in refuse derived fuel production, organic waste sta-
Sanitary landfill bilization and mass reduction. Implementing MBT before landfilling the environmental impact and waste
mass are reduced, up to 30%, since organic fractions are stabilized resulting an oxygen uptake rate less
than 1600 mgO2 h 1 kgVS1, and inorganic materials are exploited. Based on experimental data, this work
examines MBT application in contexts where recycling and recovery activities have not been fully devel-
oped. The evidence of this study led to state that the introduction of MBT facilities is recommended for
developing regions with high putrescible waste production in order to decrease environmental pollution
and enhance human healthy.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction pollution is not avoided when high amounts of putrescible waste

Sanitary landfill is still the main option for treating municipal
solid waste (MSW) worldwide, especially in areas with poor recy-
cling facilities and without reverse logistic policies (Wilson et al.,
2012; Menikpura et al., 2013; Rada et al., 2015; Schneider et al.,
2017; Ferronato et al., 2017). The developing areas, where final dis-
posal is the main solution to solid waste management (SWM)
issues (Bezama et al., 2007; Trois and Simelane, 2010), commonly
have been worsened by the constant increase in population
growth, heavy economic development and high movement of the
population from rural areas into industrial centers (Münnich
et al., 2006; Vaccari et al., 2012; Ragazzi et al., 2014).
Despite regulations and trend changes, also in developed coun-
tries landfilling is still one of the most common practices adopted
to reduce the impacts of solid waste. However, environmental
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vincenzo.torretta@uninsubria.it (V. Torretta).
are introduced within the disposal site with low technical and
management precautions. Indeed, organic waste is the fraction
that most affects the generation of leachate and landfill gas, involv-
ing highly technical issues that need to be solved (Torretta et al.,
2016). Landfill emissions can be successfully handled only by tech-
nical plans that are introduced before the development of the dis-
posal site, given that improving the dumping site after waste
storage is an expensive practice, which is also hard to apply in
developed countries as detailed data of waste composition and
underground characteristics are usually limited (Weng et al.,
2015). As a result, in developing countries, where open dumps
are still the main practice to ‘treat’ MSW (Münnich et al., 2006;
Nithikul et al., 2011; Ferronato et al., 2017), environmental and
health issues are common, since no precautions have been intro-
duced and no reliable solutions have been adopted (De Feo et al.,
2014).
Mechanical biological treatments (MBT) can be implemented as
simple practices which can immediately and significantly reduce

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.018
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564
the environmental impacts around final disposal sites, since MBT
plants treat unsorted solid waste designated for final disposal
(Bezama et al., 2007; Bayard et al., 2010; Nithikul et al., 2011).
MBT can increase the useful life of the disposal site, reduce the
amount of waste inflow and prevent organic fraction degradation
which is treated before landfilling using biological technologies
(Sánchez et al., 2015). MBT is able to reduce the environmental
impacts due to leachate and landfill gas emissions reducing the
biodegradable organic content of waste: decrease of leachate
chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentrations can be obtained
up to yields of 98%, from 30,000 mg L 1 to 1000 mg L 1, so provid-
ing an important solution for reducing the dimension of the lea-
chate treatment plants (Münnich et al., 2006). Furthermore,
implementing MBT processes within MSW management systems
the operating life of the landfill can be optimized and extended
for over 15 years (Robinson et al., 2005; Lornage et al. 2007; de
Araújo Morais et al., 2008; Van Praagh et al., 2009; Tintner et al.,
2010; Heyer et al., 2013; Rada et al., 2014; Trulli and Torretta,
2015).
Thus the application of treatment and sorting plants, before
introducing the waste into the dump sites, is encouraged in areas
where separate collection is not fully applied, for improving envi-
ronmental sustainability. For instance, the landfill gas and leachate
composition and formation depend on pre-treatment methodolo-
gies (Bockreis and Steinberg, 2005) and are considerably reduced
by any MBT (Pan and Voulvoulis, 2007; De Gioannis et al., 2009).
As a result, the significant generation of landfill emissions, among
others, can motivate the implementation of an MBT step at the
final disposal site (Trois and Simelane, 2010).
A large potential to optimize environmental performance may
change the perception of MSW as an ‘energy resource’, thus
increasing the automatization of selection processes and prioritiz-
ing biogas-electricity production from MSW organic fraction
(Soyez and Plickert, 2002; Cimpan and Wenzel, 2013; Scaglia
et al., 2013). Even if maximizing energy and material recovery is
not achieved by MBT, it is certainly aimed to a safe disposal.
Alongside incineration and other thermal processes, MBT is an
important management option both in Europe and in developing
countries (Rada et al., 2005; Pan and Voulvoulis, 2007; Baptista
et al., 2011; Di Lonardo et al., 2016; Ranieri et al., 2017). In the Ital-
ian case, for instance, MBT has been widely applied as reliable solu-
tion for reducing the production of leachate and landfill gas,
especially in final disposal sites without environmental monitoring
and effective leachate treatment plants.
Italy adopted the European Union sanitary landfill regulation
which specifies that solid waste final disposal is only allowed after
a ‘‘pre-treatment” in all cases where limits, fixed by the regulation
and concerning solid waste composition, are not respected. This
regulation matches the principle that final disposal must be sus-
tainable for the environment and human health within the whole
‘‘life cycle”, reducing hazardous waste, pollutant releases and
improving the useful life of the landfill. MBT efficiency is measured
mostly by biological stability tests by means of the oxygen uptake
rate (OUR) (Adani et al., 2006; Bayard et al., 2010; Cesaro et al.,
2016).
This article shows and describes the advantages of the use of an
MBT within regions where recycling systems are inadequate. Bio-
logical indexes and waste composition are evaluated while ener-
getic and economic considerations are presented. An
experimental activity was developed at a landfill site in Italy,
which surpassed the recycling rate of 50% although suffered an
unreliable separate collection system in many cities. Data on the
MBT full scale plant have been reported and discussion is related
to several issues of SWM observed in a region where a low recy-
cling rate equal to 25.9% is achieved. Such situation is typical of
developing regions, so the study can be of interest both for decision
557
makers of low-income regions and stakeholders in high-income
countries.
2. Materials and methods
The survey was implemented at the Giovinazzo (Bari, Southern
Italy) landfill site. The methodology applied for the analysis is
divided in two main parts:
– waste characterization to provide data on waste composition
and about the chemical, physical and biological features of the
inflow waste;
– the analysis of the waste treated by the mechanical-biological
section.
The first analysis was aimed to evaluate the average waste com-
position generated within the area and inflowing the MBT plant.
The second analysis concerned the respirometric test of the waste
material treated by MBT. Data on the OUR and dynamic respiration
index (DRI) (Adani et al., 2006; UNI/TS, 2006) of the samples after
treatment and the time required for a significant degradation of
the waste were evaluated.
In order to estimate the yields of the examined plant, additional
analysis were carried out such as:
– the waste amounts in the upper sieving system after treatment;
– the weight loss after biological treatment.
Activities have been performed for a period of one year and
were used to collect bio-waste stabilization data, waste inflow
quantities, and the economic and management factors that influ-
enced MBT. Fig. 1 shows the equipment used for the MBT treat-
ment at laboratory/pilot scale.
2.1. The landfill site and the MBT at the full scale plant
The Giovinazzo sanitary landfill serves nine communities for a
total population of 500,000 inhabitants, and is able to treat 320
tons of MSW per day. The landfill was built in 1989 within an
old mine and was initially organized into six operative zones, while
the MBT plant was built in 2003 and has been in operation since
2004. The waterproof under-layer originally consisted of a 1 m clay
layer covered by a 2 mm thick plastic film of HDPE. A biogas collec-
tion system consisting of 21 wells and 5 regulation substations was
introduced only in 1995.
In 1996 the landfill gas collected, which is constantly used for
electric energy generation, was composed of 50% methane (while
the other 50% was made of carbon dioxide and non-methane
organic compound), and achieved 1000 Nm3 per hour, whereas in
2007 this decreased to 200 Nm3 per hour due to the anaerobic
activity which stabilized the organic fraction during the years,
according to another study (Torretta et al., 2016).
The mechanical-biological treatment performed before landfill-
ing of selected waste. The process included a unit of bag disruption,
waste selection by sieving and biological treatment of the under
sieve fraction. Afterwards, a second sieving system was considered
by the designers in order to separate the stabilized material for
exploiting the inorganic fraction remaining within the putrescible
matter for energy recovery, since the upper sieve waste can be
used as the refuse derived fuel (RDF). However, this application
is not yet introduced due to the lack of facilities able to exploit
RDF. Indeed, currently, due to the lack of a specific recovery plant,
all of the MSW upper sieving is sent to the landfill (Fig. 2).
The biological treatment is applied by static piles, constructed
with a maximum height of three meters. Within the plant, eight
558 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564

length of the cell

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

exhaust air

reactor temperature and oxigen probe

condensed
water box
flow
meter
air

Pump

leachate drain pipe

(f)

(e)

Fig. 1. Methods for waste mechanical treatment: (a) 20 mm flat sieving screen for manual selection; (b) scheme for sampling of waste in biocell; (c, d) 80 mm drum screen in
‘‘pilot scale”; (e, f) 25 L respirometry.
 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564
Fig. 2. MBT process and material flow analysis of the MSW in the case study considered.
aerated bio-cells, which are provided by an aeration system that
works through fans with 13.3 kW powered inverters, operate con-
stantly. The volume consists of 4140 m3 (about 500 m3 per bio-
cell) and enables the organic waste to remain within the cells for
28 days in ordinary conditions. Operative conditions are controlled
by measuring the principal parameters:
 air flow emitted within the cells, which is about 6000 m3 per
hour (regulated automatically as a function of the temperature
measured within the waste which should not exceed 60 °C);
 water content within the mass (monitored and balanced auto-
matically by an internal sprinkler in order to maintain the mois-
ture required for the aerobic process).
2.2. Characterization of the raw waste
A primary sample of waste, with a mass of one ton, was col-
lected by a collection truck from the street containers around the
study area. To make sure that the sample represents correctly
the waste in the zone of investigation, a specific collection route
was defined on the basis of: urban morphology, housing typology
and presence of industry production plants. The days considered
were in the midweek in order to generalise the results obtained
as example of ordinary condition. Moreover, It was considered a
day with stable weather settings during the spring season, in order
to have stable content of moisture and temperature during the
analysis. The primary sample was reduced in two sub-samples
(200 kg and 15 kg) by manual splitting (quartering methods) to
correctly represent the waste originally gathered. The first subsam-
ple (200 kg) was manually sorted to estimate waste composition,
while the second subsample (15 kg) was shipped to the analytical
559
laboratory to investigate chemical, physical and biological charac-
teristics. Fig. 3 shows the examined waste.
This procedure was replicated four times in two different
municipalities, three in urbanized areas while the other in the
industrial one. The chemical analysis was applied for only one
sample. The seasonal variation of the waste composition has not
been considered within the study due to the lack of numerous data.
The confidence level (CL) considered for generalising the data
obtained about the composition of the waste was 95%. The sample
of manually mixed raw waste was analysed. Table 1 reports the
average percentages of the waste fractions of the samples and
the confidence interval obtained for each fraction.
2.3. Analysis of the waste
2.3.1. Chemical and physical composition of the waste
A sample, which contained similar material fractions, was anal-
ysed by a chemical, physical and biological investigation in order to
study the waste composition. The data obtained showed high sig-
nificance comparing the features of samples after treatment and
evaluating the yields of the treatment plant. A 15 kg sample was
transported to a laboratory and prepared for the chemical analysis.
In particular, moisture, percentage of volatile solid (VS), DRI, pH
and ash content were surveyed. At the same time, lower and upper
calorific values, carbon and nitrate content as well as other princi-
pal elements were examined at laboratory scale. The obtained
results are reported in Table 2.
The information obtained, in particular regarding the initial DRI,
have been considered for comparison with the main result found
after the respirometric analysis of the waste subsequently biolog-
ical treatment. Moreover, in order to verify the adaptability of
560 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564

Fig. 3. Sampling of the waste fraction. (a) raw sample (1 ton); (b) pre-treated waste (about 0.8 tons); (c, d) waste sampling by quartering method.

Table 1 the material for composting process, the C/N rate was evaluated,
Waste fraction of the material treated. resulting equal to 20.6. In conclusion, the data collected allows
Waste fraction Value (%) Confidence interval at 95%
identifying the waste inflow into the MBT as a good material for
the biological treatment.
Putrescible 23.4 7.9
Paper and cardboard 21.7 2.4
Plastic 12.1 2.2 2.3.2. The respirometric test
Textile, rubber, wood and leather 7.0 3.1
The respirometric test took place in a laboratory reactor; a
Metal 3.5 1.5
Glass 9.6 2.8 respirometric equipment produced by Costech International,
WEEE 0.4 0.7 3022 model, with a volume equal to 25 L, was used. Twelve analy-
Batteries and drugs 0.2 0.1 ses were carried out, about one per month, on twelve 10 kg sam-
Under sieve (<20 mm) 22.0 2.9 ples collected into the bio-cells. In particular, each analysis was
composed of 16 samples (4 samples from 4 sections) which were
collected from each bio-cell conforming to a pre-defined system.
After pooling and mixing of samples, a large sample was created
Table 2 and then, by quartering method, the subsample of about 10 kg
Chemical, physical analysis of the waste inflow into the plant. was transported to the analytical laboratory. Before testing, density
Parameter Unit of measure Value and moisture of the samples were standardised at values respec-
Moisture % fresh waste 49.28
tively lower than 0.75 kg L 1 and 75% maximum water capacity.
Dry matter % fresh waste 50.72 Samples were analysed according to the UNI/TS 11184 methodol-
Volatile solid % s.s. 81.77 ogy (UNI/TS, 2006). The samples were carried out four days long.
Ash % d.w. 18.23 Temperature and oxygen concentration in the air inflow and out-
Cl % d.w. 0.31
flow were automatically measured. Mass of hourly consumed oxy-
S % d.w. 0.08
C % d.w. 13.6 gen was obtained by data elaboration.
H % d.w. 5.3
N % d.w. 0.66
O % d.w. 65
2.3.3. Additional analysis during and after the MBT
C/N 20.6 Before the respirometric test, another survey was carried out for
Calorific power (lower/upper) estimating the bio-stabilization time required and the efficiency of
1
Raw waste kcal kg 2666/2803 this methodology. In particular, a single sample was studied after
1
Suspended solid kcal kg 5238/5507
7 days treatment and after 28 days handling for studying the yield
s.s. = suspended solid; d.w. = dry weight. of the aerated treatment applied during the time. The analysis of
 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564
the waste treated was carried out at two different moments of the
biological process: after 7 days and at the final management step,
after 28 days. The samples were gathered from the same cell and
during the same treatment, in order to evaluate the properties of
the waste with the same composition. The moisture, the total vola-
tile and non-volatile solids, DRI and pH were analysed on a 15 kg
sample of waste taken from the cell after 7 days and 28 days of
treatment. The analysis of the total solid and the content of mois-
ture of the sample was performed in an oven at a temperature of
108 °C, and by combustion at 605 °C to estimate the volatile solid.
Secondly, one sample of unsorted waste, after biological treat-
ment, was sieved and the fractions remained in the upper and
under 80 mm sieve were analysed. This research was introduced
in the study in order to quantify the waste fraction available and
so evaluating the feasibility for exploiting the waste as RDF. Finally,
the mass loss after the biological treatment was quantified by mea-
suring of the weight of the MSW sixty times over the year. The
mixed waste introduced in all the bio-cells was weighted before
and after each treatment rounds after 28 days.
3. Results
Before evaluating the DRI after treatment, a single stream pro-
cess was first analysed in order to evaluate the progress obtainable
during the biological treatment of the studied plant. A value of DRI
equal to 4675 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1 was obtained. The results of both
analysis, after 7 days and after 28 days are reported in Table 3.
The operation applied by the MBT plant can be considered
efficient since already after 7 days the oxygen uptake resulted
Table 3
Characteristic of the waste tested by respirometric analysis.
Parameters Unit of measure Treatment time (days)
7 days
Moisture % raw waste 29.71
Total solids % raw waste 70.29
Volatile solids % s.s. 57.5
Ash % s.s. 42.5
DRI mgO2 kgVS1 h 1
2339
pH — 7.16
Fig. 4. OUR of the MBT stabilized waste.
561
significantly lower than the starting point whereas the sample
resulted well stabilized after 28 days.
According to a study reported in literature (Gea et al., 2004), the
organic fraction of an MSW can be considered stabilized when the
respirometric values are around 1100 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1 while a fresh
sample exceeds 4000 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1. After the preliminary analy-
sis, the respirometric analysis was repeated only after 28 days of
treatment, so to evaluate the MSW stabilization rate obtained trea-
ted by biological processing in different period of the year. The
trends of the twelve samples are reported in Fig. 4, expressed in
mgO2 kgVS1 h 1.
The results obtained of the DRI after four days range between
900 and 1600 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1; such values identify a partially stabi-
lized matter which is the result forecasted for a two-stream MBT
plant, where the bio-stabilization process considerably reduces
the DRI of the under sieve, mostly made up of putrescible fractions.
To better illustrate the stability of the waste obtained after 28 days
of biological treatment, the parameter DRI is reported in Fig. 5.
The data shows the mean values obtained during the first 24 h
of analysis as a function of the volatile solid of each sample. Limits
of a stabilized waste are reported according with Adani et al.
(2006). The dashed line divides the stabilized matter and the frac-
tions which are still biologically active. These samples obtained a
DRI which varied between 900 and 2200 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1 which
means a stabilized and a not well-stabilized fraction after 24 h,
respectively. However, the trend is interesting since, after the pro-
cess, in two cases the low-biodegradable matter obtained was fully
stabilized in the first 24 h of analysis. As a result, the respirometric
test confirmed the importance and the functionality of the MBT
plant concerning the stabilization of the high putrescible fraction
obtained by the sieving system although not every sample can be
considered satisfactory.
Mechanical biological pre-treatment reduces also the volume
and the mass occupied by the waste. For estimating the weight lost
during the treatment, 60 bio-cells were analysed over one year. In
28 days
particular, waste was weighted before and after the treatment in
41.95
each bio-cell in different periods of the year. The observed results
58.05
55.87 showed an average weight loss of 30% (Fig. 6).
44.13 The conservation of the mass is of great interest as the waste
829 inflow into the landfill, losing moisture and volatile solids,
7.9 decreases in weight, as demonstrated by the conducted study. As
562 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564

Fig. 5. Average waste oxygen uptake per hour within the first 24 h of analysis as a function of the volatile solid of sample.

Fig. 6. Weight loss during the examined biological treatment.

a result, this guarantees a higher waste density, which within the is plastic and paper), while the rest can be sent to landfill as cover
site studied and after compaction achieved 1.2–1.3 tons per m3. material.
Finally, in order to quantify and study the exploitability of the
large fractions produced after a single stream biological pre-
treatment, the 80 mm sieving process after biological treatment 4. Discussion
was applied to quantify the fractions detectable into the material
treated. The largest residues are mainly composed of cardboard, Stabilized undersieve waste values measured by respirometric
paper and plastic, which can be separated after the stabilization tests, expressed as a function of the mass of volatile solids of the
of the organic substance (Table 4). As a result, 52.5% of the waste examined sample, can vary quite considerably. This is probably
treated by aerated process (the upper sieve) could be separated also due to the type of waste feeding and the partly low efficiency
and used as RDF, since it is rich of combustible materials (69.9% of aeration facilities, which also influence the development of the
biological yield. In order to graphically represent the different
states of waste during the stabilization process and treatment,
Table 4 the oxygen uptake rate as a function of the VS content was used
Stabilized waste composition after the 80 sieving process. (Piscitelli, 2008). Fig. 7 shows a representation of the oxygen
Waste fraction Upper sieve [%] Under sieve [%] uptake rate and a stability area of MSW.
The MBT plant was an affordable solution adopted to decrease
Total percentage obtained 52.5 47.5
Paper and cardboard 47.9 17.1 the MSW inflow to the landfill and thus for reducing the risk of
Plastic 22 6.1 environmental pollution because, in 2003, there was a low number
Textile, wood and rubber 14.4 3.1 of sanitary landfills in order to guarantee a good sanitary service to
Metals 7.1 2.3 the population.
Glass and inert 2.3 10.5
Thus, producing RDF for energy in such a plant within the
Small fractions (<20 mm) 6.4 60.9
framework of a ‘‘circular economy” started in Italy over the last
 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564
Fig. 7. Oxygen uptake rate and ‘‘stability area” of MSW for disposal by landfilling.
few decades, has helped local municipalities to increase the lifes-
pan of landfills and to decrease leachate and methane releases.
Moreover, as stated by Mancini et al. (2009), the DRI of waste
within a 15-years-old landfill in ordinary conditions can be 1108
mgO2 kgVS1 h 1, higher than the technical value of DRI of the MBT
treated waste, which is assumed in this research about 900
mgO2 kgVS1 h 1. This confirms the importance of the MBT in terms
of the stabilization of the organic matter in a single stream treat-
ment plant, which leads to a reduction in biogas production.
Observed data on biogas production was respectively 4.5 m3 t 1
with 98 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1 and 57 m3 t 1 with 1108 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1
(Piscitelli, 2008; Mancini et al., 2009). The loss of 30% in mass of
the waste treated is a good result to save landfill spaces. Similar
results were observed by several authors (Tolvanen and
Hänninen, 2006; Bezama et al., 2007; de Araújo Morais et al.,
2008). Moreover, the MBT plant reduces the waste inflow into
the landfill, facilitating the MSW dumping phase, where there
was a high variability of waste characteristics, including density
and water content which influenced the OUR (Trulli et al., 2007;
Piscitelli, 2008).
In order to develop a more efficient treatment, a post trituration
process could be implemented at the MBT plant, in order to
decrease the additional waste volumes entering the landfill. In
addition, a manual or mechanical removal before the first sieving
process could help remove exploitable materials such as glass,
which decrease the calorific power and increase the recycling rate,
or other exploitable materials. The same practice can be applied
after the second sieving system because, as reported by other
authors, heavy inert reject output from the MBT plant may repre-
sent a missed opportunity for the operators who landfill these
materials (Cook et al., 2015).
Many researches reported in literature showed optimal applica-
tion of MBT, in particular when evidenced high performance of
sorting separation, screening and bio-drying, combined treatment
of putrescible matter as sewage sludge, recycling to reduce envi-
ronmental impacts and optimize the landfilling (Tolvanen and
Hänninen, 2006; Bezama et al., 2007; Bayard et al., 2010; Trois
and Simelane, 2010; Tintner et al., 2010; Montejo et al., 2013;
Dias et al., 2015; Pantini et al., 2015).
A pre-treatment process, however, affects the cost of the final
disposal of the MSW. The costs estimated within the MBT plant
of Giovinazzo amounts to 30–35 € t 1, while the energy required
for the process is about 45 kWh t 1 for an aerobic treatment of
28 days. This energy consumption can be compared with other
studies, since the average electricity required for the manual and
mechanical operations has been estimated to be about 20–25 kW
h t 1 for a MBT with manual pre-selection and post-composting
(Montejo et al., 2013) or about 30–35 kWh t 1 for short time
563
MBT (2–4 weeks) and about 50–60 kWh t 1 for long term MBT
(more than 4 weeks) with mechanical pre-sorting (Scaglia et al.,
2013), whereas, a composting process of organic waste from selec-
tive collection in aerated and rotating trommels can be considered
of about 53 kWh t 1 (Boldrin et al., 2011). However, the economic
effort can be reduced by the exploitability of the RDF produced and
by the improvement in landfill sustainability concerning leachate
treatment and landfill lifespan. Hence, these costs are also accept-
able for countries where landfill construction does not meet
requirements for extensive environmental protection (Münnich
et al., 2006), since investments and operational costs to set up
MBT before landfills could be valued for low-income countries as
8-12 USD t 1 (Trois and Simelane, 2010).
Over the last years, the regional recycling rate in Apulia has
improved considerably, achieving 25.9% (ISPRA, 2015). However,
the program recently introduced by the regional administration
planned to exceed 60% by 2015, thus the reduction of energy and
costs required for MSW final disposal. Hence, MBT was used as a
suitable technology in order to solve an environmental emergency
due to MSW mismanagement (Trulli et al., 2007). In this frame-
work, other public policies concerning material recovery and recy-
cling are necessary and more efforts should be introduced because
the regional goals, in terms of waste recovery, were not achieved.
5. Conclusions
The general targets for the sustainable final disposal of waste
are a generally low environmental impact, low gas emissions,
and a small amount of leachate. These objectives are achievable
by reducing the waste inflow to landfill, applying suitable landfill
construction technologies, recycling exploitable materials and
implementing MBT before final disposal sites.
The analysis shown in this paper has focused on applying MBT
before landfilling in an Italian region with low recycling rates and
where SWM does not provide enough precaution to avoid environ-
mental contaminations. Two analysis were shown: the first for
evaluating the waste inflow into the landfill, and thus into the
MBT plant, while the second regards the waste outflow of the
MBT plant.
The results obtained are significant since the biological treat-
ment reduced the mass of the waste by 30%, resulting in the saving
of landfill space, whereas the DRI values provided information
about a good operation which is able to decrease the OUR up to
900 mgO2 kgVS1 h 1. In addition, waste fraction after treatment
are suited for producing RDF, encouraging the introduction of
waste-to-energy systems.
This case study provides an example of the suitability of this
technology for the treatment of MSW inflow to landfills in order
to decrease environmental pollution and increase the useful life
of final disposal sites when recycling rates are low. Considering
DRI and the mass lost during the process, MBT could also be con-
sidered as an appropriate technology for low recycling areas where
take back policies are needed in order to introduce a reverse logis-
tic system. Furthermore, the study provided an indication for the
sustainable development of projects concerning the introduction
of MBT. The improvement of pre-treatment plants is recommended
in regions with unreliable selective collection systems, both in
high-income and low-income countries. The costs and the energy
required are affordable, as environmental and economic benefits
are much higher than the initial investment required.
Globally MBT plants is a reliable solution for waste pre-
treatment and also represent a good solution for areas in an emer-
gency situation in terms of MSW management as at Giovinazzo
plant. In conclusion, MBT is a first good option for treating MSW,
although integrated efforts are required in order to reduce the
564 E. Trulli et al. / Waste Management 71 (2018) 556–564
environmental impacts and guarantee a sustainable development
following the principle of the circular economy.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank and say goodbye to Prof. Ettore Trulli,
first author of this paper, who constantly worked in this study
and follows all the steps for producing reliable results and, finally,
this paper. He left us during the month of August. All our best to his
family.
References
Adani, F., Ubbiali, C., Genevini, P., 2006. The determination of biological stability of
composts using the dynamic respiration index: the results of experience after
two years. Waste Manage. 26, 41–48.
Bayard, R., de Araújo Morais, J., Ducom, G., Achour, F., Rouez, M., Gourdon, R., 2010.
Assessment of the effectiveness of an industrial unit of mechanical–biological
treatment of municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater. 175 (1), 23–32.
Baptista, M., Antunes, F., Silveira, A., 2011. Diagnosis and optimization of the
composting process in full-scale mechanical-biological treatment plants. Waste
Manage. Res. 29 (6), 565–573.
Bezama, A., Aguayo, P., Konrad, O., Navia, R., Lorber, K.E., 2007. Investigations on
mechanical biological treatment of waste in South America: towards more
sustainable MSW management strategies. Waste Manage. 27 (2), 228–237.
Bockreis, A., Steinberg, I., 2005. Influence of mechanical-biological waste pre-
treatment methods on the gas formation in landfills. Waste Manage. 25 (4),
337–343.
Boldrin, A., Neidel, T.L., Damgaard, A., Bhander, G.S., Møller, J., Christensen, T.H.,
2011. Modelling of environmental impacts from biological treatment of organic
municipal waste in EASEWASTE. Waste Manage. 31 (4), 619–630.
Cesaro, A., Russo, L., Farina, A., Belgiorno, V., 2016. Organic fraction of municipal
solid waste from mechanical selection: biological stabilization and recovery
options. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (2), 1565–1575.
Cimpan, C., Wenzel, H., 2013. Energy implications of mechanical and mechanical–
biological treatment compared to direct waste-to-energy. Waste Manage. 33
(7), 1648–1658.
Cook, E., Wagland, S., Coulon, F., 2015. Investigation into the non-biological outputs
of mechanical–biological treatment facilities. Waste Manage. 46, 212–226.
de Araújo Morais, J., Ducom, G., Achour, F., Rouez, M., Bayard, R., 2008. Mass balance
to assess the efficiency of a mechanical–biological treatment. Waste Manage. 28
(10), 1791–1800.
De Feo, G., Cerrato, F., Siano, P., Torretta, V., 2014. Definition of a multi-criteria, web-
based approach to managing the illegal dumping of solid waste in Italian
villages. Environ. Technol. 35 (1), 104–114.
De Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A., Cappai, G., Milia, S., 2009. Landfill gas generation after
mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste. estimation of gas
generation rate constants. Waste Manage. 29 (3), 1026–1034.
Dias, N., Garrinhas, I., Maximo, A., Belo, N., Roque, P., Carvalho, M.T., 2015. Recovery
of glass from the inert fraction refused by MBT plants in a pilot plant. Waste
Manage. 46, 201–211.
Di Lonardo, M.C., Franzese, M., Costa, G., Gavasci, R., Lombardi, F., 2016. The
application of SRF vs. RDF classification and specifications to the material flows
of two mechanical-biological treatment plants of Rome: comparison and
implications. Waste Manage. 47, 195–205.
Ferronato, N., Torretta, V., Ragazzi, M., Rada, E.C., 2017. Waste mismanagement in
developing countries: a case study of environmental contamination, U.P.B. Sci.
Bull., Series D, 79(3).
Gea, T., Barrena, R., Artola, A., Sánchez, A., 2004. Monitoring the biological activity of
the composting process: oxygen uptake rate (OUR), respirometric index (RI),
and respiratory quotient (RQ). Biotechnol. Bioeng. 88 (4), 520–527.
Heyer, K.U., Hupe, K., Stegmann, R., 2013. Methane emissions from MBT landfills.
Waste Manage. 33 (9), 1853–1860.
ISPRA, 2015. Municipal Solid Waste Italian Report. Report n. 230/2015, ISBN 978-
88-448-0740.
Lornage, R., Redon, E., Lagier, T., Hébé, I., Carré, J., 2007. Performance of a low cost
MBT prior to landfilling: study of the biological treatment of size reduced MSW
without mechanical sorting. Waste Manage. 27 (12), 1755–1764.
Mancini M., Masi S., Caniani D., Piscitelli M. 2009. Residual Biodegradability of
Landfilled Waste After 15 Years in a Dry-Tomb Landfill CEST Chania, Crete,
Greece.
Menikpura, S.N.M., Sang-Arun, J., Bengtsson, M., 2013. Climate co-benefits of energy
recovery from landfill gas in developing Asian cities: a case study in Bangkok.
Waste Manage. Res. 31 (10), 1002–1011.
Montejo, C., Tonini, D., del Carmen Márquez, M., Astrup, T.F., 2013. Mechanical–
biological treatment: performance and potentials. an LCA of 8 MBT plants
including waste characterization. J. Environ. Manage. 128, 661–673.
Münnich, K., Mahler, C.F., Fricke, K., 2006. Pilot project of mechanical-biological
treatment of waste in Brazil. Waste Manage. 26 (2), 150–157.
Nithikul, J., Karthikeyan, O.P., Visvanathan, C., 2011. Reject management from a
mechanical biological treatment plant in Bangkok, Thailand. Res. Conserv.
Recyc. 55 (4), 417–422.
Pan, J., Voulvoulis, N., 2007. The role of mechanical and biological treatment in
reducing methane emissions from landfill disposal of municipal solid waste in
the United Kingdom. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 57 (2), 155–163.
Pantini, S., Verginelli, I., Lombardi, F., Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2015. Assessment of
biogas production from MBT waste under different operating conditions. Waste
Manage. 43, 37–49.
Piscitelli, M., 2008. Technological Innovative Models to Manage Biowaste in Landfill,
PhD Dissertation (in Italian). Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza,
Italy.
Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Panaitescu, V., Apostol, T., 2005. Some research perspectives
on emissions from bio-mechanical treatments of municipal solid waste in
Europe. Environ. Technol. 26 (11), 1297–1302.
Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Villotti, S., Torretta, V., 2014. Sewage sludge drying by energy
recovery from OFMSW composting: preliminary feasibility evaluation. Waste
Manage. 34 (5), 859–866.
Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Stefani, P., Schiavon, M., Torretta, V., 2015. Modelling the
potential biogas productivity range from a MSW landfill for its sustainable
exploitation. Sustainability 7 (1), 482–495.
Ragazzi, M., Catellani, R., Rada, E.C., Torretta, V., Salazar-Valenzuela, X., 2014.
Management of municipal solid waste in one of the Galapagos Islands.
Sustainability 6 (12), 9080–9095.
Ranieri, E., Ionescu, G., Fedele, A., Palmieri, E., Ranieri, A.C., Campanaro, V., 2017.
Sampling, characterisation and processing of solid recovered fuel production
from municipal solid waste: an Italian plant case study. Waste Manage. Res. 35
(8).
Robinson, H.D., Knox, K., Bone, B.D., Picken, A., 2005. Leachate quality from
landfilled MBT waste. Waste Manage. 25 (4), 383–391.
Sánchez, A., Artola, A., Gea, T., Barrena, R., Font, X., 2015. A new paradigm for waste
management of organic materials. Waste Manage. 42, 1–2.
Scaglia, B., Salati, S., Di Gregorio, A., Carrera, A., Tambone, F., Adani, F., 2013. Short
mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste allows landfill impact
reduction saving waste energy content. Biores. Technol. 143, 131–138.
Schneider, P., Anh, L.H., Wagner, J., Reichenbach, J., Hebner, A., 2017. Solid waste
management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: moving towards a circular
economy? Sustainability 9 (2), 286.
Soyez, K., Plickert, S., 2002. Mechanical-biological pre-treatment of waste: state of
the art and potentials of biotechnology. Acta Biotechnol. 22, 3–4.
Tintner, J., Smidt, E., Böhm, K., Binner, E., 2010. Investigations of biological processes
in Austrian MBT plants. Waste Manage. 30 (10), 1903–1907.
Tolvanen, O.K., Hänninen, K.I., 2006. Mechanical–biological waste treatment and
the associated occupational hygiene in Finland. Waste Manage. 26 (10), 1119–
1125.
Torretta, V., Ferronato, N., Katsoyiannis, I.A., Tolkou, A.K., Airoldi, M., 2016. Novel
and conventional technologies for landfill leachates treatment: a review.
Sustainability 9 (1), 9.
Trois, C., Simelane, O.T., 2010. Implementing separate waste collection and
mechanical biological waste treatment in South Africa: a comparison with
Austria and England. Waste Manage. 30 (8), 1457–1463.
Trulli E., Mancini I.M., Masi S., Piscitelli M., Caputi V. 2007. Performance Analysis of
a Residual MSW Mechanical Biological Treatment Plant. Proceedings of Sardinia
2007, Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. S.
Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 1–5 October 2007.
Trulli, E., Torretta, V., 2015. Influence of feeding mixture composition in batch
anaerobic co-digestion of stabilized municipal sludge and waste from dairy
farms. Environ. Technol. 36 (12), 1519–1528.
UNI/TS 11184 Method, 2006. Waste and Refuse Derived Fuels – Determination of
Biological Stability by Dinamic Respirometric Index.
Vaccari, M., Torretta, V., Collivignarelli, C., 2012. Effect of improving environmental
sustainability in developing countries by upgrading solid waste management
techniques: a case study. Sustainability 4 (11), 2852–2861.
van Praagh, M., Heerenklage, J., Smidt, E., Modin, H., Stegmann, R., Persson, K.M.,
2009. Potential emissions from two mechanically-biologically pre-treated
(MBT) wastes. Waste Manage. 29 (2), 859–868.
Weng, Y.C., Fujiwara, T., Houng, H.J., Sun, C.H., Li, W.Y., Kuo, Y.W., 2015.
Management of landfill reclamation with regard to biodiversity preservation,
global warming mitigation and landfill mining: experiences from the Asia-
Pacific region. J. Cleaner Prod. 104, 364–373.
Wilson, D.C., Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., Velis, C.A., Alabaster, G., 2012. Comparative
analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Manage. Res. 30 (3),
237–254.