Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Are EU waste-to-energy technologies effective for exploiting the energy in T

bio-waste?
⁎
Francesco Di Mariaa,b, , Federico Sisania, Stefano Continia
a
LAR5 Laboratory, Dipartimento di Ingegneria, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy
b
CIMIS Consortium, via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy

H I GH L IG H T S

• Replacement of primary energy by EU WtE exploiting bio-waste was assessed.

• CHP mode is mandatory for effective replacement of primary energy.
• Primary energy replacement by MSWI up to 16 times higher than AD.
• R&D resulted very promising for improving AD performances.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present review compares the most diffused full-scale waste-to-energy technologies in the EU28, incineration
Anaerobic digestion and anaerobic digestion (AD), for exploiting the energy content of bio-waste for replacing primary energies. The
Bio-waste comparison was performed following a life cycle approach using the cumulative energy demand index (CED)
Chemicals (MJ/Mg) and by the definition of the ad hoc hybrid primary energy index (HPE) (MJ/Mg), also able to account
Combined heat and power
for the energy content of the waste. High values of CED for input flows for incineration were associated with
Cumulative energy demand
Incineration
auxiliary fuel consumption, up to 7000 MJ/Mg, slag disposal, about 500 MJ/Mg, and with the chemicals ne-
cessary for flue gas treatment, up to 1000 MJ/Mg. The CED values associated with electricity and heat re-
placement by those recovered from waste combustion ranged from about 4000 MJ/Mg up to about 24,000 MJ/
Mg. The main CED associated with the input flows for AD was from maintenance of the gas engines, ranging
from about 40 MJ/Mg up to 120 MJ/Mg. The CED associated with the avoided production of mineral fertilizer
ranged from about 0.05 MJ/Mg to 0.7 MJ/Mg. The CED associated with electricity and heat replaced by energy
recovery ranged from about 3000 MJ/Mg to about 6000 MJ/Mg. The expanded energy balance performed by the
HPE (MJ/Mg) indicated that combined heat and power mode is a key factor for allowing efficient and effective
replacement of primary energies by incineration. There was also a similar effect for AD but with more limited
benefits. Recent research trends show a higher potential for improving the performances of AD compared to
incineration.

1. Introduction
At the EU28 level the recovery of energy from waste, in general, and
bio-waste, in particular, is a practice that has been widely implemented
in many member States, making the European Union a leader in this
field. Bio-waste and biomass are considered sustainable and renewable
energy sources able to contribute to achieving the EU 2020 [1,2] and
EU 2030 goals [3], which are: GHG emission reduction compared to
1990 ≥40%; energy needs generated by renewable sources ≥27%;
increase in energy efficiency ≥27%. Various technologies based on
biological, chemical and thermal treatments [4–6] have been proposed
for this issue. Currently the most diffused waste-to-energy (WtE) full-
scale facilities are by municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) with
energy recovery and anaerobic digestion (AD). The share of these plants
for energy production in the EU28 is about 1.5%. These technologies
have also been indicated by the European Commission [7] as the ones
able to continue to play a prominent role in the recovery of energy from
waste in the near future.
On a more global scale in the last 50 years the world population has
risen from about 3 billion to more than 7 billion with a projection of

⁎
Corresponding author at: LAR5 Laboratory, Dipartimento di Ingegneria, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy.
E-mail address: francesco.dimaria@unipg.it (F. Di Maria).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.007
Received 15 June 2018; Received in revised form 18 August 2018; Accepted 2 September 2018
Available online 13 September 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Nomenclature M mass (Mg)

MSW municipal solid waste
AD anaerobic digestion MSWI municipal solid waste incinerator
ADM1 anaerobic digestion model n°1 OLR organic loading rate (kgVS/m3 day)
BFB bubbling fluidized bed PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
BMP biomethane potential (N m3/kgVS) PCDD polychloro-dibenzo dioxin
CHP combined heat and power PCDF polychloro-dibenzo furan
CED cumulative energy demand (MJ) PCR polymerase chain reaction
CFB circulating fluidized bed PM particulate matter
DGGE denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis SADB solid anaerobic digestion batch
EU European Union TOC total organic carbon (%TS)
FISH fluorescence in situ hybridization TS total solids (%w/w)
HPE hybrid primary energy index (MJ) VS volatile solids (%TS)
HDPE high density polyethylene WFD waste framework directive
HRSG heat recovery steam generator WtE waste to energy
HRT hydraulic retention time (day)
HTS high throughput sequencing Subscripts
LFD landfill directive
IPPC integrated pollution prevention control in inlet
LHV lower heating value (MJ/Mg) out outlet
MC moisture content (%w/w) waste bio-waste

reaching about 9 billion by 2025 [6]. This will also have a significant and environmental protection. However, on the other hand, there is still
effect on the amount of waste generated. In fact, as reported in Fig. 1, a lack of information about the extent to which these technologies are
the total waste generated is expected to increase from about 1.2 billion able to exploit the energy content of bio-waste more efficiently. This
Mg in 2010 to about 2.2 billion Mg in 2025. Assuming an average lower aspect is of prominent importance considering the current EU policy
heating value (LHV) of about 9000 kJ/kg, Dornberg and Faaij [8] and about energy [3] and the circular use of resources [7] and for a better
Bogner et al. [9] estimated an energy potential of waste ranging from understanding of the role that MSWI and AD can play in their successful
about 13EJ to about 30EJ. implementation.
Depending on the composition of the waste and on local manage- For these reasons the aim of the present review is to carry out an
ment strategies and goals, the recovery of energy can play an important expanded energy balance of the full-scale WtE technologies currently
role in solving various problems. As an example, on one hand, since the operating in the EU28. This analysis was performed using a life cycle
first waste management directive 91/156/EC [10] at the EU level, in- approach. The cumulative energy demand (CED) [20–22] was used for
cineration with energy recovery has been indicated as a suitable solu- assessing the primary energy consumption and replacement associated
tion for reducing the mass and reactivity of non-reused/recycled/re- with the main materials, energy and fuel inputs and outputs of full-scale
covered waste before its disposal in landfill. On the other hand, MSWI and AD.
anaerobic digestion (AD) has been adopted as a recycling option in a The effectiveness of exploiting the energy content of bio waste was
large number of member states for increasing the whole energy and assessed using the definition of the ad hoc hybrid primary energy index
environmental efficiency of bio-waste recycling. (HPE).
Referring to the year 2014, the whole municipal solid waste (MSW) According to the European biogas association, out of a total of about
generated in the EU28 was 240,834,000 Mg, which was managed ac- 17,500 AD facilities operating in the EU in 2015 fewer than 3% had
cording to the following average figures [11]: 28% material recycling; upgraded the biogas to bio-methane for grid injection or transport fuel.
16% bio-waste recycled by composting and/or anaerobic digestion; Only 244 of these 17,500 plants (i.e. < 1.5%) were processing bio-
27% processed by incineration with energy recovery; 28% landfilled. In waste as the main substrate. Due to the limited number of AD facilities
some of the more developed areas in the EU28 the share of bio-waste in the EU recovering bio-methane from bio-waste and the consequent
was about 33% of the whole waste generated [12,13].
Several studies have been performed for analyzing the energetic and
environmental aspects related to different waste-to-energy solutions.
Concerning MSWI Murer et al. [14] reported that the efficiency of an
Amsterdam incineration plant was about 30%. Grosso et al. [15] in-
vestigated the efficiency of several MSWI using an energetic approach.
Tabasova et al. [16] reported power generation ranging from 0.3 to 0.7
MWh/tonne, respectively, for combined heat and power and for elec-
tricity recovery plants. Di Maria et al. [17] investigated the lower
heating value (LHV) of waste processed in an existing Italian in-
cinerator, reporting an average gross energy efficiency of about 19%.
Tong et al. [18] investigated the impact arising from different WtE
options for food waste and reported that combined AD and post in-
cineration gave the best energetic and environmental performances for
Singapore. In comparing incineration with AD for the management of
bio-waste Di Maria and Micale [19] reported that the former gave the
lower impact.
All these findings indicate that, on one hand, there is a general
agreement about the positive role of MSWI and AD in energy recovery Fig. 1. Waste generation in 2010 and projection to 2025.

1558
F. Di Maria et al.
lack of data for full-scale plants, this option is only discussed and not
included in the present analysis. However, research trends and chal-
lenges are critically reviewed. Results of this study may serve as a useful
support for future legislation implementation in this specific sector.
2. Methodology
2.1. Expanded energy balance
Data concerning waste generation and its characteristics were re-
trieved from direct observations, current literature, official reports of
legal authorities and experimental measurements. A similar approach
was also used for assessing the performances of incineration and AD
facilities. In particular the present study also used data from the direct
observation of an existing incineration facility, which has been pro-
cessing non-hazardous waste in central Italy since the year 2000.
Assessment of the efficiency of the processes was performed by a life
cycle approach using the cumulative energy demand index (CED) (MJ).
Since CED assesses all the energy flows allocated to the production of a
good or a product, the CED of waste was defined as 0 MJ [21–23]. For
this reason, following an energy harvested based approach, the energy
content of bio-waste, based on its LHV (MJ/Mg), was included in the
definition of a new indicator, the hybrid primary energy index (HPE)
(MJ). This index uses both CED and the energy content of the waste on
its LHV basis, returning hybrid information about primary energy re-
placement, HPE < 0, or not, HPE > 0, from the energy content of the
waste. HPE quantification was based on the balances of the main mass
and energy flows (Fig. 2, Eq. (1)) represented by: The mass of waste
used (Mwaste) (Mg); the lower heating values of the waste (LHVwaste)
(MJ/Mg); the sum of all the CEDs associated with the materials and
energy flows entering the plant (∑CEDin) (MJ); the sum of all the CEDs
associated with the materials and energy at the plant outlet (-∑CEDout)
(MJ). Gurzenich et al. [20] already proposed a similar approach in
applying the CED for selected renewable energy technologies. In this
case they proposed an energy yield ratio as an index for evaluating the
energy system analyzed, in which the energy produced physically was
divided by the CED of the plant.
HPE = (Mwaste ·LHVwaste + ∑ CEDin− ∑ CEDout ) (MJ) (1)
Both incineration and AD require chemicals and other materials for
their operation, but they are also able to replace fossil fuels and other
raw materials. In particular incineration requires chemicals for flue gas
treatment, auxiliary fuels, energy and materials for the disposal of the
slags. AD requires materials for the operation and maintenance of the
gas engines, but returns a digestate exploitable as organic fertilizer able
to replace mineral ones such as N, P and K in the amounts reported by
[24–29] and further detailed in Section 3.2.4. Both AD and incineration
return electricity and heat able to replace those produced by other
primary energies. The primary energies considered by CED were
grouped as non-renewable and renewable (Table 1). The amount of
each primary energy consumed depends on the specific industrial
process considered and on the energy mix adopted in the area con-
sidered. Industrial processes were retrieved from the Ecoinvent 3.0
Fig. 2. Hybrid primary energy index (HPE) balance scheme for MSWI (a) and AD (b).
1559
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
Table 1
List of primary energies accounting for the cumulative energy demand (CED)
calculation.
Energy group Subcategory Primary energy included
Non-renewable Fossil Hard coal, lignite, crude oil, natural gas, coal
mining off-gas, peat
Nuclear Uranium
Primary forest Wood and biomass from primary forests
Renewable Biomass Wood, food products, biomass from agriculture
Wind Wind energy
Solar Solar energy (heat and electricity)
Geothermal Geothermal energy (100–300 m)
Water Run-of-river hydro power, reservoir hydro
power
database referring to the average EU industrial production system [30].
The average EU market of electrical and heat energy was considered as
the non-renewable and renewable primary energy replaced by the en-
ergy recovered from both incineration and AD [30]. Primary energy
consumption and replacement due to possible post treatment of the
slags from MSWI were not accounted for.
2.2. Bio-waste and EU legislation
According to the EC green paper [31], bio-waste is defined as
“biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from
households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable
waste from food processing plants. It does not include forestry or
agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable
waste such as natural textiles, paper or processed wood. It also excludes
those by-products from food production that never become waste.”. The
directives concerning the management of bio-waste are mainly the
Waste Framework Directive (WFD) [32], the Landfill Directive (LFD)
[33], and the Integrated Prevention Pollution Control Directive (IPPC)
[34]. The WFD indicates the recycling goals and the need to activate
dedicated collection services for bio-waste. LFD mandates Member
States to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste land-
filled. Finally the IPPC Directive, soon to be substituted by the In-
dustrial Emission Directive, also indicates measures to prevent and/or
reduce the emissions generated by waste management and treatment.
2.3. Chemical and physical characteristics of bio-waste
Bio-waste composition is affected by several factors such as climatic
conditions, geographical area, local traditions, and economic, social
and political aspects. The chemical and physical composition of bio-
waste is consequently affected by these factors. On the basis of the
findings reported in several studies focused on EU areas (Table 2),
moisture content (MC) (%w/w) and volatile solids (VS) expressed as%
of total solids (TS) range from about 44% w/w up to about 78% w/w
and from about 63%TS up to about 93%TS, respectively. The total or-
ganic carbon (TOC) concentration (%TS) ranges from about 6%TS up to
about 49%TS, whereas nitrogen, expressed as total Kjeldahl nitrogen
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Table 2
Main chemical and physical characterization of bio-waste.
References

Parameter [117] [28] [57] [118] [26] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [82] [124] [125]

MC (%w/w) 62 55.4–67.4 61.9 59.4 72.7 77.7 44.3 63–83 – 76.0 69.1 79.5 87.8
VS (%TS) 78 66.4–85.9 67.8 93.3 88.3 63.0 81–92 80.1–94 94.1 85.3 95.0 92.5
pH 5.3 5.7–7.2 6.7 6.6 4.97 4.32 – – – – – – 3.55
TOC (%TS) 6.0 33.7–41.1 31.6 32.5 29.9 49.1 – 45–52 45.7–54 54.0 46.78 51.4 51.0
TKN (%TS) 2.6 1.57–1.72 0.86 – 2.67 1.8 0.9 2.2–3.1 2.1–3.0 2.4 3.16 3.5 3.0
C/N 2.3 20.6–28.2 36.7 14.95 11.4 27.3 – 15.5–20.5 – 22.5 14.8 14.7 17.2
K2O (%TS) – 0.37–2.7 – – – – – 0.8–1.3 0.7–1.1 – 2.91 – –
P2O5 (%TS) – 1.3–8.6 – – – – – 0.3–0.6 0.3–0.7 0.09 – – –

(TKN), ranges from 0.9%TS to 2.7%TS. Concentrations of other nu-
trients with high fertilizing properties such as potassium, expressed as
K2O, and phosphorus, expressed as P2O5, range from about 0.37%TS to
about 8.6%TS.
2.4. Energy potential
Depending on the process used, i.e. incineration or AD, the energy
potential of bio-waste can be evaluated as lower heating value (LHV)
(kJ/kg) or as biomethane potential (BMP) NLCH4/kgVS. Both these
parameters are influenced by the chemical and physical composition of
the waste (Table 2) and by the nature of the organic compounds
(Table 3) as well as the technologies used and the main parameters at
which they are operated. Studies in the literature have reported a rather
wide range of values for BMP, from about 70 NLCH4/kgVS up to 530
NLCH4/kgVS. On the other hand the LHV has a narrower range from
about 5000 kJ/kg to about 7500 kJ/kg. Also empirical relationships
based both on proximate and ultimate analyses were proposed by
Cordero et al. [35] and Dong et al. [36] for evaluating the calorific
value of waste. The large variability reported for BMP indicates the
important role that other parameters (e.g. technology and process
parameters) have with respect to the simple physical and chemical
composition (Table 2) on AD performance (see Section 3.2). In the
following the LHV of the bio-waste was used for quantifying the HPE
(Eq. (1)) for both MSWI and AD.
3. Overview of current industrial technologies
3.1. Incineration with energy recovery
According to the directive 2000/76/EC [37], an incineration plant
is defined as: “any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment
dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery
of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by
oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as
pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances
resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated”. Of the
roughly 600 facilities operating worldwide [38], about 430 operate
only in the EU28 [15]. Direct combustion followed by energy recovery
of the heat generated is one of the most diffused and effective practices
even if other options like pyrolysis and gasification have been widely
proposed both in the literature and at the pilot/demonstration scale.
For this reason they are not included in this review. Depending on the
geographical area, climatic conditions and local legislation, these plants
can recover only electrical energy, only heat or both if operated in
combined heat and power mode [39]. The most diffused technical so-
lution is based on a waste combustor coupled with a Rankine steam
cycle [39]. Different combustors are currently available at the in-
dustrial level, such as: rotary kilns; fluidized bed; moving grates
(Fig. 3). These latter due to their high availability, flexibility and effi-
ciency represent > 85% of the technologies used worldwide (Fig. 3a) as
documented in the works of Grosso et al. [15], Tabasova et al. [16],
Cheng et al. [38], Griecco and Poggio [39] and Di Maria and Pavesi

2.5. CED for the inlet and outlet flows

Table 3
Lower heating values (LHV) (kJ/kg) and biomethane potential BMP (NLCH4/
The specific CED related to the unit of mass/energy of chemicals,
kgVS) for bio-waste.
mineral fertilizer, fuels and energy recovery was calculated on the basis
of the average EU industrial market as reported in Ecoinvent 3.0 [30] Parameters Reference
(Table 4). A similar procedure was also followed for the materials
LHV (kJ/kg) BMP (NLCH4/kgVS)
consumption due to gas engines for the energy recovery of the biogas
from AD and for disposal in landfill of the slags generated by in- 5050 – [19]
cineration. According to Wernet et al. [30] each Mg of slags disposed of – 211.5 [26]
requires 46.7 MJ of diesel, 0.285 kg of HDPE liners, and 160.4 kg of – 187–211 [126]
– 192–266 [127]
gravel and generates 0.025 Mg of leachate to be processed in waste- – 370 [81]
water treatment plant. The chemicals with the highest CED MJ/kg were – 200–250 [128]
activated carbon, NH3 and Ca(OH)2. The production of 1 kg of nitrogen, 7500 – [129]
phosphorous and potassium was evaluated as the industrial production 5510–6440 – [130]
354.3 · FC + 170.8 · VS* – [35]
of the equivalent amount of ammonium nitrate (NH4)(NO3), P2O5 and
– 564a [131]
K2O, respectively. Ammonium nitrate had an average CED of > 60 MJ/ 70–110 [132]
kg, practically two times that of P2O5 and about eight times higher than 81C + 342.5(H-O/8) + 22.5S-6(9H + MC) – [36]
that of K2O. – 530 [133]
Among the fuels coal had the lowest CED, about 31 MJ/kg, whereas – 277–482 [134]
– 546 [135]
natural gas and oil had about 56 MJ/kg and 47 MJ/kg, respectively. For
electrical and thermal energy production, the corresponding CEDs were Legend: FC = Fixed Carbon; C = Carbon (%wt); H = hydrogen (%wt);
based on an average thermal efficiency of power plants and of cen- S = Sulfur (%wt).
tralized heating systems at the EU level of 38% and 90%, respectively. * Higher Heating Value.
a
Biogas.

1560
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Table 4
Cumulative energy demand (CED) for chemicals, fertilizer, fuel energy production, biogas recovery and disposal in landfill of slags from incineration on the average
market in the EU [30].
Primary energy (MJ)

Fossil Nuclear Primary forest Biomass Renewable Water Total

Chemicals (1 kg)
Activated Carbon 102.8 8.26 0.00 1.91 0.52 1.32 114.8
NH3 40.04 0.90 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.27 41.41
CaCO3 1.360 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.760
HCl 14.63 7.30 0.00 1.05 0.46 1.28 24.72
Ca(OH)2 3.580 0.34 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.24 4.170
CaO 4.660 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.33 5.490
NaOH 13.97 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.11 1.00 15.22
NaHCO3 2.090 0.23 0.00 0.56 0.01 0.09 2.980
NaCl 10.31 1.90 0.00 0.57 0.13 0.73 13.65
CO(NH2)2 59.30 2.87 0.00 0.59 0.16 0.70 63.63

Fertilizer (1 kg)*
N as Amm.Nitrate 57.36 1.72 0.00 0.73 0.09 0.67 60.57
P as P2O5 28.86 1.47 0.01 0.56 0.09 0.54 31.54
K as K2O 7.080 0.34 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.14 7.790

Fuel
Oil (1 kg) 55.78 0.40 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.10 56.37
Nat. gas (1 N m3) 46.51 0.67 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.22 47.46
Coal (1 kg) 30.58 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.06 31.25

Energy (1 kWh)*
Electricity 5.42 3.80 0.00 0.44 0.21 0.68 10.56
Heat 4.10 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 4.210

Biogas recovery from AD

Electricity (1 kWh) 0.190 0.01 1E−5 0.010 0.00 0.010 0.220
CHP (1 kWh) 0.080 0.01 1E−5 0.003 4E−4 0.003 0.090

Slags disposal in landfill (1mkg)

Landfill 2.191 0.081 6E−5 0.028 0.007 0.061 2.368

* Replaced.

[40]. In past years the greatest concern about waste combustion was T ≥ 850 °C; residence time ≥2 s; free O2 ≥6%v/v.
due to its environmental and human health impact [39]. Presently, both In rotary kilns (Fig. 3b) the combustion process occurs in a rotating
stringent legislation on gaseous emissions [41] and modern gas cylindrical vessel with a length ranging from 5 to 10 m and a diameter
cleaning technologies have led new incineration plants to be among the from 1.5 m to 3 m. At a rotation speed of about 20–30 rpm the waste is
cleanest sources of energy [42]. mixed and moved from the inlet to the outlet section, also enhancing
the contact between the combustible material and the air. Excess air is
similar to that of the moving grates, but the higher thermal losses
3.1.1. Combustion technologies
through the walls of the combustion chamber limit the efficiency of the
Incinerator plants are made up of three main sections (Figs. 3 and
energy recovered. Adoption of this technology is limited, with a
4): The combustor; the energy recovery; the gas cleaning. In general the
share < 3%.
greatest differences are in the technology adopted for the first section
The most diffused fluidized bed combustors are the bubbling type
(Fig. 3).
(BFB) (Fig. 3c) where a bed of usually silica particles is slightly fluidized
In grate combustors (Fig. 3a) the waste is introduced into the feeder
by the air for primary combustion. The air is injected through nozzles
by a crane bridge and is then moved to the combustion chamber by
under the bed at a speed ranging from 1 m/s to 3 m/s. Also in this case
moving grates. The grates have a multi-functional purpose among
the secondary air is injected in the upper part of the combustion
which are: waste movement; waste stirring; primary combustion. Pri-
chamber. For circulating fluidized bed (CFB) (Fig. 3d), the primary air
mary combustion performed by the primary air introduced from the
is injected at a higher speed ranging from 3 m/s 6 m/s, for entraining
grate beneath can be divided into three main steps [16]: preheating
the silica bed. At the combustion chamber outlet the bed together with
aimed at reducing humidity and degassing; pyrolysis/gasification
the combustible particles is separated by a cyclone and reintroduced in
during which the waste is thermally degraded, generating gaseous and
the combustor. Due to higher residence time and turbulence the com-
tar compounds; oxidation during which the combustible compounds
bustion process is more efficient in CFB than in BFB. The main ad-
react with oxygen in the air. Gaseous, volatile and air-crafted com-
vantages of fluidized beds are: more uniform temperature throughout
bustible materials are oxidized in the combustion chamber, above the
the combustion chamber; higher exchange surface between solid par-
grate, where secondary air is injected (i.e. secondary combustion). Be-
ticles and gas; stable combustion operation; lower thermal NOx emis-
fore entering the heat recovery section, the flue gasses undergo a third
sions due to temperature uniformity; higher combustion efficiency. In
combustion stage performed in the post-combustion chamber, also ne-
spite of these advantages both BFB and CFB require somewhat relevant
cessary for removing pollutants such as unburned compounds and
pre-treatment of the waste aimed at removing impurities, and reducing
PCDD/PCDF. For limiting high temperature corrosion, mainly due to
humidity and size [45].
chlorine compounds, the maximum temperature in the combustion
After the combustor the flue gas heat is exchanged in the heat re-
chamber is maintained at < 1150 °C [43,44] usually by adopting a
covery steam generator (HRSG) (Fig. 4). The average pressure and
large excess of combustion air, up to 150%. Current EU legislation
temperature of the superheated steam are 40 bar and 400 °C, respec-
concerning non-hazardous waste imposes minimum values for the fol-
tively. To avoid low temperature corrosion due to the presence mainly
lowing parameters to be maintained in the post combustion chamber:

1561
F. Di Maria et al.
Fig. 3. Moving grate (a), rotary kiln (b), bubbling fluidized bed (c) and circulating fluidized bed (d) combustor schemes.
of SO2, the minimum temperature at the HRSG outlet is usually >
200 °C. In larger size facilities the evaporation section (EV) can be
partially or totally embedded in the combustion and post-combustion
chambers, carrying out heat recovery also based on irradiation rather
than exclusively convection. Power generation is usually based on the
Rankine cycle that can also be operated in the combined heat and
power (CHP) mode [15,16,46]. Different configurations are possible for
CHP such as steam bleeding or backpressure turbine. Since the in-
troduction of the energy efficiency formula by the latest WFD [32], CHP
has been greatly encouraged. After the HRSG the flue gases enter the
gas cleaning section aimed at removing acid compounds, nitrogen
oxide, heavy metals and Hg, fly ash and other PCDD/PCDF residues
[39,42,46].
3.1.2. Performances
The amount of electrical energy and heat recovered from the com-
bustion of waste is influenced by several factors. Among these the most
relevant ones are: incinerator size; technology; LHV and moisture
content of the waste; the age and level of maintenance of the facility;
specific legal constraints and the geographical area (Table 5). In general
the geographical area plays an important role on both plant perfor-
mance and operational mode, i.e. only electricity recovery or CHP. As
reported by CEWEP [47], facilities operating in south-western Europe,
where climatic conditions are unfavorable for the efficient exploitation
1562
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
of heat, had a higher share of plants recovering only electrical energy
than plants located in Central and Northern Europe (Table 5). On the
contrary incinerators operating in Northern Europe are largely operated
in CHP mode and recover the highest amount of heat per Mg of waste
processed.
Several studies have been performed to evaluate the energy effi-
ciency of incinerator plants. Concerning Ireland, Murphy and McKeogh
[48] reported a gross electrical efficiency (ηel) ranging from about 18%
to about 20%. When including internal consumption, the net ηel drops
to about 15%. For Danish incinerators processing about 230,000 Mg/
year of waste a ηel of 20.7% and a thermal efficiency (ηth) of 74.0% was
reported by Turconi et al. [49]. The same authors reported ηel = 24.2%
and ηth = 5.5% for an Italian WtE plant processing about 450,000 Mg/
year of waste.
In analyzing several full-scale MSWI, Lombardi et al. [50] reported
gross electrical efficiencies ranging from about 27.0% to 34.5% and net
efficiencies ranging from 20% to about 30%. This indicates the no-
ticeable effect of the internal consumption of the plant on the global
efficiency. Similar values concerning average electrical and thermal
efficiency of 19.4% and 65.4%, respectively, were reported by Münster
and Lund [51] for Danish incinerators. Concerning the global efficiency
(i.e. electrical and thermal) of existing plants, the main results of the
studies reported by CEWEP [47], EEW [52] and ISWA [53] gave the
following average values: 84% for plants located in Northern EU; 43%
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Fig. 4. Schematic of the moving grate waste-to-energy (WtE) plant and main components. (HRSG = heat recovery steam generator – EV = evaporator – SH = super
heater – ECO = economizer – BS = basic reactor – FF = fabric filters).

Table 5
Amount of waste processed, gross energy recovered and efficiencies of incineration facilities.
Waste (Mg/year) Technology Electricity (MWh) Heat (MWh) ηel(%) ηth(%) Location Reference

Gross Net

85,566 MG 92,207 0 – – – IT [11]

239,871 MG 225,350 112,797 – – – IT [11]
41,898 MG 16,228 0 – – – IT [11]
49,536 RK 26,255 0 – – – IT [11]
61,123 FB 52,726 108,593 – – – IT [11]
686,575 MG 572,760 848,184 – – – IT [11]
230,000 MG 122,993 439,683 – 20.7 74.0 DK [49]
Variable – 0.570a 0.328a 21.0a – 12.1a SW-EU [47]
Variable – 0.419a 0.800a 14.8a – 28.3a Central EU [47]
Variable – 0.362a 2.381a 11.0a – 72.6a North-EU [47]
144,970 – 31,734 0 – – – Taiwan [134]
303,555 – 179,605 0 Taiwan [134]
84,536 – 20,186 0 – – – Taiwan [134]
137,324 CFB 46,170 0 – 13.5–15.8 – China [135]
530,000 MG 507,912 0 34.5 30 – A [14]
– MG – – – 20.6 – SW [136]
Variable MG – – 26.63–30.2 – – USA [137]
43,000 MG 18,000 0 16.5 – – IT [17]
100,000 MG 119,600–124,800 428,350 27.9–29.13 24.3–25.3 – – [39]
68,729–98,525 FB 50,200–70,500 – – 16.5 – – [40]
140,000 MG 84,000 503,000 – – – DE [52]
160,000 MG 90,000 49,000 – – – DE [52]
180,000 MG 101,000 23,000 – – – DE [52]
89,123 MG 49,600–37,900b 20,500 – – – A [53]
350,962 MG 226,337–199,093b – – – – B [53]
232,895 MG 71,174 588,130 – – – CZ [53]
37,417–44,358 MG 16,500–18,00 – 17.0 6.0 – IT This study

A = Austria; B = Belgium; CZ = Czech Republic; IT = Italy; DK = Denmark; DE = Germany; SW = Switzerland; MG = Moving grate; RK = Rotary kiln;
FB = Fluidised bed; CFB = Circulating fluidised bed.
a
Average MWh/Mg.
b
Sold.

1563
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Table 6 3.2. Anaerobic digestion

Chemicals and auxiliary fuel consumption for incineration.
References The main organic compounds degraded by microbial guilds during
AD are lipids, proteins and carbohydrates [5,21]. There are four main
Material/ [49] [49] [57] [138] This study [139] [139] [30] physiologically different microbial groups involved in the process:
Fuel (kg/Mg) primary fermenting microbes that hydrolyze complex organic com-
Activated 0.83 0.63 2.50 – 0.36–0.54 0.2 0.2 – pounds, generating mainly alcohols, short-chain fatty acids, organic
carbon acids and long chain fatty acids; secondary fermenting microbes that
NH3 – 1.50 – – – – – 0.699 oxidize these products to acetate, H2 and CO2. The methanogenic
CaCO3 – 4.00 – – – – – – pathway is substantially based on aceticlastic and hydrogenotrophic
HCl 0.23 – – – – – 0.057
metabolisms [55,56]. The former, contributing to about 70% of the
Ca(OH)2 – 3.00 3.20 21.3 14.6–16.3 5.525 5.56 3.28
CaO – – 2.50 – – – – – whole methane generation, oxidizes acetate into CH4 and CO2. The
NaOH 0.23 1.10 – – – – – 1.12 latter, contributing about 30%, converts H2 and CO2 into methane.
NaHCO3 16.8 – – – – – – – Other methanogenic pathways are possible, e.g. based on the use of
NaClO 0.19 – – – – – – –
other fatty acids such as formate, but they are negligible compared to
CO(NH2)2 0.86 – 3.00 5.46 4.74–11.6 – – –
Fuel 8.7a 0.4a 36b – 0.4–2.2a 1.19a 1.00a–200c 130.7b
the previous ones. Syntrophic metabolism able to shift the methano-
genesis pathway from aceticlastic to hydrogenotrophic can be stimu-
a
Oil (44 MJ/kg). lated under particular environmental conditions characterized by high
b
MJ Natural gas (34.5 MJ/N m3). concentrations of ammonia and volatile fatty acids. According to the
c
Coal (28 MJ/kg). taxonomic classification, microbial guilds, providing hydrolysis, fatty
acids, acetate and hydrogen, belong to the Bacteria kingdom [57].
Methanogenic microbes, able to convert acetate and hydrogen to me-
thane, belong to the Archaea kingdom. Hydrolysis is generally a rate-
for plants located in Central EU; 33% for plants located in Southwestern limiting step in anaerobic digestion [58]. Otherwise, as reported by
EU. Even if the global efficiency is potentially the same for all the plants Garcia-Pena et al. [59], for cellulose-poor substrates, the rate-limiting
operating in these areas, the lower figures reported for Central and step is by methanogenesis.
Southwest EU are due to climatic and urban constraints that limit the
viability of heating districts fed by the heat recovered from incinerators. 3.2.1. Main operational parameters for AD
The gas treatment system is one of the main sections of WtE plants able Several chemical and physical parameters (e.g. pH, alkalinity, tem-
to influence its net efficiency to a relevant degree [39] (Table 6). perature, retention time, organic loading rate, total solids concentra-
In general, lime Ca(OH)2 and activated carbon are the chemicals tion) can influence the AD process.
most used for acid compounds and heavy metal removal, respectively. The metabolism and growth of microbial populations are sig-
NOx is usually removed by injecting urea CO(NH2)2, both in catalytic nificantly influenced by pH. In general Archaea methanogens are ex-
and non-catalytic reactions, even if the use of ammonia has been re- tremely sensitive, whereas Bacteria have a higher tolerance to changes
ported for some full-scale facilities [30,49]. The maintenance of in pH. The pH range tolerated varies from 6.5 to 8.5 with the optimum
minimum temperature values imposed by EU legislation, in particular being around 7.4 [60]. pH values can be influenced by the presence of
in the post-combustion chamber and the shutdown and startup phases, heavy metals, but also by the acidogenesis and acetogenesis steps
requires the use of fuels other than waste [54]. Usually these are natural particularly when digesters are operated at higher total solids (TS)
gas, oil, coal and/or diesel, even if natural gas and diesel are the most concentrations (> 15%) [61,62] (see Section 3.2.2). At TS > 18% the
exploited ones in the EU [30]. mass transfer efficiency starts to decrease significantly generating

Fig. 5. Scheme of wet (a), dry (Valorga) (b), dry (Dranco) (c), dry (Compogas) (d) and solid anaerobic digestion batch (e) digesters.

1564
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

inhibition of the methanogenic phase. 3.2.2. Technologies for AD

From the industrial point of view, the anaerobic digestion process is
performed at mesophilic (i.e. 35 °C ± 2 °C) or at thermophilic (i.e.
55 °C ± 2 °C) temperatures [63]. In general in thermophilic conditions
microbial activity is enhanced, leading to a higher consumption rate of
the degradable substrate and hence to a higher rate in the daily gen-
eration of biogas and methane [63,64]. Hydrolysis is more efficient at
thermophilic conditions such as acetate oxidation, whereas both acet-
iclastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogenic pathways are less favor-
able [58,65]. Thermophilic conditions increase the death rate of pa-
thogens, giving a digestate with a higher level of sanitation, but also the
presence of free ammonia, which could lead to process inhibition. In
general mesophilic processes cause lower inhibition risk compared to
the thermophilic process [66,67].
Other relevant operational parameters for AD are hydraulic reten-
tion time (HRT) (days) and the organic loading rate (kgVS/m3 day).
HRT indicates the average length of time that the substrate remains
inside the digester; it is calculated as the volume of the digester (m3) to
the volume of substrate fed daily (m3/day) to the digester [68–70]. A
reduction in HRT has been shown to cause an increase in the amount of
sludge treated per unit of volume of the digester, but also an increase in
the size of the microbial population, in particular methanogens, re-
moved from the reactor (i.e. wash out). An HRT < 5 days has been
shown to reduce process efficiency as a consequence of excessive wash
out. The maximum methane and biogas rate has generally been ob-
tained for an HRT of about 10 days [68,69]. Organic loading rate (OLR)
indicates the amount of organic compounds (kgVS) fed daily per unit of
volume of the digester.
An increase in OLR leads to an increase in the biogas and bio-
methane rate generable per unit of volume of the digester, but it also
leads to an increase in the risk of inhibition due to volatile fatty acids
accumulation [26,61]. In general an OLR > 4 kgVS/m3 day generates
strong inhibition [60,70]. Optimum OLR values have been found to be
around 2.5 kgVS/m3 day.
Full-scale technologies for AD can be divided into three main groups
on the basis of the TS concentration admissible in the digester
[5,26,71]: wet technologies with TS ≤ 15%w/w; dry technologies with
15% w/w ≤ TS < 20% w/w; solid anaerobic digestion batch (SADB)
technologies with 20%w/w < TS ≤ 40%w/w.
In general industrial-scale wet (Fig. 5a) and dry (Fig. 5b–d) facilities
are equipped with continuous flow and continuously stirred digesters,
whereas SADB is performed by several static “garage type” batch di-
gesters (from 6 to 14) operating in parallel [5] (Fig. 5e). In the EU there
are 244 AD facilities processing about 7,750,000 Mg/year of bio-waste
[71]. Specific treatment capacities range from about 10,000 Mg/year
up to about 52,000 Mg/year. Of these facilities 67% are operated at
mesophilic (35 ± 2 °C) and 33% at thermophilic (55 ± 2 °C) condi-
tions. More than 90% are equipped with single-phase digesters (i.e.
93%) and only 7% are equipped with two-phase digesters. In general
two-phase digesters are aimed at separating the acidogenesis phase,
where strong inhibition to methanogens can occur, from the metha-
nogenesis phase. Two-phase digesters can also be adopted when con-
temporaneous generation of hydrogen and methane is pursued and
when the first stage is operated at particularly high TS concentrations
[72,73]. Dry processes operating with a TS > 15%w/w had 62% of the
market share in 2014, with a 70% share for new installations from 2009
to 2014. The driving forces of this high market share for dry processes
were by: lower need for pre-treatment for conditioning solid waste to
suitable conditions of the digester [74,75]; lower production of liquid
digestate that is a relevant legal and economic constraint in many EU
areas; a high specific methane and biogas yield [76].
3.2.3. Performances
A large number of AD facilities are equipped with CHP based on
internal combustion engine, ranging from 100 kW to 1000 kW, for the
energy recovery of the biogas [77]. A fraction of the heat recovered
from CHP is used for maintaining the internal temperature of the

Table 7
Main features of AD facilities processing bio-waste.
Digester type T (°C) TS (%w/w) HRT (day) Waste (Mg/year) CH4 (N m3/kgVS) Biogas (m3) Energy (MWh) Reference

FS1, ST, DRY, C, CSTR – – – 34,402 – 3,810,430 5166 [11]

FS – – – 61,514 – 3,929,957 7800 [11]
FS, 1ST, SADB, B 35 – – 43,649 – 3852a 10,966 [11]
FS – – – 80,000 – 13,472,000 34,398 [11]
FS – – – 337,772 – 27,516,789 65,336 [11]
FS – – – 342,000 – 43,991,639 105,462 [11]
LS, 2ST 35–55 – 20 – 64–61b 0.705–0.997c – [81]
LS, 1ST, B 50 – 10–28 – 73b – 27.2d [82]
LS, 1ST, B 35 – 20–60 – – 0.49c – [80]
PS, 1ST, SS, B 35 27.3 74 – 0.212 – – [26]
PS, 1ST, SS, B 35 35.2–51.3 30 – 60b 0.180–0.450c – [27]
FS, 1ST, DRY, C, CSTR 36.7 23 40–60 52,000 0.400–56b 180e – [74]
FS, 1ST, DRY, C, CSTR – – 20–55 50,000 0.192–0.266 – – [125]
FS, 1ST, DRY, C, CSTR – 31 – 20,000 0.17–0.32 135e – [74]
FS, 1ST, DRY, C, CSTR –– 35–45 25–30 35,000 0.22–0.35 126e – [74]
LS, 2ST, B 1 – 0.530–70b – – [132]
LS, 1ST, SS, B, CSTR 55 20–30 10–28 – 0.440 0.600c – [80]
FS, 1ST, WET, C – – 80 – 0.399 0.643c – [140]
FS, 1ST, DRY, C 55 – 21 – – 250e – [141]
– – – – 13,000 73b 1,800,000 4000 [142]
– – – – 40,000 3,000,000f 4,700,000 – [142]
– – – – 64,702 4,111,000f 7,400,000 – [142]
– – – – 22,000 1,000,000f 1,700,000 – [142]

Legend: FS = Full scale; LS = Lab scale; PS = Pilot scale 1ST = single stage; 2ST = two stage; DRY = dry; B: Batch; C = continuous; SADB = solid anaerobic di-
gestion batch; CSTR = continuously stirred reactor.
a
Mg.
b
%v/v.
c
m3/kgVS.
d
MJ/m3.
e
m3/Mg TS.
f
Bio-methane.

1565
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

digesters to the fixed level (i.e. mesophilic or thermophilic). bio-waste processed, to be used for calculating the HPE (MJ/Mg) (Eq.
In general for CHP a global efficiency of 85% has been reported with (1)). As reported in Tables 4 and 5, full-scale incineration facilities can
a power to heat ratio ranging from 0.64 to 0.383 [78,79]. Specific be grouped on the basis of their size, expressed as the amount of waste
electrical energy recovered per Mg of bio-waste processed ranged from processed per year and on the basis of the energy recovery scheme.
about 130 kWh/Mg to about 430 kWh/Mg (Table 7). On the other hand Concerning the former aspect, it is possible to have: Small-scale facil-
the specific biogas generation per Mg of waste processed ranged from ities with an average amount of waste processed per year from about
about 65 m3/Mg to about 180 m3/Mg [14,74]. In other studies on lab- 40,000 Mg/year to 80,000 Mg/year with an average net ηel of about
scale and pilot-scale tests, the specific biogas generation ranged from 10%; Medium-size facilities processing up to 200,000 Mg/year with an
about 0.18 m3/kgVS to 0.49 m3/kgVS [27,80]. Methane generation average net ηel of about 20%; large-size plants processing > 200,000
ranged from 0.17 m3/kgVS to 0.400 m3/kgVS [26,74] with a methane Mg/year with am average net ηel of about 30%. For the latter aspect it
concentration in the biogas ranging from about 56%v/v up to 73% v/v is possible to have plants recovering only electrical energy and plants in
[81,82]. CHP mode.
Another option of increasing interest for biogas exploitation is by For those plants operating according to the CHP scheme, as reported
upgrading to biomethane for injection in the natural gas grid or for for several cases in northern Europe, where heat recovery is privileged,
exploitation as fuel for transport. Biogas upgrading consists sub- the amount of electricity recovered may be less (i.e. lower ηel). In any
stantially of removing all the non-methane compounds and pollutants case an average value of the global average efficiency achievable is
in order to return a gas with a methane concentration usually > 95%v/ about ηel + ηth = 85%.
v. Presently this option is quite implemented in Germany and France There was less difference regarding the size of the full-scale AD
even if mainly in the biomass sector. The most diffused technologies for facilities, making their classification on the basis of the technology
biogas upgrading are by: pressurized wet scrubbing; amine adsorption; more relevant (i.e. wet, dry and SADB). From the energy point of view
pressure swing adsorption; membrane permeation [83,84]. The first full-scale AD was largely oriented toward the recovery of only electrical
two methods are based on the absorption principle for transferring the energy with marginal exploitation of the heat mainly for controlling the
non-methane compounds such as CO2, H2S and NH3 to the liquid phase. temperature of the digesters (i.e. 35 °C or 55 °C). In any case the amount
Pressurized wet scrubbing is a reversible process based on the ex- of heat recoverable was also analyzed in this case by assuming a global
ploitation of pressurized water. Amine adsorption uses solvents such as efficiency of ηel + ηth = 85%.
alkanolamines, monomethanolamine, diethanolamine or methyl- There were higher average values for the CEDin for incinerators
diethanolamine having a high adsorption selectivity for CO2. Pressure (Fig. 6a) for auxiliary fuels, slag disposal and CO(NH2)2. In any case
swing adsorption is mainly based on adsorption processes performed by both the values of auxiliary fuels and CO(NH2)2 were characterized by a
adsorbents such as zeolite, activated molecular sieved, silica gel and relevant difference between the maximum and the minimum values,
activated carbon. These adsorbents are designed to have a specific pore indicating that many factors can influence these values (e.g. technology,
size thus enabling selective adsorption of non-methane compounds. maintenance, age of the plant, waste quality). Quite high variability
Membrane permeation operates as a molecular sieve principle where was also detected for the values of CEDout (Fig. 6b) represented by
smaller sized molecules, such as CO2 and H2O, pass through the electricity and the energy recovered by plants operating in CHP mode.
membrane, whereas larger sizes, such as CH4 remain trapped in the In general the larger is the size of the incineration facility, the higher
methane enriched flow (i.e. bio-methane). Different materials can be are the maximum values of the energy recoverable from waste com-
used for membranes, like polyamide, poly-sulfone, cellulose acetate and bustion. Energy recovered by larger size facilities, processing >
polyaryl-ether-ketone-ketone. 200,000 Mg/year, also had greater difference between the maximum
and the minimum values of the corresponding CEDout.
3.2.4. Fertilizer recovery from digestate The main primary energy inputs for AD (CEDin) were from those
Digestate returned after AD is an important source of fertilizers and required for the production of the amount of materials necessary for
can be used directly on land according to the recovery operation “R10- operating the gas engines, both for exclusive electricity recovery and for
Land treatment recovery operation, providing benefits to agriculture or CHP (Fig. 7a). The avoided consumption of primary energy (CEDout)
ecological improvement” [32]. This can result in an important contribu- due to the avoided production of mineral fertilizer and energy replaced
tion to replacing mineral fertilizers and related primary energy con- by the organic fertilizer and the energy recovered by AD, respectively,
sumption. The chemical and physical features of the digestate vary are reported in Fig. 7b and c. Concerning energy recovery, both wet and
according to the composition of the bio-waste and the AD technology dry technologies had very similar figures, which were higher than those
used. For the dry AD of source-segregated bio-waste, Bolzonella et al. of SADB.
[74] reported some 600 kg of digestate per Mg of bio-waste fed with TS The lesser difference in plant size, in particular concerning both the
of about 17%. Pognani et al. [85] reported an inlet TS concentration of amount of waste processed and of the energy recovered leads to less
42% and an outlet TS concentration of 32% for a dry digester. Zhang difference between the maximum and minimum values of both CEDin
et al. [86] reported a TS concentration for bio-waste digestate of about
13%. Also the fertilizer content of the digestate was influenced by si- Table 8
milar factors (Table 8). The nitrogen concentration reported in the Fertilizer recovery from the digestate.
works of Zhang et al. [86], Tambone et al. [87] and Pognani et al. [88] References
as in Teglia et al.[24], Massaccesi et al. [28] and Tambone et al. [29]
varied from 0.1%TS to > 15%TS. The same authors reported a con- Nutrients [29] [29] [28] [28] [28] [87] [88] [86] [24]
centrations of phosphorous and potassium expressed as P2O5 and K2O, (%TS)
respectively, ranged from about 0.04%TS to 1.24%TS. TOC 39.7 41.2 13.6 45.9 38.6 37.7 37.7 – 37.8–39.7
TKN 1.35 0.86 1.57 1.54 1.03 11.0 11.0 0.48 13.5–15.1
4. Results and discussion NH3-N 0.87 0.54 0.12a 0.11a 0.12a 0.68 0.67 0.22 63–68c
C/N 8 13 8.30 29.8 37.5 3.43 – – –
P2O5 0.17 0.53 0.13 0.72 1.24 – 0.27 0.45b –
4.1. HPE analysis
K2O 0.59 0.67 0.15 0.04 0.16 – – – –

Based on the data reported in Tables 5 and 6 for incineration, and in a

NH4+.
Tables 7 and 8 for AD together with the CED values reported in Table 4, b
Total P.
c
it was possible to calculate the CEDin and CEDout (Fig. 2) for each Mg of % of TKN.

1566
F. Di Maria et al. Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572

Fig. 6. Input (a) and output (b) values of the cumulative energy demand (CED) for each Mg of bio-waste processed in incineration.

and CEDout for AD with respect to those for incineration. In particular
the engines used for the energy recovery of the biogas were generally
internal combustion ones with a maximum electrical output of about
1 MW characterized by very similar values for the efficiency and for the
operating and maintenance needs.
Minimum and maximum values of the CEDin and CEDout (Figs. 6 and
7) together with minimum and maximum values of LHVwaste (Table 3)
were combined for calculating the range of possible HPE (Eq. (1)) re-
lated to MSWI and AD (Fig. 8).
Results concerning incinerators (Fig. 8a) were characterized by a
high range of values of HPE (MJ/Mg). In practice both smaller size and
larger size plants recovering only electricity had a positive HPE value
(MJ/Mg), indicating that no primary energies were effectively replaced
by the energy content of the waste. Incinerator sizes > 80,000 Mg/year
perform slightly better than those processing < 80,000 Mg/year, but
the differences were not so relevant. There were different results for
operating in CHP mode. In this case the range of HPE (MJ/Mg) < 0 was
greater also for those plants processing < 80,000 Mg/year. Lower HPE
(MJ/Mg) was achieved by larger size facilities for which about 65% of
the HPE (MJ/Mg) values was < 0. All this indicates that larger size
plants operating in CHP mode are of fundamental importance for im-
proving the ability of incinerators to effectively replace primary

Fig. 7. Input (a) and output (b, c) values of the cumulative energy demand (CED) for each Mg of bio-waste processed in anaerobic digestion (AD).

1567
F. Di Maria et al.
Fig. 8. Ranges of values for the hybrid primary energy (HPE) index expressed as MJ/Mg of bio-waste for incineration (a) and for anaerobic digestion (AD) (b).
energies by exploiting the LHV of the waste. In fact, ηth is from 2 to 3
times higher than the ηel, making heat recovery a key factor to be
coupled with efficient electrical energy recovery for achieving negative
HPE values (MJ/Mg). According to Fig. 8a the implementation of CHP,
whenever possible, is highly recommended for all existing plants.
The positive effect of CHP was also confirmed for AD, but with
lesser ability to achieve negative HPE values (MJ/Mg). The SADB
technology was characterized by HPE > 0 for both only electrical
energy recovery and CHP. This was the consequence of the lower
amount of biogas generated per Mg of bio-waste processed compared to
wet and dry processes. Negative values of HPE were found for a very
limited range of possible operating conditions for wet and dry CHP
processes. Such results were mainly influenced by the lower amount of
energy recoverable per Mg of bio-waste by AD, when compared to that
recoverable by the incinerators, leading to significantly lower values of
the respective CEDout (Figs. 6b and 7c). The other CEDout represented
by replacement of primary energies due to the avoided production of
mineral fertilizers (Fig. 7b) replaced with the organic ones contained in
the digestate gave a marginal influence in determining HPE. Also for
AD the effective exploitation of the heat arising from the gas engines by
adopting CHP plants is recommended, and this is a key solution for
effectively exploiting the energy of the bio-waste for replacing primary
energies (i.e. HPE (MJ/Mg) < 0).
4.2. Research trends and challenges
At the present time, the topics most investigated on the thermal
treatment of waste are: treatments and effects of pollutant emissions;
the role of WtE in waste management; improvement of energy recovery.
Concerning pollutants, most research has focused on fly ash and poly-
chlorinated di-benzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). Fly ashes
are generally classified as hazardous waste due to high concentrations
of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and for their
high contribution to PM2.5 production. PCDD/Fs are one of main im-
peding factors for the implementation of incineration, even if current
flue gas cleaning technologies are able to remove them with an effi-
ciency > 99%. There is also growing research interest in combined
pollution from fly ashes [89]. Despite the noticeable research activity
about PCDD/Fs, their formation and the ratio between homogenous and
heterogeneous compounds are quite unclear and debatable, indicating
the need for further research [90]. The role of incineration in waste
management has been extensively investigated mainly by the life cycle
assessment approach for analyzing related gains and burdens. In this
field more research is necessary for both the choice of assessment
methods and inventory implementation [45]. The ability of WtE to
recover the energy content of waste depends on many factors such as
1568
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
waste composition, technology, and the energy recovery process. In
accordance with the results of the present study, combustion processes
operating in CHP mode are the most efficient solution. By the way,
Münster and Lund [51] recommended supporting more research ac-
tivity for gasification, aimed at producing fuels from waste. Gasification
of waste is credited by several authors as an economic and en-
vironmentally sustainable technology even if technical and economic
problems mainly related to syngas cleaning are still not solved [91].
Another big issue limiting the energy efficiency of WtE is the corrosion
occurring at high and low temperatures due to the presence of Cl and S
compounds in the combustion gasses [92,93]. Consequently both
maximum and minimum temperature levels are limited to about
1100 °C and 180 °C, respectively. This noticeably affects the efficiency
of superheated Rankine cycles used for energy recovery. Considerable
research activity for solving this aspect should also focus on new ma-
terials able to resist such critical and aggressive environments.
Currently research trends concerning AD [62] focus on the fol-
lowing four main areas: identification of the dynamics of microbial
guilds during the process; extension of existing AD models by inclusion
of microbial guilds data; further optimization of pre-treatment methods
to enhance anaerobic biodegradability of substrate; upgrading and
purification of the biogas. AD is a complex and multi-step microbial
process during which different microbial guilds cooperate [94]. Con-
sequently the studies performed on monocultures, batch and lab-scale
runs are not adequate for a deep investigation of such processes. Dif-
ferent techniques proposed and currently used for this goal are: Com-
bined 16S ribosomal RNA gene clone library sequencing and dot blot
hybridization [95]; Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE)
and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [95–97]; Fluorescence in situ
hybridization (FISH) [98]. The most advanced methods based on high
throughput sequencing (HTS) were used by Di Maria et al. [57] for
investigating differences in microbial communities and methanogenic
pathways for dry and wet AD of bio-waste. Even if some metabolic
pathways have been identified and classified as suitable for improving
AD performances there is still a lack of knowledge on the full classifi-
cation of microbes and on their related functions.
Development of adequate models that can help to improve the
performances of the digester are another relevant field of investigation
[62,99]. The International Water Association Anaerobic Digestion Task
Group developed the anaerobic digestion model N° 1 (ADM1) [100],
making a great effort for unification and synthesis of the different ap-
proaches proposed in the literature. ADM1 is the state-of-the-art and is
able to predict several anaerobic digestion processes. Furthermore,
various issues are still unresolved: the ability to model accurately hy-
drolysis that is greatly simplified and based on a first order approach;
specific models concerning the AD of bio-waste and its co-digestion
F. Di Maria et al.
with other substrates are lacking; micro-organisms performing the same
reaction are not distinguished, resulting in a lack of accuracy in re-
producing the experiment.
In general some basic compounds of biodegradable substrates,
mainly lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose have a low level of de-
gradation during AD. In some cases this limits, in a not negligible way,
the amount of biogas and methane generated, affecting the whole en-
ergy efficiency and viability of the plant. For this reason pre-treatments
aimed at disintegrating the substrate structure and hence enhancing its
degradation by microbial anaerobic guilds have been largely in-
vestigated. The disintegration processes proposed were based on phy-
sical [101], chemical [102,103], thermal [104,105] and biological
[106,107] processes, but no clear indication about intensity and dosage
has been currently provided. Furthermore many authors use soluble
COD as a parameter for assessing the efficiency of pre-treatments even
if no unambiguous relationship has been shown between soluble COD
and biogas generation [108].
Novel frontiers for energy recovery from biogas are presently re-
presented by upgrading it to valuable fuels such as bio-methane, ef-
fectively exploitable for substitution of fossil natural gas, particularly in
the transport sector [109].
Several methods have been proposed and analyzed for biogas up-
grading such as waste absorption, swing pressure adsorption, cryogenic
processes [110] and semipermeable membranes [111]. The latter
technology seems to be not fully understood and more research is
needed. It is also worth noting emerging and integrated upgrading
methods based on enhancement of the bio-methane concentration and
the amount in the biogas during AD as the integration of dark fer-
mentation and electro-methanogenesis (Fig. 9). Dark fermentation,
generally used for bio-hydrogen production, is an effective pre-treat-
ment for returning a substrate able to improve methane generation
when exploited in the methanogenic phase of AD [107]. Electro-me-
thanogenesis exploited low voltage for stimulating autotrophic me-
thane formation during AD (Eq. (1)) [108].
CO2 + 8H+ + 8e− → CH 4 + 2H2 O (1)
Other emerging research trends concern the role of AD as a relevant
part of bio-refinery processes aimed at producing fuels and/or chemi-
cals able to replace fossil fuels in different sectors such as the chemical,
pharmaceutical and food industries [112].
Fig. 9. Scheme of innovative biogas pre-upgrading by integrated dark fermentation (DF) and electro-methanogenesis.
1569
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
4.3. Political aspects
The socio-economic context is a relevant driver for policy and de-
cision makers in several activities such as that of waste management.
The UE28 is a leading area in this sector with broad and fully im-
plemented legislation concerning the larger concept of environmental
protection and sustainable development. Many directives have been
successfully implemented for this goal ranging from renewable energy
production [2,3], pollution prevention control in the industrial sector
[34], waste management [32,33] and the circular use of resources [7].
Both MSWI and AD are multitasking technologies able to pursue the
legal goals imposed by the current legislation in all these sectors. In
particular waste management is also regarded as a strategic sector for
promoting the circular use of resources since it determines how the
waste hierarchy is put into practice. The waste hierarchy establishes an
order of priority from waste prevention to reuse, recycling, recovery
and disposal. The core of the hierarchy is to promote the best use as
possible of the waste materials for replacing raw resources. Nowadays
AD is ranked as a recycling operation, if the digestate is effectively used
on soil, whereas MSWI can be ranked as recovery, instead of a disposal
operation (i.e. lower level) if performed at high energy efficiency [32].
This is a consequence of the political choice of considering the re-
placement of mineral fertilizer (i.e. N, K, P) from the digestate as a
recycling operation even if there is clear evidence that, based on the
current EU28 energy mix, energy recovery generates higher environ-
mental benefits. By the way this goal nowadays is successfully pursued
by another largely diffused aerobic biological process, composting.
Referring 2016, more than 3000 composting facilities cross the EU
processed > 40% of the bio-waste generated instead of about 10%
processed by the 244 AD plants [11]. This is also the consequence of the
high investment and management costs of AD compared to composting
that makes the former technology viable only if there is the possibility
of an adequate economic added value to the energy recovered. Fur-
thermore, from the vast literature reviewed, there is no definitive evi-
dence of the environmental advantages of AD in processing bio-waste
compared to composting and MSWI.
Based on this scenario the main role of AD, also in the waste sector,
is still the recovery of renewable energy, which is a central aspect of the
EU energy and environmental policy [113]. Renewable energy recovery
also implies the replacement of raw resources (i.e. fossil fuels) in line
with the core of the waste hierarchy. From this perspective the results
of the present study indicate that MSWI has a higher potential for
F. Di Maria et al.
resource replacement particularly if managed according to a CHP
scheme.
Promotion of CHP is also coherent with the current EU legislation
on MSWI [32] as depicted by the “Energy Efficiency” formula (Eq. (2))
introduced in 2008. Only MSWI with an energy efficiency ≥0.6 or
≥0.65, depending on the year of first operation, can be classified as
facilities performing a recovery operation (R1) thus able to replace
fossil fuels.
Ep−(Ei + Ef )
Energy efficiency = ·KC ⩾ 0.6−0.65
0.97·(Ew + Ef ) (2)
Legend: Ep = energy produced, both electrical and thermal;
Ei = energy imported; Ef = energy consumed from fuels different from
waste; Ew = energy from waste, KC = climatic coefficient.
A detailed analysis of this formula [15,17] highlights that CHP is a
quite compulsory condition for achieving high efficiency.
Developing countries are faced with different socio-economic con-
texts and problems. In a large part of these areas waste management is
still greatly based on uncontrolled dumping [18,114] and domestic
burning [115], causing serious health and environmental problems
[20]. The share of the organic fraction ranges from 45% up to more
than 80% of the whole waste generated [20,21,114], representing the
main source of health and environmental concern. Furthermore the lack
of adequate infrastructures causes limited access to energy, particularly
in remote areas, also affecting the quality of life [6,22]. Scarlat et al. [6]
estimated an energy potential of incineration for Africa of 62.5 TWh for
2012 and 122.2 TWh for 2025. Similarly Kothari et al. [4] found that
anaerobic digestion and bio-hydrogen production from biodegradable
waste have an excellent potential for high energy content and dis-
tributed energy supply for India. Using a life cycle approach, Ayodele
et al. [116] investigated various WtE technologies for electricity gen-
eration from MSW including landfill gas, MSWI and AD for Nigeria.
Hence, in these areas incineration and AD could be efficient methods
for combining decentralized energy production with health care and
environmental protection. The agronomic use of the digestate from AD
is also of particular interest in arid climates usually faced with a high
risk of desertification. In these contexts AD can be an interesting solu-
tion able to give multiple responses beyond the strictly energetic one
due to the lower investment and management costs compare to MSWI.
Furthermore AD can also be fed with other biodegradable substrates
such as manure and domestic sewage generated in remote and rural
areas coupling the energetic aspect with that of the environment and
health care.
5. Conclusion
Energy recovery from waste is still an important activity for repla-
cing fossil fuels, for achieving the 2030 EU goals and for implementing
the circular use of resources. From this perspective municipal solid
waste incinerators (MSWI) operated in combined heat and power (CHP)
mode were more efficient in exploiting the energy content of the waste
for replacing primary energies compared to anaerobic digestion (AD).
This is confirmed also considering the replacement of mineral fertilizers
achievable by the agronomic use of the digestate. At the current level of
technological development these results suggest that the current EU
legislation in the waste management sector be re-evaluated as AD is
ranked at a higher level in the waste hierarchy (i.e. recycling) compared
to incineration (i.e. disposal or recovery). This is also indicated in the
vast literature which points out that there is no definitive evidence of
the environmental benefits of AD compared to MSWI and/or com-
posting for the treatment of bio-waste.
Different results can be drawn for developing countries where both
health care aspects and decentralized energy production make AD of
particular interest due to its lower investment and management costs
compared to MSWI.
1570
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
These findings are worth reviewing in the near future because of the
intense research and development activity going on particularly for AD.
The role of AD for the production of fuels, chemicals and other mate-
rials able to replace mineral and fossil resources is very promising and
able to modify the performance of AD with respect to the current state
of the art.
References
[1] Beurskens LWM, Hekkenberg M, Vethman P. ECN – renewable energy projection as
published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European members
states [accessed 26.04.2016]. <http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/
e10069.pdf>; 2011.
[2] EC. Directive 2001/77/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27
September 2001 on the promotion of the electricity produced from renewable
energy sources in the internal electricity market. Off J Eur Communities 27.10.
2001; 2001.
[3] EC. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and social committee and the committee of the
Regions. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to
2030. COM(2014) 15 final. Brussels 22.1.2014; 2014. Available at < http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015&from=
EN > [accessed 26.05.2017].
[4] Kothari R, Tyagi VV, Pathak A. Waste-to-energy: a way from renewable energy
sources to sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:3164–70.
[5] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–6.
[6] Scarlat N, Motola V, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, Mofor L. Evaluation of
energy potential of Municipal Solid Waste from African urban areas. Ren Sust
Energy Rev 2015;50:1269–86.
[7] EC. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and social committee and the committee of the
Regions. The role of waste-to-energy in the circular economy. COMM(2017) 34
final. Brussel 26.1.2017; 2017. Available at < http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
waste/waste-to-energy.pdf > [accessed 26.05.2017].
[8] Dornberg V, Faaij A. Optimising waste treatment systems. Part B: analyses and
scenarios for The Netherlands. Resour Conserv Recycl 2006;48:227–48.
[9] Bogner J, Abdelrafie Ahmed M, Diaz C, Faaij A, Gao Q, Hashimoto S. Waste
management. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA, editors.
Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
[10] EC. Directive 91/156/EC the Council of 18th March 1991 amending Directive 75/
442/EEC on waste. Off J Eur Communities L. 78/32 26.3.91; 1991.
[11] ISPRA. Rapporto Rifiuti Urbani. Edizione 2016. ISPRA, Rapporti 251/2016. ISBN
978-88-448-0791-7. ISPRA. 2016. Report on the production and management of
Municipal Solid Waste. Edizione 2016. ISPRA, Rapporti 251/2016. ISBN 978-88-
448-0791-7; 2016.
[12] Burnley SJ. A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom.
Waste Manage 2007;27:1274–85.
[13] Koufodimos G, Samaras Z. Waste management options in southern Europe using
field and experimental data. Waste Manage 2002;22:47–59.
[14] Murer MJ, Spliethoff H, de Waal CMW, Wilpshaar S, Berkhout B, van Berlo MAJ,
et al. High efficient waste-to-energy in Amsterdam: getting ready for the next
steps. Waste Manage Res 2011;29:20–9.
[15] Grosso M, Motta A, Rigamonti L. Efficiency of energy recovery from waste in-
cineration, in the light of the new Waste Framework Directive. Waste Manage
2010;30:1238–43.
[16] Tabasova A, Kropac J, Kermes V, Nemet A, Stehlik P. Waste-to-energy technolo-
gies: impact on environment. Energy 2012;44:146–55.
[17] Di Maria F, Bidini G, Lasagni M, Boncompagni A. Energetic efficiency of an ex-
isting Waste to Energy power plant. Appl Therm Eng 2018;129:338–44.
[18] Sharoly M, Ahmad K, Mhamood G, Trivedi RC. Municipal solid waste management
in Indian cities – a review. Waste Manage 2008;28:459–67.
[19] Di Maria F, Micale C. Life cycle analysis of incineration compared to anaerobic
digestion followed by composting for managing organic waste: the influence of
system components for an Italian district. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2015;20:377–88.
[20] Gurzenich D, Mathur J, Bansal NK, Wagner HJ. Cumulative energy demand for
selected renewable energy technologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1999;4:143–9.
[21] Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, Van de
Meent D, et al. Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the en-
vironmental performances of products? Environ Sci Technol
2006;2006(40):641–8.
[22] Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks WM, Hungerbuhler K,
Hendriks AJ. Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental
burden of commodity production. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:2189–96.
[23] Frischknecht R, Wyas F, Knopfel SB, Lutzkendorf T, Balouktsi M. Cumulative en-
ergy demand in LCA: the energy harvesting approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2015;20:957–69.
[24] Teglia C, Tremier A, Matel JI. Characterization of solid digestate: Part1, review of
existing indicators to assess solid digestate agricultural use. Waste Biomass
Valorization 2011;2:43–58.
[25] Nkoa R. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with
F. Di Maria et al.
anaerobic digestate: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 2014;34:473–92.
[26] Di Maria F, Gigliotti G, Sordi A, Micale C, Zadra C, Massaccesi L. Hybrid solid
anaerobic digestion batch: biomethane production and mass recovery from the
organic fraction of solid waste. Waste Manage Res 2013;31:869–73.
[27] Di Maria F, Segoloni E, Pezzolla D. Solid anaerobic digestion batch of bio-waste as
pre-treatment for improving amendment quality: the effect of inoculum re-
circulation. Waste Manage 2016;56:106–12.
[28] Massaccesi L, Sordi A, Micale C, Cucina M, Zadra C, Di Maria F, et al. Chemical
characterization of percolate and digestate during the hybrid solid anaerobic di-
gestion batch process. Process Biochem 2013;48:1361–7.
[29] Tambone F, Scaglia B, D’Imporzato G, Schievano A, Orzi V, Salati S, et al. Assessing
amendment and fertilizer properties of digestate from anaerobic digestion through
a comparative study with sludge and compost. Chemiosphere 2010;81:577–83.
[30] Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B. The
ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2016;21:1218–30.
[31] EC. Green paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union; 2008.
Available at < http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=
CELEX:52008DC0811&from=EN > [accessed om 20.05.2017].
[32] WFD (Waste Framework Directive). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing
certain Directives. Off J Eur Union 22.11.2008 N. L312/3; 2008.
[33] LFD (Landfill Directive). Landfill Directive 99/31/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council on landfill, 1999. Off J Eur Union 16.7.1999, L182/1; 1999.
[34] IPPC. Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15
January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Off J Eur
Union 29.1.2008 L 24/8; 2008.
[35] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez-Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ. Predicting heating va-
lues of lignocellulosic and carbonaceous materials from proximate analysis. Fuel
2001;80:1567–71.
[36] Dong C, Jin B, Li D. Predicting the heating value of MSW with a feed forward
neural network. Waste Manage 2003;23:103–6.
[37] EC. Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4th
December 2000 on the incineration of waste. Off J Eur Communities 2000. L. 332/
91 28.12.000.
[38] Cheng H, Hu Yuanan H. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of
energy: current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:3816–24.
[39] Griecco E, Poggio A. Simulation of the influence of flue gas cleaning system on the
energetic efficiency of a waste-to-energy plant. Appl Energy 2009;86:1517–23.
[40] Di Maria F, Pavesi G. RDF to energy plant for a central Italian region SUW man-
agement system: energetic and economical analysis. Appl Therm Eng
2006;26:1291–300.
[41] EU. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and
control). Off J L334, 17.12.2010; 2010. p. 17–199.
[42] Stehlik P. Contribution to advances in waste-to-energy technologies. J Clean Prod
2009;17:919–31.
[43] Kawahara Y. High temperature corrosion mechanism and effect of alloying ele-
ments for materials used in waste incinerator environment. Corros Sci
2002;44:223–45.
[44] Viklund P, Hjörnhede A, Henderson P, Stålenheim A, Pettersson R. Corrosion of
superheater materials in a waste-to-energy plant. Fuel Process Technol
2013;150:106–12.
[45] Khan AA, de Jong W, Jansens PJ, Spliethoff H. Biomass combustion in fluidized
bed boilers: potential problems and remedies. Fuel Process Technol
2009;90:21–50.
[46] Astrup TF, Tonini D, Turconi R, Boldrin A. Life cycle assessment of thermal Waste-
to-Energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manage (Oxford)
2015;37:104–15.
[47] CEWEP. Cewep energy report III (Status 2007-2010); 2012. Available at < http://
www.cewep.eu/m_1069 > [accessed 03.05.2017].
[48] Murphy JD, McKeogh E. Technical, economic and environmental analysis of en-
ergy production from municipal solid waste. Renew Energy 2004;29:1043–57.
[49] Turconi R, Butera S, Boldrin A, Grosso M, Rigamonti L, Astrup T. Life cycle as-
sessment of waste incinerations in Denmark and Italy using two LCA models.
Waste Manage Res 2011;29:78–90.
[50] Lombardi L, Carnevale E, Corti A. A review of technologies and performances of
thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Manage
2015;37:26–44.
[51] Münster M, Lund H. Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying energy
system analysis. Waste Manage 2010;30:1251–63.
[52] EEW. Energy from waste; 2017. Available at < https://www.eew-
energyfromwaste.com/en/our-sites/andernach.html > [accessed 15.05.2017].
[53] ISWA. Waste-to-Energy. State of the art report; 2016. Available at < file:///C:/
Users/Francesco/Downloads/ISWA6_7-000-2_WtE_State_of_the_Art_Report_2012_
Revised_November_2013.pdf > [accessed 15.05.2017].
[54] Bujal J, Sitarz P, Jasiewicz P. Fuel consumption in the treatment of low-calorific
industrial food processing waste. Appl Energy 2018;221:139–47.
[55] Demirel B, Scherer P. The roles of acetotrophic and hydrogenotrophic methano-
gens during anaerobic conversion of biomass to methane: a review. Rev Environ
Sci Biotec 2008;7:173–90.
[56] Shah FA, Mahmood Q, Shah MM, Pervez A, Asad SA. Microbial ecology of anae-
robic digesters: the key players of anaerobiosis. Sci World J 2014:1–21.
[57] Di Maria F, Barratta M, Bianconi F, Placidi P, Passeri D. Solid anaerobic digestion
batch with liquid digestate recirculation and wet anaerobic digestion of organic
1571
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
waste: comparison of system performances and identification of microbial guilds.
Waste Manage 2017;59:172–80.
[58] Apples L, Baeyens J, Degreve J, Dewill R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic
digestion of waste-activated sludge. Progr Energ Combust 2008;34:755–81.
[59] Garcia-Pena EI, Parameswaran P, Kang DW, Canul-Chan M, Krajmalnik-Brown R.
Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion process of vegetable and fruit residues:
process and microbial ecology. Biores Technol 2011;102:9447–55.
[60] Hwang MH, Jang NJ, Hyum SH, Kim IS. Anaerobic bio-hydrogen production from
ethanol fermentation: the role of pH. J Biotechnol 2004;111:297–309.
[61] Schievano A, D’Imporzato G, Malagutti L, Fragali E, Ruboni G, Adani F. Evaluating
inhibition conditions in high-solids anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Biores Technol 2010;101:5728–32.
[62] Apples L, Lauwers J, Degreve J, Helsen L, Lievens B, Willems K, et al. Anaerobic
digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research challenges.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 2011;15:4295–301.
[63] Karakashev D, Batstine DJ, Angelidaki I. Influence of environmental conditions on
methanogenic compositions in anaerobic biogas reactors. Appl Environ Microb
2005;71:331–8.
[64] Cavinato C, Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Fatone F, Cecchi F. Mesophilic and thermo-
philic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and source sorted biowaste
in pilot- and full-scale reactors. Renew Energ 2013;55:260–5.
[65] Zverlov VV, Hiegl W, Kock DE, Kellermann J, Kollmeier T, Schwarz WH.
Hydrolytic bacteria in mesophilic and thermophilic degradation of plant biomass.
Eng Life Sci 2010;6:528–36.
[66] Leven L, Eriksson ARB, Schuner A. Effects of process temperature on bacterial and
Archaeal communities in two methanogenic bioreactors treating organic house-
hold waste. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2007;59:683–93.
[67] Li FY, Nelson MC, Chen PH, Graf J, Li Y, Yu Z. Comparison of the microbial
communities in solid-state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) reactors operated at me-
sophilic and thermophilic temperatures. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2015;99:969–80.
[68] Di Maria F, Sordi A, Cirulli G, Micale C. Amount of energy recoverable from an
existing sludge digester with the co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste at
reduced retention time. Appl Energ 2015;150:9–14.
[69] Ferrer I, Vazquez F, Font X. Long term operation of a thermophilic anaerobic re-
actor: process stability and efficiency at decreasing sludge retention time.
Bioresour Technol 2010;101:2972–80.
[70] Nges IA, Liu J. Effects of solid retention time on anaerobic digestion of dewatered-
sewage sludge in mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Renew Energ
2010;35:2200–6.
[71] De Baere L, Mattheeuws B. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of muni-
cipal solid waste in Europe – status, experience and prospects; 2014. Available
at < http://www.ows.be/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Anaerobic-digestion-of-
the-organic-fraction-of-MSW-in-Europe.pdf > [accessed 09.05.2017].
[72] Kiran EU, Trzcinski AP, Ng WJ, Liu Y. Bioconversion of food waste to energy. A
review. Fuel 2014;134:389–99.
[73] Zhang C, Haijia S, Baeyens J, Tan T. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Ren Sustain Energ Rev 2014;38:383–92.
[74] Bolonzella D, Pavan P, Mace S, et al. Dry anaerobic digestion of differently sorted
organic municipal solid waste: a full-scale experience. Water Sci Technol
2006;53(8):23–32.
[75] Krupp M, Schubert J, Widmann R. Feasibility study for co-digestion of sewage
sludge with OFMSW on two wastewater treatment plants in Germany. Waste
Manage 2005;25:393–9.
[76] Xu F, Wang ZW, Tang L, Li Y. A mass diffusion-based interpretation of the effect of
total solids content on solid-state anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass.
Bioresour Technol 2014;167:178–85.
[77] Walla C, Schneeberder W. The optimal size for biogas plant. Biomass Bioenergy
2008;32:551–7.
[78] Patterson T, Esteves S, Dinsdale R, Guwy A. Life cycle assessment of biogas in-
frastructure options on a regional scale. Biores Technol 2011;102:7313–23.
[79] Poschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas
production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 2010;87:3305–21.
[80] Forster-Carneiro T, Perez M, Romero LI. Influence of total solid and inoculum
contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresour
Technol 2008;99(15):6994–7002.
[81] Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, et al. Bioreactor performance in anae-
robic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochem 2005;40:898–995.
[82] Zhang RH, El-Mashad HM, Hartman K, Wang F, Liu G, Choate C, et al.
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour
Technol 2007;98(4):929–35.
[83] Micale C. Bio-methane generation from biogas upgrading by semipermeable
membranes: An experimental, numerical and economic analysis. Energy Proc
2015;82:971–7.
[84] Yang L, Ge X, Wan C, Yu F, Li Y. Progress and perspective in converting biogas to
transport fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;40:1133–52.
[85] Pognani M, Barrena R, Font X, Sanchez A. A complete mass balance of a complex
combined anaerobic/aerobic municipal source-separated waste treatment plant.
Waste Manage 2012;32:799–805.
[86] Zhang Y, Banks CJ, Heaven S. Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal
waste streams. J Environ Manage 2012;104:166–74.
[87] Tambone F, Genevini P, D’Imporzato G, Adani F. Assessing amendment properties
of digestate by studying the organic matter composition and the degree of biolo-
gical stability during the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of MSW.
Bioresour Technol 2009;100:3140–2.
[88] Pognani M, D’Imporzato G, Scaglia B, Adani F. Substituting energy crops with
F. Di Maria et al.
organic fraction of municipal solid waste for biogas production at farm level: a full-
scale plant study. Process Biochem 2009;44:817–21.
[89] Zhang L, Su XW, Zhang ZX, Liu S. Characterization of fly ashes from a circulating
fluidized bed incinerator of municipal solid waste. Environ Sci Pollut R
2014;21:12767–79.
[90] Zhou H, Meng A, Long Y, Li Q, Zhang Y. A review of dioxin-related substances
during municipal solid waste incineration. Waste Manage 2015;36:106–18.
[91] Higman C, van der Burgt M. Gasification. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Gulf Professional
Publishing; 2008.
[92] Kawahara Y. High temperature corrosion mechanism and effect of alloying ele-
ments for materials used in waste incineration. Corros Sci 2002;44:223–45.
[93] Viklund P, Hjornhede A, Henderson P, Stalenheim A, Pettersson R. Corrosion of
superheater materials in a waste-to-energy plant. Fuel Process Technol
2013;105:106–12.
[94] Buffiere P, Mirquez LD, Steyer P, Bernet N, Felgens JP. Anaerobic digestion of solid
waste needs research to face an increasing industrial success. Int J Chem React
2008;6:A94.
[95] Chouari R, Le Paslier D, Daegelen P, Ginestet P, Weissenbach J, Sghir A. Novel
predominant archaeal and bacterial groups by molecular analysis of an anaerobic
sludge digester. Environ Microbiol 2005;7:1104–11015.
[96] Shin SG, Han G, Lim J, Lee C, Hwang S. A comprehensive microbial insight into
two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste-recycling wastewater. Water Res
2010;44:4838–49.
[97] Shin SG, Lee S, Lee C, Hwang K, Hwang S. Qualitative, quantitative assessment of
microbial community in batch anaerobic digestion of secondary sludge. Biores
Technol 2010;101:9641–70.
[98] Cirne DG, Lehtomaki A, Bjornsson L, Blackall LL. Hydrolysis and microbial com-
munity analysis in two-stage anaerobic digestion of energy crops. J Appl Microbiol
2007;103:516–27.
[99] Tomei MC, Barguglia CM, Cento G, Mininni G. Modeling of anaerobic digestion of
sludge. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2009;39:1003–51.
[100] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis AG, Rozzi A, et al.
The anaerobic digestion model no. 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol 2002;45:65–73.
[101] Nickel K, Neis U. Ultrasonic disintegration of biosolids for improving biode-
gradation. Ultrason Sonochem 2007;14:450–5.
[102] Ardic I, Tane F. Effects of thermal chemical and thermochemical pretreatments to
increase biogas production yield of chicken manure. Fresen Environ Bull
2005;14:373–80.
[103] Aplles L, Van Assche A, Willems K, Degreve J, Van Impe J, Dewil R. Peracetic acid
oxidation as an alternative pre-treatment for the anaerobic digestion of waste
activated sludge. Bioreasur Technol 2011;102:4142–230.
[104] Gavala HN, Yenal U, Skiadas IV, Westermann P, Ahring BK. Mesophilic. thermo-
philic anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Effect of pre-treat-
ment at elevated temperature. Water Res 2003;37:4561–72.
[105] Jeong TY, Cha GC, Choi SS, Jeon C. Evaluation of methane production by the
thermal pretreatment of waste activated sludge in an anaerobic digester. J Ind Eng
Chem 2007;13:856–63.
[106] Davidsson A, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, Jansen J. Methane yield
in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manage
2007;27:406–14.
[107] Lavagnolo MC, Girotto F, Rafieenia R, Danieli L, Alibardi L. Two-stage anaerobic
digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste e Effects of process
conditions during batch tests. Renew Energ 2018;126:14–20.
[108] Di Maria F, Micale C, Contini S, Morettini E. Impact of biological treatments of bio-
waste for nutrients, energy and bio-methane recovery in a life cycle perspective.
Waste Manage 2016;52:86–95.
[109] Schievano A, Sciarria TP, Vanbroekhoven K, De Wever H, Puig S, Andersen SJ,
et al. Electro-fermentation – merging electrochemistry with fermentation in in-
dustrial applications. Trends In Biotech 2016;34:866–78.
[110] Yang L, Ge X, Wan C, Yu F, Li Y. Progress and perspective in converting biogas to
transport fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:1133–52.
[111] Micale C. Bio-methane generation from biogas upgrading by semi-permeable
membranes: an experimental, numerical and economic analysis. Energy Proc
2015;82:971–7.
[112] Di Maria F. The recovery of energy and materials from food waste by codigestion
with sludge: internal environment of digester and methanogenic pathway.
Handbook of food bioengineering 2017;2:95–125. ISBN: 978-0-12-811413-1.
[113] Kuriyama A, Abe N. Ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol – quantification of
CO2 mitigation impact in both Annex B and non-Annex B countries. Appl Energy
2018;220:286–95.
[114] Henry RK, Youngsheng Z, Jun D. Municipal solid waste management challenges in
developing countries – Kenyan case study. Waste Manage 2006;26:92–100.
[115] Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in
developing countries. Waste Manage 2013;33:220–32.
[116] Ayodele TR, Ogunjunghe ASO, Alao MA. Life cycle assessment of waste-to-energy
1572
Applied Energy 230 (2018) 1557–1572
(WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid waste in
Nigeria. Appl Energy 2018;201:200–2018.
[117] Pognani M, Barrena R, Font X, Scaglia B, Adani F, Scanchez A. Monitoring the
organic matter properties in a combined anaerobic/aerobic full-scale municipal
source-separated waste treatment plant. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:6873–7.
[118] Arena U. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A
review. Waste Manage. 2012;32:625–39.
[119] Pognani M, D’Imporzato G, Minetti C, Scotti S, Adani F. Optimization of solid state
anaerobic digestion of the OFMSW by digestate recirculation: a new approach.
Waste Manage 2015;35:111–8.
[120] Benbelkacem H, Bollon J, Bayard R, Escudie R, Buffiere P. Towards optimization
of the total solid content in high-solid (dry) municipal solid waste digestion. Chem
Eng J 2015;273:261–7.
[121] Davidsson A, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, la Cour Jansen J. Methane
yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste 2007;27:406–14.
[122] Hansen TL, la Cour Jansen J, Spliid H, Davidsson A, Christensen TH. Composition
of source-sorted municipal organic waste collected in Danish cities. Waste Manage
2007;27:510–8.
[123] Li RP, Ge YJ, Wang KS, Li XJ, Pang YZ. Characteristics and anaerobic digestion
performances of kitchen wastes. Renew Energy Resour 2010;28(1):76–80. [in
Chinese].
[124] Han SK, Shin HS. Biohydrogen production by anaerobic fermentation of food
waste. Hydrogen Energy 2004;29:569–77.
[125] Lin J, Zuo J, Ji R, Chen X, Liu F, Wang K, et al. Methanogenic community dy-
namics in anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable waste and food waste. J
Environ Sci 2012;24:1288–94.
[126] Guendouz J, Buffiere P, Cacho J, et al. Dry anaerobic digestion in batch mode.
Design and operation of a laboratory-scale, completely mixed reactor. Waste
Manage 2010;30:1768–71.
[127] de Laclos HF, Debois S, Saint-Joly C. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid or-
ganic waste: Valorga full-scale plant in Tilburg, the Netherlands. Water Sci
Technol 1997;36(6–7):457–62.
[128] Bolzonella D, Battistoni P, Susini C, Cecchi F. Anaerobic co-digestion of waste
activated sludge and OFMSW: the experience of Viareggio and Treviso plants
(Italy). Water Sci Technol 2006;53:203–11.
[129] Magrinho A, Semiao V. Estimation of residual MSW heating value as a function of
waste component recycling. Waste Manage 2008;28:2675–83.
[130] Antonopoulos IS, Karagiannidis A, Kalogirou E. Estimation of municipal solid
waste heating value in Greece in the frame of formulating appropriate scenarios on
waste treatment. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on energy
from biomass and waste (VENICE 2010); 2010.
[131] Rao MS, Singh SP, Singh AK, Sodha MS. Bioenergy conversion studies of the or-
ganic fraction of MSW: assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of
municipal garbage. Appl Energy 2000;66:75–87.
[132] Fernandez J, Perez M, Romero LI. Effect of substrate concentration on dry meso-
philic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW).
Bioresour Technol 2008;99:6075–80.
[133] Lee JP, Lee JS, Park SC. Two-phase methanization of food wastes in pilot scale.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol – Part A Enzyme Eng Biotechnol 1999;77–79:585–93.
[134] Heo NH, Park SC, Kang H. Effects of mixture ratio and hydraulic retention time on
single-stage anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge. J
Environ Sci Health – Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substan Environ Eng
2004;39(7):1739–56.
[135] Lee D, et al. Continuous H2 and CH4 production from high-solid food waste in the
two-stage thermophilic fermentation process with the recirculation of digester
sludge. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(1 SUPPL.):s42–7.
[136] Tsai WT, Chou YH. An overview of renewable energy utilization from municipal
solid waste (MSW) incineration in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2006;10:491–502.
[137] Cheng H, Zhag Y, Meng A, Li Q. Municipal solid waste fuelled power generation in
China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchum City. Environ Sci Technol
2007;41:7509–15.
[138] Jannelli E, Minutillo M. Simulation of the flue gas cleaning system of an RDF
incineration power plant. Waste Manage 2007;27:684–90.
[139] Chen D, Christensen T. Life-cycle assessment (EASEWASTE) of two municipal solid
waste incineration technologies in China. Waste Manage Res 2010;28:508–19.
[140] Moon HC, Song IS. Enzymatic hydrolysis of food waste and methane production
using UASB bioreactor. Int J Green Energy 2011;8(3):361–71.
[141] Weiland F. Anaerobic waste digestion in Germany – status and recent develop-
ments. Biodegradation 2000;11:415–21.
[142] EBA. European Biogas Association. Success stories: anaerobic digestion of biode-
gradable municipal solid waste in European cities; 2016. Accessible at < http://
european-biogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Biowaste-AD-v2.
pdf > [accessed 16.05.2017].