Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

The use of LCA in selecting the best MSW management system

Giovanni De Feo *, Carmela Malvano
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy

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

Article history: This paper focuses on the study of eleven environmental impact categories produced by several munici-
Accepted 12 December 2008 pal solid waste management systems (scenarios) operating on a provincial scale in Southern Italy. In par-
Available online 24 January 2009 ticular, the analysis takes into account 12 management scenarios with 16 management phases for each
one. The only difference among ten of the scenarios (separated kerbside collection of all recyclables, glass
excepted, composting of putrescibles, RDF pressed bales production and incineration, final landfilling) is
the percentage of separated collection varying in the range of 35–80%, while the other two scenarios, for
80% of separate collection, consider different alternatives in the disposal of treatment residues (dry res-
idue sorting and final landfilling or direct disposal in landfill). The potential impacts induced on the envi-
ronmental components were analysed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure called ‘‘WISARD”
(Waste Integrated System Assessment for Recovery and Disposal). Paper recycling was the phase with the
greatest influence on avoided impacts, while the collection logistics of dry residue was the phase with the
greatest influence on produced impacts. For six impact categories (renewable and total energy use, water,
suspended solids and oxydable matters index, eutrophication and hazardous waste production), for high
percentages of separate collection a management system based on recovery and recycling but without
incineration would be preferable.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mizes environmental impacts and management costs (De Feo

The current state-of-the-art of solid waste disposal is based on
the concept of integrated management. The European Union regu-
lation proposes a hierarchical system based on four subsequent
levels (EU, 2006): (1) reduction of solid waste production, (2)
recovery of material, (3) recovery of energy and (4) landfill
disposal.
There is not sufficient knowledge of this hierarchy to develop an
adequate management system due to the variables relating to the
environmental, social and economic aspects along with the techni-
cal aspects. In fact, when choosing the most appropriate solid
waste management system for a certain territory, decision makers
have to take adequately into account not only the technical aspects
and implementation costs but also the environmental impacts pro-
duced by the treatment and disposal processes as well as the opin-
ion of the local communities. As a matter of fact, consensus of the
local population is a prerequisite for the subsequent implementa-
tion of a solid waste management plan (Rahardyan et al., 2004;
De Feo et al., 2005).
Environmental, economic and social variables are strongly cor-
related to the process that leads to the choice of the ‘‘best” muni-
cipal solid waste management system. For example, the local
community could easily accept a management system that mini-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 089 964113; fax: +39 089 964045.
E-mail address: g.defeo@unisa.it (G. De Feo).
et al., 2005).
This paper focuses on the study of the environmental impacts
(eleven categories were considered) produced by several municipal
solid waste management systems operating on a provincial scale
(the district of Avellino) in Southern Italy in the Campania region,
an area suffering from a situation of weighty solid waste emer-
gency over the last 15 years. In particular, the analysis carried
out takes into account twelve management scenarios. The only dif-
ference among ten of the scenarios is the percentage of separated
collection, while the other two scenarios consider different alterna-
tives in the disposal of treatment residues.
The potential impacts induced on the environmental compo-
nents were analysed using a life cycle assessment (LCA) procedure.
LCA is a general methodological framework introduced to assess all
the environmental impacts related to a product, process or activity
by identifying, quantifying and evaluating the overall resources
consumed as well as all the emissions and wastes released into
the environment.
In 1990, the society for environmental toxicology and chemistry
(SETAC) defined the concept of LCA and developed a general meth-
odology for the carrying out of LCA studies (Azapagic, 1999). The
term ‘‘LCA” is used most frequently to describe all the cradle-to-
grave approaches (Curran, 1996). A lot of these tools have been
separately developed by different groups of specialists in order to
support the decision maker within environmental management
processes (SETAC, 1996). LCA methodology, as defined by SETAC

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.021
1902 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
or by ISO (International Organization for Standardization), consists
of four steps (Curran, 1996; SETAC, 1996): (1) goal and scope def-
inition, (2) inventory analysis, (3) impact assessment and (4)
improvement assessment.
LCA can be useful and conveniently applied only to the life cycle
related to the collection, treatment and landfill disposal of solid
waste. In this particular case, the reference flux is given by the
amount of waste produced by a community, while the output is
represented by the emission of pollutants due to the several parts
of the MSW management system. Therefore, the LCA procedure ap-
plied to the MSW management can be seen as a useful analysis
instrument aimed at the evaluation of possible actions. As a matter
of fact, the European Commission’s Thematic Strategy on the pre-
vention and recycling of waste outlines how adopting a life cycle
perspective is essential for the sustainable management of wastes
(Koneckny and Pennington, 2007).
The activity carried out in this study is part of a relatively recent
field of research, which is not only currently being developed
throughout Europe but is also continuously and rapidly becoming
more widespread. As a matter of fact, several authors have treated
the topics of LCA in different countries and scenarios. For example,
Heilmann and Winkler (2005) considered a city of 480,000 inhab-
itants (Dresden, capital of Saxony, Germany), and studied the influ-
ences of different waste collection systems (bank collection and
kerbside collection) on the environmental performance of the mu-
nicipal waste management system in comparison with a situation
with incineration without separate collection. Heilmann and Win-
kler (2005) found that a material bank collection system is ecolog-
ically preferable to a kerbside collection system. Even for low
recovery rates, the material bank collection performed better than
the kerbside collection system, except in terms of global warming.
Salhofer et al. (2005) considered a similar community in the
province of Salzburg, Austria, and developed a comparison among
four management scenarios combining two recycling levels (more
recycling and less recycling) with mechanical and biological treat-
ment (MBT) and incineration. Salhofer et al. (2005) pointed out
that in the region analysed, where a high recycling rate had still
to be established, a further extension of recycling showed only
small environmental benefits.
An interesting contribution was presented by Wassermann
et al. (2005) who studied the relevance of the environmental im-
pact of past and existing landfills in comparison to municipal
waste landfills over landfills for incineration residues (MSWI land-
fills) and future landfills for residues after mechanical biological
treatment (MBP landfills) across seven human health and environ-
mental impact categories. Wassermann et al. (2005) demonstrated
that the environmental impacts of future MBP and MSWI landfills
are rather low, making up only a small fraction of the impacts pro-
duced by former types of landfills.
Mendes et al. (2004) compared the environmental impact of the
incineration and landfilling of municipal solid waste in São Paulo
City, Brazil. They showed that a shift in waste treatment from land-
filling to incineration would decrease the overall environmental
impact while also allowing for energy recovery.
Ozeler et al. (2006) developed and compared different solid
waste management system scenarios for the municipal solid waste
management system of Ankara in Turkey. The results obtained in
this study have led the authors to the conclusion that LCA can be
successfully applied to MSW management systems as a decision
support tool.
Three studies are particularly interesting due to the fact that
they are related to the Italian case study. The first Italian LCA study
considered, proposed by Morselli et al. (2005), deals with an incin-
eration plant in Coriano (Rimini, Italy). It is a medium-sized muni-
cipal solid waste incinerator with three incinerator lines, which
combusts approximately 450 ton/day of waste. Morselli et al.
(2005) emphasized that LCA is a useful approach to becoming
aware of the most important indicators of the incineration process
impact, as well as giving important information about the sustain-
ability of a process, compared to a set of other alternative activities,
in particular in the application to waste management. Viotti et al.
(2005) proposed a model for the implementation of integrated
MSW management policies as well as an application of the model
addressed to the specific scenario which characterizes the MSW
management system currently adopted in the district of Frosinone
(Lazio, Italy). Viotti et al. (2005) found that the most severe im-
pacts were related to the methane produced at the landfill and sug-
gested that such effects might be substantially reduced by means
of a proper landfill gas control policy.
Finally, the research carried out by Arena et al. (2003) is par-
ticularly important because it deals with the same region in
Southern Italy. Nevertheless, Arena et al. (2003) considered the
entire region, while in this study only one of the five districts
was considered. As a matter of fact, the Italian legislation consid-
ers the self-sufficiency of each district in terms of MSW manage-
ment. Arena et al. (2003) performed an analytical comparison
between three selected scenarios with reference to some crucial
environmental impact categories, including energy and material
consumptions, climate change, acidification, air and water emis-
sions as well as solid waste production. The results quantified
the poor performance of the landfilling option and the adopted
procedure not only gave several changes in the proposed design
and operating criteria but it also quantified the magnitude of
the related improved environmental performances. Finally, Arena
et al. (2003) suggested the utilization of sorting devices for glass
and aluminium recovery in the RDF production units, and
strongly lower limits for pollutants concentration in the flue gas
from the RDF combustion facility.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and reference data
The aim of this study was to apply the LCA procedure to MSW
management on a provincial scale in order to choose the ‘‘best”
management system in environmental terms (impacts minimisa-
tion). The study area was the Province of Avellino in the Campania
region, in Southern Italy, with a surface area of 2792 km2 and a
population of 422,292 inhabitants (National Institute of Statistics,
1st January 2007). All the data necessary for the construction of
the analysed scenarios were deduced from the database of the
competent authorities: the Province of Avellino and the two
MSW management companies (Co.Sma.Ri AV1 and Co.Sma.Ri AV2).
The total MSW production was 140,177,372 kg, while the MSW
composition was based on the presence of 42% of putrescibles, 30%
of paper and cardboard, 14% of plastics, 8% of glass and 3% of met-
als and 1% of textiles (Table 1).
Table 1
MSW composition of the study area.
Fraction Percentage (%) Production (t/year)
Putrescibles (excl. garden) 30 42,053.212
Putrescibles (garden) 12 16,821.284
Paper and cardboard 30 42,053.212
Plastics 14 19,624.832
Glass 8 11,214.190
Metals 3 4,205.321
Textiles 2 2,803.547
Undersieve 1 1,401.774
Total 100 140,177.372
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
2.2. The LCA WISARD procedure
Eleven environmental effect categories were analysed using the
LCA procedure called ‘‘WISARD” (Waste Integrated System Assess-
ment for Recovery and Disposal). The commercial WISARD LCA tool
was developed in France by the Ecobilan group. The tools underly-
ing software platform and interface is used by Eco-Emballages in
France, the English environmental protection agency, the Scottish
environmental protection agency as well as authorities in New
Zealand (Emery et al., 2007; Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006). In
this research, separate databases were used to reflect Italian cir-
cumstances, including energy sources.
The logical framework of WISARD allows the life cycle of MSW
to be followed from its production, collection, treatment and final
disposal in landfill with the aim of evaluating the matter and en-
ergy consumption as well as pollutant emissions in each step of
the management process. The collection of MSW produces several
impacts due to the production and use of different types of bags
and containers, the use (and related consumptions) of transport
vehicles, the construction, maintaining and demolition of transfer
stations, and transport to the treatment and final disposal plants.
WISARD contains a database with information related to collection
logistics, recycling facilities, composting plants, incinerators and
landfills.
The collection logistics phase takes into account the following
contributions: construction and maintenance of trucks, trucks
use, containers, and fuel for transport, waste sacks/bags, construc-
tion and demolition of transfer stations, operations of transfer sta-
tion, off-road vehicles, and transportation after the transfer station
to the disposal or recovery facility.
The recycling phase contains the following contributions: con-
struction and demolition of municipal recycling facilities (MRF),
MRF utilities, generated transport for each type of material sorted,
material recycling chain (recovery) for each type of material sorted,
and avoided transport for each type of material sorted. The com-
posting treatment contains the following contributions: compost-
ing site construction, composting site direct impacts, compost
spreading, and avoided impact for fertilizer (N, P2O5, K) production
and use, avoided impact for bark production and use.
The incineration treatment contains the following contribu-
tions: incinerator construction and demolition, incineration plant
utilities (e.g., grid electricity production and distribution, lime-
stone quarrying and off road vehicles), incineration plant direct im-
pacts such as air and water emissions directly resulting from waste
incineration, bottom ash transport, bottom ash recovery and/or
disposal, toxic waste transport, toxic waste landfilling, scrap iron
recycling (after incineration), avoided transport (scrap iron), gener-
ated transport (scrap iron), and energy recovery from steam (steam
and/or electricity recovery). The landfill disposal contains the fol-
Recyclables (45-20%)
Municipal Solid Waste
Glass Paper & Plastics
Cardboard & Metals
Recycling Recycling Recycling
Recycled materials
Fig. 1. Flow chart of MSW management scenarios 1–10.
1903
lowing contributions: construction and capping, landfill use (utili-
ties, e.g., HDPE lining, gaseous emissions from off-road vehicles),
landfill site direct impacts (from landfill gas uncontrolled emis-
sions, flaring and combustion and leachate loss), leachate (sewage
sludge treatment), and electricity production from landfill gas.
The WISARD database is quite limited for the types of recovery
facilities available (e.g. new technologies such as gasification and
pyrolysis are currently not available) as well as the recycling pro-
cesses available under each recovery category (such as sorting-
recycling) and the material reprocessing options. On the other
hand, the software tool gives a good indication of the environmen-
tal benefits of different waste management systems (Emery et al.,
2007).
WISARD develops calculations as well as mass and energy bal-
ances on the basis of the amount of waste to be treated, waste
composition and, obviously, organization of the management
system.
2.3. MSW management scenarios
The LCA study was developed considering twelve different
MSW management scenarios. They were obtained considering dif-
ferent separated collection percentages, as well as various types of
treatment for the dry residue deriving from the MSW without the
materials being separated, collected and recycled or composted.
The MSW management scenarios considered can be conveniently
divided into two categories: the first includes the scenarios from
1 to 10 (Fig. 1) and is based on the incineration of the dry residue,
while the second relates only to scenarios 11 (Fig. 2) and 12 (Fig. 3)
and does not consider the thermal treatment of dry residue.
The first ten scenarios were based on a separated kerbside col-
lection of paper and cardboard, putrescibles and dry residue, on a
combined kerbside collection of plastics and metals and, finally,
on a bring collection of glass with banks. The collected materials
of paper and cardboard, glass, plastics and metals are then
transported to recycling plants. Putrescibles, after collection, are
transported to a composting plant. The dry residue is firstly trans-
formed into RDF pressed bales and secondarily transported to an
incineration plant. Discards deriving from all the treatment pro-
cesses are collected and transported to a landfill. The ten scenarios
(1–10) differ only in the percentage of separated collection. In
fact, scenario 1 was based on a 35% separated collection, which is
the lowest level allowed by Italian legislation, while scenario 10
was based on an 80% separated collection, a threshold which is dif-
ficult to achieve and only relates to a few and/or well organized
territories. Scenarios 2–9 were progressively obtained by adding
a 5% value to the separated collection of the previous scenario
(Fig. 1).
Putrescibles (35-15%)
Dry Residue
(20-65%)
RDF plant
Composting
RDF incineration
Compost
Landfill
1904 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
Recyclables (45%)
Municipal Solid Waste
Glass Paper & Plastics
Cardboard & Metals
Recycling Recycling Recycling
Recycled materials
Fig. 2. Flow chart of MSW management scenario 11.
Recyclables (45%)
Municipal Solid Waste
Glass Paper & Plastics
Cardboard & Metals
Recycling Recycling Recycling
Recycled materials
Fig. 3. Flow chart of MSW management scenario 12.
Management scenario 11 differs from scenarios 1–10 only for
the treatment of the dry residue, which is transported to a sorting
plant for a supplementary recovery of materials, while the percent-
age of separate collection is 80%, with the other separated materi-
als being collected and treated in the same manner (Fig. 2).
Management scenario 12 differs from scenario 11 with the dry res-
idue being directly transported to a landfill (Fig. 3).
2.4. Basic assumptions
As shown in Table 2 average-sized vehicles were selected for
the collection of separated materials, estimating an average annual
run of about 30,000 km. An extension of 3414 km for the road net-
work was assumed. Since the considered study area has an exten-
sion of 2,798.36 km2, this assumption corresponds to 1.22 kmroads/
km2.
Recycling mills were schematized as a ‘‘Facility Simple MRF”,
with 10% of discards in landfill. While the dry residue sorting plant
(adopted in scenario 11) was schematized as ‘‘Facility Dirty MRF”
with 15% of recovered materials and 85% of discards in landfill.
The principal characteristic of the recycling facilities adopted in
the MSW management scenarios developed are summarised in Ta-
ble 3, which also reports the principal details of the composting
plant.
The facility for the production of RDF was simulated as a
mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) defining the composi-
tion of the outlet material flow as reported in Table 4 which also
describes the RDF incinerator adopted in the MSW management
scenarios developed. Finally, Table 5 reports the principal charac-
teristic of the landfill adopted in the MSW management scenarios
developed.
Putrescibles (35%)
Dry Residue
(20%)
Sorting plant
Composting
Compost
Landfill
Putrescibles (35%)
Dry Residue
(20%)
Composting
Compost
Landfill
3. Results and discussion
The outputs from each option modelled were analysed under
eleven environmental effect categories as suggested by the proce-
dure WISARD with the aim of carrying out a synthetic study of the
data available (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006). The impact
assessment categories suggested are as follows: renewable energy
use, non-renewable energy use, total energy use, water, suspended
solids and oxydable matters index, mineral and quarried matters,
greenhouse gases, acidification, eutrophication, hazardous waste,
non hazardous waste.
Attention was focused both on measuring the overall impact
due to the application of the entire MSW management system
adopted, as well as the evaluation of the specific contribution pro-
duced by each phase of the MSW management system.
In fact, each system was subdivided in the following sixteen
phases: glass collection logistics (GCL), glass collection recycling
(GCR), glass collection disposal (GCD), paper collection logistics
(PaCL), paper collection recycling (PaCR), paper collection disposal
(PaCD), plastics and metals collection logistics (Pl&MCL), plastics
and metals collection recycling (Pl&MCR), plastics and metals col-
lection disposal (Pl&MCD), putrescibles collection logistics (PCL),
putrescibles collection composting (PCC), putrescibles collection
disposal (PCD), dry residue collection logistics (DRCL), dry residue
collection recycling (DRCR), dry residue collection RDF incineration
(DRCI), and dry residue collection disposal (DRCD).
Therefore, 192 management phases were considered (corre-
sponding to the product of 16 phases for 12 scenarios), while
2112 single impact values were analysed and compared (corre-
sponding to the product of 11 impact categories for 192 manage-
ment phases). Moreover, 132 total impact values were analysed
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915 1905

Table 2
Characteristics of waste vehicles and lorries for glass collection adopted in the MSW management scenarios developed.
Waste vehicle (10 m3) – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)
General characteristics
Lifespan (km) Consumption (l/100 Km) Fuel
200,000 90 (Urban) Diesel
Tyres Cleaning
Replacement frequency (/10000 km) Number of replacement Cleaning frequency (/1000 km) Water consumption (l)
0.22 5 7 321
Vehicle emission factor (g/100 km)
CO2 CO NMH CH4 Steam Particulates SOx NOx N2O NH3
246,685 272 630 0 97,200 14 68 4,500 0 0
Oil
Engine oil Hydraulic oil
Change frequency (1000 km) 1.25 0.25
Volume of oil (l) 22 100
Lorry for glass collection –WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)
General characteristics
Lifespan (km) Consumption (l/100 Km) Fuel
250000 60 (Urban) Diesel
Tyres Cleaning
Replacement frequency (*10000 km) Number of replacement Cleaning frequency (*1000 km) Water consumption (l)
0.16 5.3 7 321
Vehicle emission factor (g/100 km)
CO2 CO NMH CH4 Steam Particulates SOx NOx N2O NH3
164,314 272 660 0 64,800 14 45.3 4,200 0 0
Oil
Engine oil Hydraulic oil
Change frequency (1000 km) 1 0
Volume of oil (l) 22 0

and compared (corresponding to the product of 11 impact catego-
ries and 12 management scenarios).
The goal of the study was to evaluate the results obtained (val-
ues of avoided or produced impact) in order to point out the most
environmentally sound scenarios for each environmental impact
category, as well as the trend associated with the percentage of
separate collection (for the first ten MSW management scenarios),
thus evaluating the positive and negative effects of recycling and/
or composting (Table 6). The LCA software tool calculates impact
values, performing mass and energy balances on the base of the
amount of waste to be treated. For scenarios 1–10, these quantities
vary linearly with the percentage of separate collection and there-
fore impact values for each management phase also vary in the
same manner. Since the sum of linear function is a linear function,
the total impact values for each category also have to vary linearly.
As a matter of fact, as shown in Table 6, the coefficient of linear cor-
relation between total impact value and percentage of separate
collection is practically one for all impact categories.
Moreover, for each impact category and MSW management sce-
nario developed, the management phase with the greatest avoided
impact (Table 7) and the management phase with the greatest pro-
duced impact (Table 8) were pointed out.
Finally, scenarios 10, 11 and 12 were compared in order to point
out for what impact categories for high percentages of separate
collection a management system based on recovery and recycling
but without incineration would be preferable.
3.1. Renewable energy use
The impact category ‘‘Renewable Energy Use” represents the
energy derived from sources that do not deplete natural resources.
This includes hydroelectric, wind, solar or energy from biomass. In
Table 6, the results were normalised and expressed in terms of
domestic energy usage for heating, lighting and transport. In par-
ticular, a consumption of 8.61 GJ/inhabitant/yr was assumed for
an Equivalent Inhabitant (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in the Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios
considered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Renewable Energy
Use”. Therefore, they represented an avoided impact as well as
the highest percentage corresponded to the highest avoided im-
pact. The most environmentally sound scenario was number 11
(‘‘80%S”: 80% separate collection, no RDF incineration, dries residue
sorting).
As shown in Table 9, the following phases avoided impacts in
terms of ‘‘Renewable Energy Use”: all recycling contributions, dry
residue selection, RDF production and incineration. Since paper de-
rives from renewable resources (wood), ‘‘Paper Collection Recy-
cling” was the phase with the greatest avoided impact for each
impact category and each MSW management scenario developed
(Table 7). This fact depends on the lower renewable energy needs
by production of recycled paper when compared with that of new
paper. In fact, it is well known that recycling saves energy. As a
matter of fact, producing paper and cardboard from recycled mate-
rials requires less energy than manufacturing the same goods from
virgin materials (EPA, 2007).
On the other hand, the following phases had positive impacts
(Table 9): collection logistics and landfilling, which produce posi-
tive impacts for all considered impact categories, and composting.
In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistics” was the manage-
ment phase with the greatest produced impact for scenarios 1–9,
while ‘‘Glass Collection Logistics” was the management phase with
the greatest produced impact for scenarios 10, 11 and 12 (Table 8).
The phases with the greatest produced impact were related to
‘‘Collection Logistics” because it takes into account contributions
that lead to renewable energy consumption. For the three ‘‘80%”
scenarios, the collection of glass gives the major contribution due
to the increasing of trucks, containers and waste sacks/bags re-
quired for the glass collection compared with trucks, containers
and waste sacks/bags required for the collection of dry residue.
As shown in Table 10, impacts produced from scenarios 10, 11
and 12 differed only for the contributions given by the following
three phases: ‘‘Dry Collection Residue Disposal” (DRCD), ‘‘Dry
1906 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915

Table 3
Characteristic of the recycling facilities and composting plant adopted in the MSW management scenarios developed.
FR – MRF (packaging and newspaper 12 Kt/y) – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)
General characteristics Operation
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage Working time Type of facility Fuel consumption Water Lubricants Strapping
(t/month) (d/months) (l/month) (m3/month) (l/month) (kg/month)
10 1000 22 Semi-mechanized 0 480 2.8 2500

Sorting machines – P = power consumption (kW) – T = Working time (h/work day)

Conveyors Magnet Eddy currents Screen Air conditioning
P T P T P T P T P T
30 14 5 14 5 14 10 14 20 16

Facility – Simple MRF (glass, plastics and non-metal) – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)
General characteristics Operation
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage Working time Type of facility Fuel consumption Water Lubricants Strapping
(t/month) (d/months) (l/month) (m3/month) (l/month) (kg/month)
20 1667 20.83 Semi-mechanized 0 375 2.8 2500
Sorting machines – P = power consumption (kW) – T = Working time (h/work day)
Weigh bridge Conveyors Magnet Air conditioning
P T P T P T P T
0 16 11 16 5.8 16 1.1 16

FR – composting C1 – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)

General characteristics Compost utilisation
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage Working time Compost Fuel consumption Heavy metal Spreading Immobilised
(t/month) (d/months) (kg/twaste) (l/t compost) (% in compost) by tractor in ground
25 2,417 20 380 0.5 100

Savings Distribution of N and P (% of compost element)

Potassium fertilizer Lime (calcium % Magnesium fertilizer Wood chips Fertilized Mineralised
(% of K in compost) in compost) (% of Mg in compost) (kg/t of compost) saving non
bioavailable
in ground
N P N P
20 20 20 0 20 95 80 5

Balance of site inputs and outputs

Garden green Kitchen Wood and Straw Paper Cardboard Glass Ferrous Aluminium Plastics Other
waste scraps pruning materials
Total (t/month) 17 676 0 0 392 225 317 92 2 268 428
Recycled (t/ 9 354 0 0 206 118 166 48 1 140 224
month)
Rejected (t/ 8 322 0 0 186 107 151 44 1 128 204
month)

Residue Collection Recycling” (DRCR) (not present in scenario 12)
and ‘‘Dry Residue Collection RDF Incineration” (DRCI) (not present
in scenarios 11 and 12). This is a general statement: it is valid for
all the considered impact categories.
In particular, in terms of renewable energy saving, scenario 11
(80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 because of the contri-
bution ( 36,036 Equivalent Inhabitants) of the dry residue sort-
ing plant (‘‘Facility Dirty MRF” with 15% of recovered materials,
Table 3), while in scenario 10 (80%) there were lower savings
of renewable energy due to the RDF production plant (MBT, Ta-
ble 4) ( 8,839 E.I.) and the RDF incineration plant (Table 4)
( 2,040 E.I.). In scenario 12 (80%L), the three considered manage-
ment phases produced insignificant use of renewable energy be-
cause DRCR and DRCI did not exist and the landfill disposal of
the dry residue does not produce a saving but only a limited
use of renewable energy (+46 E.I.). Therefore, in terms of
‘‘Renewable Energy Use”, for high percentages of separate collec-
tion a management system based on recovery and recycling but
without incineration would be preferable.
3.2. Non-renewable energy use
The impact category ‘‘Non-Renewable Energy Use” represents
the energy derived from fossil materials such as oil, coal, natural
gas or nuclear materials. In Table 6, the results were normalised
and expressed in terms of domestic energy usage for heating,
lighting and transport. In particular, a consumption of 168.91 GJ/
inhabitant/yr was assumed for an Equivalent Inhabitant (Pricewa-
terhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Non-Renewable Energy
Use”. Therefore, they also represented an avoided impact as well
as the highest percentage corresponded to the highest avoided im-
pact. The most environmentally sound scenario was number 10
(‘‘80%”: 80% separate collection, RDF production and incineration).
The following phases avoided impacts in terms of ‘‘Non Renew-
able Energy Use” (Table 9): all recycling contributions, composting,
dry residue selection, RDF production and incineration. Since plas-
tics and metals derive from non-renewable resources (oil and min-
erals), ‘‘Plastics and Metals Collection Recycling” was the phase
with the greatest avoided impact for each MSW management sce-
nario developed (Table 7). This fact depends on the lower energy
needs by production of recycled plastics and metals when com-
pared with new plastics and metals (EPA, 2007). On the other hand,
the following phases had positive impacts (Table 9): only collection
logistics and landfilling. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection
Logistics” was the management phase with the greatest produced
impact for all MSW management scenarios developed (Table 8)
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915 1907

Table 4
Characteristic of the mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) and RDF incinerator adopted in the MSW management scenarios developed.
MBT (residue)
General characteristics
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage (t/month) Working time (d/moths) Type of facility
20 250,500 30 Mechanized
Percentage mass balance of site inputs and outputs
Inflow Outflow
Discards to landfill RDF to incineration Non ferrous metals Losses Stabilized organic fraction
Putrescibles 11.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 6.85
Putrescibles (exc. garden) 29.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 17.12
Fines 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.88
Non ferrous metal 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.95 - 0.00
Paper 29.52 4.54 24.98 0.00 - 0.00
Dense plastics 13.78 2.12 11.66 0.00 - 0.00
Textiles 3.03 0.47 2.56 0.00 - 0.00
Glass 7.87 7.87 0.00 0.00 - 0.00
Total 100.00 15 39.20 2.95 18.00 24.85
RDF Incineration – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)
General characteristics
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage (t/month)
30 83,300
Utilities
Electricity (kWh/moth) Fuel consumption (l/month) Natural gas (m3/month) Propane (kg/month) Diesel for off-road vehicle (l/month)
0 0 75 0 0
Material outputs
Water (m3/month) Bottom ash Recovery (%) Iron scrap Aluminium scrap
0 9,166 0 0 0
Energy generation (output)
Steam (MJ/month) Water Gas (%) Coal (%) Oil (%) Electricity (kWh/month)
0 0 0 0 0 109,375,000
Gas cleaning (input)
Processed water (m3/month) Activated carbon (kg/month) Lime (quick, kg/month) Lime (slaked, kg/month) Fly ash (kg/month) Exhaust gases (Nm3/twaste)
14,594 208,333 2,083,000 266,560 10,208 9,000

Table 5
Characteristic of the landfill adopted in the MSW management scenarios developed.

Landfill – WISARD (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006)

General characteristics
Lifetime (yr) Treated tonnage (t/month) Working time (d/month)
20 10,000 25
Leachate Landfill gas
Produced (l/t) Discharge (%) Treatment system Discharge (%) First treatment (%) Second treatment (%) Furnace output efficiency (%)
85 10 Biological Treatment 30 70 0 32.5
Capping
Clay (t) Top soil (t) HDPE (t) Diesel (l)
950,000 285,000 0 0

because it takes into account the construction and maintenance of
trucks, containers and waste sacks/bags, which contribute to the
consumption of non-renewable energy.
As shown in Table 10, in terms of non-renewable energy saving,
scenario 10 (80%) prevailed over numbers 11 and 12 due to the
sum of negative contributions of the RDF production plant
( 1915 E.I.) and the RDF incineration plant ( 1619 E.I.). This is
due to the fact that RDF production and incineration allows the
consumption of non-renewable resources for energy production
to be reduced, while in scenario 11 (80%S) there was a lower saving
of non-renewable energy due to the dry residue sorting plant
( 2968 E.I.). Finally, the landfill disposal of sorted dry residue in
scenario 11 produced a reduced consumption of non-renewable
energy (+76 E.I.) as well as the direct dry residue landfill disposal
in scenario 12 (+84 E.I.). Since there was a difference of only 2.6%
between the avoided impacts of scenarios 10 and 11, for high per-
centages of separate collection in terms of non-renewable energy
use, the presence or the absence of an incinerator plant is not so
relevant.
3.3. Total energy use
The impact category ‘‘Total Energy Use” represents a synthesis
of the previous two scenarios considered, renewable and non-
renewable energy use. In Table 6, the results were normalised
and expressed in terms of domestic energy usage for heating,
lighting and transport. In particular, a consumption of 177.52 GJ/
inhabitant/yr was assumed for an Equivalent Inhabitant (Pricewa-
terhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Total Energy Use”. There-
fore, they also represented an avoided impact as well as the highest
percentage corresponded to the highest avoided impact. The most
environmentally sound scenario was 11 (80%S), the same as
‘‘Renewable Energy Use”. In fact, both ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling”
as well as ‘‘Plastics and Metals Collection Recycling” give their con-
tribution to avoiding impacts in terms of total energy use. How-
ever, ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling”, in particular, gives the major
contribution, especially with regard to renewable energy use,
 1908
Table 6
Summary of the numerical results obtained for each MSW management scenario developed in terms of avoided or produced impact.

Impact category MSW management scenario

35% (1) 40% (2) 45% (3) 50% (4) 55% (5) 60% (6) 65% (7) 70% (8) 75% (9) 80% (10) 80%S (11) 80%L (12)
Renewable energy use (Domestic energy usage 428,695 489,507 543,589 597,599 650,858 704,852 725,547 792,498 860,128 927,731 952,854 916,814
a
for heating, lighting and transport – Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 10,628  (percentage of separate collection) 60,995; R2 = 0.9946b 2.7%c +1.2%c
equivalent inhabitant)
Non-renewable energy use (Domestic energy 14,934 15,927 17,227 18,149 18,912 20,158 21,379 22,249 23,494 24,284 23,655 20,679

G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915

a
usage for heating, lighting and transport – Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 209.89  (percentage of separate collection) 7,602.8; R2 = 0.9983b +2.6%c +14.8%c
equivalent inhabitant)
Total energy use (Domestic energy usage for 30,725 33,002 37,316 40,264 43,030 46,288 48,253 51,646 55,425 58,764 59,117 54,880
a
heating, lighting and transport – equivalent Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 607.49  (percentage of separate collection) 9,640.4; R2 = 0.9979b 0.6%c +6.6%c
inhabitant)
Water (Domestic use – equivalent inhabitant) 2,991 3,589 4,191 4,785 5,568 6,168 6,784 7,388 8,174 8,756 9,117 8,876
a
Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 129.18  (percentage of separate collection) 1,588.2; R2 = 0.9993b 4.1%c 1.4%c
Suspended solids and oxydable matters index 6,905 7,905 8,945 10,075 11,032 12,031 13,039 14,044 15,045 15,894 16,393 15,874
a
(equivalent inhabitant) Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 201.53  (percentage of separate collection) 96,36; R2 = 0.9995b 3.1%c 0.1%c
Mineral and quarried matters (t) 1,279 767 51 257 1,077 1,920 2,712 3,481 3,504 4,375 21,396 27,404
a
Impact (t) = 129.28  (percentage +389.1c +526.4%c
of separate collection) 5,910.4;
R2 = 0.9894b
Greenhouse gases (100 years – equivalent 58 677 108 788 969 1,466 1,444 1,899 2,077 2,337 4,370 10,425
a
inhabitant) Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 51.85  (percentage of separate collection) + 1,810.7; R2 = 0.9328b +287.0%c +546.1%c
Acidification (equivalent inhabitant) 8,968 9,247 9,600 9,871 9,986 10,337 10,603 10,710 11,148 11,321 10,296 4,237
a
Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 51.61  (percentage of separate collection) 7,211.8; R2 = 0.9931b +9.1c +62.6%c
Eutrophication (equivalent inhabitant) 1,120 1,291 1,460 1,634 1,806 1,979 2,152 2,314 2,486 2,593 2,619 2,517
a
Impact (inhabitant equivalent) = 33.47  (percentage of separate collection) + 40.8; R2 = 0.9987b 1.0%c +2.9%c
Hazardous waste (t) 1,375 1,427 1,480 1,543 1,565 1,617 1,659 1,702 1,755 1,807 2,204 1,642
a
Impact (t) = 9.32  (percentage of separate collection) 1,056.8; R2 = 0.9968b 22.0%c +9.1%c
Non hazardous waste (t) 21,023 21,488 22,038 22,511 23,065 23,676 24,263 24,732 25,387 25,824 42,317 43,470
a
Impact (t) = 108.89  (percentage +63.9%c +68.3%c
of separate collection) + 17,139;
R2 = 0.999b
a
The symbol ‘‘ ” (‘‘ ”) indicates an environmentally sound positive (negative) trends with % of separate collection (positive or negative effects of recycling and/or composting).
b
Linear correlation between percentage of separate collection (in the range 35–80%) and avoided or produced impact.
c
Percentage increase from avoided/produced impact related to the 80% scenery (‘‘+” indicates an environmental improvement; ‘‘ ” indicates an environmental worsening).
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915 1909

Table 7
Management phase with the greatest avoided impact for each impact category and for each MSW management scenario developed.

Impact category MSW management scenario

35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 80%S 80%L
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Renewable energy PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
use (Domestic 380,753 441,945 496,339 550,732 605,125 659,518 679,916 747,908 815,899 883,891 883,891 883,891
energy usage for
heating, lighting
and transport –
equivalent
inhabitant)
Non-renewable Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR
energy use 10,791 12,140 13,759 15,378 16,727 18,345 19,694 21,313 22,932 24,281 24,281 24,281
(Domestic energy
usage for heating,
lighting and
transport –
equivalent
inhabitant)
Total energy use PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
(Domestic energy 14,973 17,360 19,514 21,641 23,795 25,923 26,779 29,426 32,073 34,746 34,746 34,746
usage for heating,
lighting and
transport –
equivalent
inhabitant)
Water (Domestic use PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
– equivalent 4,201 4,749 5,297 5,845 6,575 7,123 7,671 8,219 8,950 9,498 9,498 9,498
inhabitant)
Suspended solids and PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
oxydable matters 6,825 7,807 8,821 9,929 10,863 11,845 12,827 13,809 14,791 15,614 15,614 15,614
index (equivalent
inhabitant)
Mineral and quarried DRCR DRCR DRCR DRCR GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR GCR
matters (t) 7,200 6,622 6,043 5,575 5,490 5,948 6,446 6,954 7,452 7,951 7,951 7,951
Greenhouse gases DRCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR
(100 years – 11,152 12,280 13,518 15,346 16,583 18,416 19,667 21,499 22,736 24,569 24,569 24,569
equivalent
inhabitant)
Acidification Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR
(equivalent -16,488 -18,641 -20,795 -22,948 -25,101 -27,255 -29,408 -31,561 -33,715 -35,868 -35,868 -35,868
inhabitant)
Eutrophication PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
(equivalent 1,154 1,328 1,499 1,675 1,851 2,029 2,205 2,369 2,544 2,655 2,655 2,655
inhabitant)
Hazardous waste (t) DRCR DRCR DRCR DRCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR Pl&MCR
1,938 1,791 1,613 1,496 1,544 1,686 1,829 1,971 2,114 2,256 2,256 2,256
Non hazardous waste PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC
(t) 1,332 1,437 1,642 1,846 2,050 2,155 2,359 2,564 2,769 2,974 2,974 2,974

DRCL = dry residue collection logistics; DRCD = dry residue collection disposal; DRCR = dry residue collection recycling; PaCR = paper collection recycling; Pl&MCR = plastics
and etals collection recycling; GCR = glass collection recycling; PCC = putrescibles collection composting; PCD = putrescibles collection disposal.

while ‘‘Plastics and Metals Collection Recycling” produces non-
renewable energy conservation, but with a lower magnitude.
As shown in Table 9, the following phases avoided impacts in
terms of ‘‘Total Energy Use”: all recycling contributions, compost-
ing, dry residue selection, RDF production and incineration. In
particular, ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling” was the phase with the
greatest avoided impact for each impact category and MSW man-
agement scenario developed (Table 7). On the other hand, only col-
lection logistics and landfilling phases produced positive impacts.
In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistics” was the phase with
the greatest produced impact for each impact category and MSW
management scenario developed (Table 8). These results agree
with the findings of Ozeler et al. (2006) who, among several man-
agement options similar to those analysed, identified in the collec-
tion stage the phase with the highest contribution to the net
energy use impact category. In comparison, Arena et al. (2003)
pointed out that the contribution of the transport in terms of en-
ergy use has little influence on the other treatment phases because
they considered a very low level of separate collection (10%).
As shown in Table 10, in terms of total energy saving, scenario
11 (80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 due to the negative
contribution ( 4239 E.I.) of the dry residue sorting plant, while
in scenario 10 (80%), there were lower savings of total energy
due to the RDF production plant ( 2180 E.I.) and the RDF inciner-
ation plant ( 1635 E.I.). Finally, the landfill disposal of sorted dry
residue in scenario 11 produced a reduced consumption of total
energy (+74 E.I.) as well as the direct dry residue landfill disposal
in scenario 12 (+82 E.I.). In the light of the above considerations,
in terms of ‘‘Total Energy Use”, for high percentages of separate
collection a management system based on recovery and recycling
but without incineration would be preferable. Eriksson et al.
(2005) and Emery et al. (2007) pointed out a similar conclusion.
3.4. Water
WISARD estimates the net amount of water used for plants
functioning or recovered by means of treatment processes. In Table
6, the results were normalised and expressed in terms of domestic
1910 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915

Table 8
Management phase with the greatest produced impact for each impact category and for each MSW management scenario developed.

Impact category MSW management scenario

35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 80%S 80%L
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Renewable energy use (Domestic energy usage for DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL GCL GCL GCL
heating, lighting and transport – equivalent 1,020 952 816 748 680 626 558 483 394 347 347 347
inhabitant)
Non-renewable energy use (Domestic energy usage for DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL
heating, lighting and transport – equivalent 5,935 5,666 5,126 4,586 4,317 3,777 3,237 2,968 2,374 2,023 2,023 2,023
inhabitant)
Total energy use (Domestic energy usage for heating, DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL
lighting and transport – equivalent inhabitant) 5,748 5,486 4,961 4,440 4,178 3,657 3,135 2,873 2,299 1,959 1,959 1,959
Water (Domestic use – equivalent inhabitant) DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL
676 639 584 530 493 438 384 329 274 237 237 237
Suspended solids and oxydable matters index DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL PCD DRCD DRCD
(equivalent inhabitant) 41 38 35 32 29 26 23 20 16 17 21 24
Mineral and quarried matters (t) DRCD DRCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD DRCD DRCD
9,412 8,711 8,510 9,412 10,413 11,414 12,615 13,716 13,818 15,019 18,424 21,727
Greenhouse gases (100 years – equivalent inhabitant) DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL PCD PCD PCD DRCD DRCD
10,003 9,269 8,535 7,828 6,929 6,222 5,502 5,415 5,832 6,249 8,053 10,527
Acidification (equivalent inhabitant) DRCL DRCL DRCL PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC PCC
17,001 15,743 14,485 14,569 16,007 17,445 18,883 20,322 21,760 23,198 23,198 23,198
Eutrophication (equivalent inhabitant) DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL DRCL PCD PCD DRCD DRCD
69 65 58 53 49 44 39 34 37 39 49 55
Hazardous waste (t) DRCI DRCI DRCI DRCI DRCI DRCI DRCI DRCI PaCR PaCR PaCR PaCR
1,262 1,165 1,068 970 903 806 719 631 580 610 610 610
Non hazardous waste (t) DRCD DRCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD PCD DRCD DRCD
11,020 10,019 9,219 10,021 11,023 12,024 13,026 14,028 15,030 16,032 20,040 21,046

DRCD = dry residue collection disposal; DRCL = dry residue collection logistics; DRCI = dry residue collection RDF incineration; DRCR = dry residue collection recycling;
GCL = glass collection logistics; PaCR = paper collection recycling; Pl&MCR = plastics and metals collection recycling; PCC = putrescibles collection composting;
PCD = putrescibles collection disposal.

Table 9
Summary of produced (+) and avoided impacts ( ) for each impact categories, for each MSW management phase and for all scenarios developed.

Impact category MSW management phase

Glass Paper Plasctics and metals Putrescibles Dry residue
GCL GCR GCD PaCL PaCR PaCD Pl&MCL Pl&MCR Pl&MD PCL PCC PCD DRCL DRCR DRCI DRCD
Renewable energy use + + + + + + + + + + +
Non-renewable energy use + + + + + + + + + +
Total energy use + + + + + + + + + +
Water + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Suspended solids and oxydable matters + + + + + + + + + + +
Mineral and quarried matters + + + + + + + + + + +
Greenhouse gases + + + + + + + + + + + +
Acidification + + + + + + + + + + +
Eutrophication + + + + + + + + + + +
Hazardous waste + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Non hazardous waste + + + + + + + + + + + + +

GCL = glass collection logistics; GCR = glass collection recycling; GCD = glass collection disposal; PaCL = paper collection logistics; PaCR = paper collection recycling;
PaCD = paper collection disposal; Pl&MCL = plastics and metals collection logistics; Pl&MCR = plastics and metals collection recycling; Pl&MCD = plastics and metals col-
lection disposal; PCL = putrescibles collection logistics; PCC = putrescibles collection composting; PCD = putrescibles collection disposal; DRCL = dry residue collection
logistics; DRCR = dry residue collection recycling; DRCI = dry residue collection RDF incineration; DRCD = dry residue collection disposal.

consumption. In particular, a consumption of 683 m3/inhabitant/yr
was assumed for an Equivalent Inhabitant (Pricewaterhouse Coo-
pers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Water”. Therefore, for
each scenario there is a net saving of water or, in other terms, an
avoided consumption. Moreover, the highest percentage corre-
sponded to the highest avoided impact. The most environmentally
sound scenario was 11 (80%S).
Only the recycling phases avoided water consumptions (Table
9). In particular, ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling” was the phase with
the greatest avoided impact for each impact category and MSW
management scenario developed (Table 7). The highest percentage
corresponded to the highest saving of water. In fact, since the life
cycle for the production of recycled paper is shorter than the cor-
responding life cycle for the production of new paper, producing
recycled paper require a lower consumption of water. Moreover,
it is well known that paper mills require huge amounts of water
(Byström and Lönnstedt, 1997). On the other hand, the following
phases had positive impacts: collection logistics and landfilling,
composting, dry residue selection, RDF production and incinera-
tion. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistics” was the phase
with the greatest produced impact for each impact category and
MSW management scenario developed. The highest percentage
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915 1911

Table 10
Avoided or produced impacts for the three management scenarios with 80% of separate collection and for the management phases involving dry residue recycling (DRCR),
incineration (DRCI) and disposal (DRCD).

Impact category MSW management scenario

80% (10) 80%S (11) 80%L (12)
MSW management phase MSW management phase MSW management phase
DRCR DRCI DRCD total DRCR DRCI DRCD total DRCR DRCI DRCD total
Renewable energy use (equivalent inhabitant) 8,839 2,040 7 10,872 36,036 0 41 35,995 0 0 46 46
Non-renewable energy use (equivalent inhabitant) 1,915 1,619 13 3,522 2,968 0 76 2,892 0 0 84 84
Total energy use (equivalent inhabitant) 2,180 1,635 12 3,802 4,230 0 74 4,155 0 0 82 82
Water (equivalent inhabitant) 20 119 3 142 237 0 18 219 0 0 22 22
Suspended solids and oxydable matters index 6 6 4 4 516 0 21 495 0 0 24 24
(equivalent inhabitant)
Mineral and quarried matters (t) 2,206 2,310 3,214 1,302 2,705 0 18,424 15,719 0 0 21,727 21,727
Greenhouse gases (100 years – equivalent inhabitant) 3,351 310 1,155 2,506 3,852 0 8,053 4,202 0 0 10,257 10,257
Acidification (equivalent inhabitant) 4,901 1,774 60 6,615 5,974 0 385 5,589 0 0 469 469
Eutrophication (equivalent inhabitant) 11 19 8 21 96 0 49 47 0 0 55 55
Hazardous waste (t) 612 447 0.0062 165 563 0 0.04 563 0 0 0.04 0
Non hazardous waste (t) 397 190 3,607 3,400 147 0 20,040 19,893 0 0 21,046 21,046

DRCR = dry residue collection recycling; DRCI = dry residue collection RDF incineration; DRCD = dry residue collection disposal.

corresponded to the lowest consumption of water because the
magnitude of dry residue transport diminishes with the increasing
of the separate collection percentage.
As shown in Table 10, in terms of water saving, scenario 11
(80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 due to the negative con-
tribution ( 4239 E.I.) of the dry residue sorting plant. In fact,
recovering material corresponds to water savings not consumed
for the production of new materials. In comparison, in scenario
10 (80%), there were consumptions of water due to the RDF pro-
duction plant (+20 E.I.), particularly for the stabilization of recov-
ered putrescibles, the RDF incineration plant (+119 E.I.) and the
landfill disposal (+3 E.I.). Finally, the landfill disposal of sorted
dry residue in scenario 11 produced a reduced consumption of
water (+18 E.I.) as well as the direct dry residue landfill disposal
in scenario 12 (+22 E.I.). Therefore, also in terms of ‘‘Water”, for
high percentages of separate collection a management system
based on recovery and recycling but without incineration would
be preferable.
3.5. Suspended solids and oxydable matters index
The ‘‘Suspended Solids and Oxydable Matters Index” is ex-
pressed in terms of the amount of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and suspended solids (TSS) one person emits into the envi-
ronment per year. In Table 6, the results were normalised and ex-
pressed in terms of Equivalent Inhabitants (E.I.). In particular, for
an E.I. a production of 47.6 (kgTSS + kgBOD5)/inhabitant/yr was as-
sumed (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006). Obviously, this index is
an indicator of water pollution.
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Suspended Solids and
Oxydable Matters Index”. Therefore, for each scenario there is an
avoided pollution. Moreover, the highest percentage corresponded
to the highest avoided impact. Also for this effect category, the
most environmentally sound scenario was 11 (80%S).
As shown in Table 9, the following phases avoided impacts in
terms of ‘‘Suspended Solids and Oxydable Matters Index”: all recy-
cling contributions, composting, dry residue selection and RDF pro-
duction. In particular, ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling” was the phase
with the greatest avoided impact for each impact category and
MSW management scenario developed (Table 7). The highest per-
centage corresponded to the highest reduction of suspended solids
and oxydable matters pollution. In fact, since the life cycle for the
production of recycled paper is shorter than the corresponding life
cycle for the production of new paper, producing recycled paper
results in lower water pollution. On the other hand, the following
phases had positive impacts: collection logistics and landfilling,
and RDF incineration. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logis-
tics” was the management phase with the greatest produced im-
pact for scenarios 1–9 (Table 8), because for the corresponding
level of separate collection, the transport of dry residue produces
a valuable organic water pollution, while ‘‘Putrescibles Collection
Disposal” was the management phase with the greatest produced
impact for scenario 10 and, finally, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Dis-
posal” was the management phase with the greatest produced im-
pact for scenarios 11 and 12 (Table 8). In fact, the disposal of
putrescibles and dry residue determines the production of landfill
leachate which is typically characterized by high concentrations of
suspended solids and BOD.
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, scenario
11 (80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 due to the negative
contribution ( 516 E.I.) of the dry residue sorting plant. In fact,
recovering material avoids the organic pollution of water related
to the production of new materials. All the other contributions re-
lated to the three 80% scenarios were negligible. Therefore, also in
terms of ‘‘Suspended Solids and Oxydable Matters Index”, a man-
agement system based on recovery and recycling but without
incineration would be preferable for high percentages of separate
collection.
3.6. Mineral and quarried matters
The impact category of ‘‘Mineral and Quarried Matters” deals
with the depletion of non-renewable resources which is the
decreasing availability of natural resources such as fossil and min-
eral resources. This impact category is expressed in terms of the
amount of aluminium mineral (bauxite) and iron mineral one per-
son consumes per year. In Table 6, the results were normalised and
expressed in terms of Equivalent Inhabitants (E.I.). In particular,
consumptions of 0.060 tbauxite/inhabitant/yr and 0.300 tiron_mineral/
inhabitant/yr were assumed for an E.I. (Pricewaterhouse Coopers,
2006).
As shown in Table 6, in this case, on the contrary to the other
impact categories considered, the impact levels are both positive
and negative, and with increasing values with the percentage of
separate collection. Therefore, the best environmentally sound sce-
nario is immediately identified in number 1, which corresponds to
scenario with the lowest percentage of separate collection: 35%.
Since this impact category deals with the consumption of non-
renewable resources, the disposal phase produces a loss of
1912 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
resources and therefore positive impacts, while the recycling
phases related to non-renewable resources (glass, plastics and
metals) produce a recovery of resources and therefore negative im-
pacts. As a matter of fact, the following phases avoided impacts in
terms of ‘‘Mineral and Quarried Matters” (Table 9): glass recycling,
plastics and metals recycling, composting, dry residue selection,
RDF production and incineration. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Col-
lection Recycling” and ‘‘Glass Collection Recycling” were the
phases with the greatest avoided impact: DRCR for the first four
scenarios, while GCR for the others (Table 7). On the other hand,
the following phases had positive impacts (Table 9): collection
logistics and landfilling, and paper recycling. In particular, ‘‘Dry
Residue Collection Disposal”(scenarios 1, 2, 11 and 12) and
‘‘Putrescibles Collection Disposal” (scenarios 3–10) were the man-
agement phases with the greatest produced impact (Table 8).
As shown in Table 10, in terms of non-renewable resources sav-
ing, scenario 10 (80%) prevailed over numbers 11 and 12 because
the sum of negative contributions of RDF production ( 2206 t)
and RDF incineration ( 2310 t) compensated for the positive terms
of dry residue disposal (+3214 t). Globally, 1302 t of non-renew-
able resources were saved in scenario 10, while in scenario 11
(80%S), the saving of non-renewable resources due to dry residue
sorting ( 2705 E.I.) was dominated by the consumption term of
the landfill disposal (+18,424 t). Globally, 15,719 t of non-renew-
able resources were consumed in scenario 11. Finally, the direct
dry residue landfill disposal in scenario 12 produced a consump-
tion of 21,727 t of non-renewable resources. Therefore, in terms
of ‘‘Mineral and Quarried Matters”, the absence of an incinerator
plant is not environmentally sound for high percentages of sepa-
rate collection.
3.7. Greenhouse gases
‘‘Greenhouse gases” (GHGs) refers to the gases (primarily water
vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) present in the
earth’s atmosphere which reduce the loss of heat into space and
therefore contribute to global temperatures through the green-
house effect. This impact category was expressed in terms of
greenhouse effect over 100 years. In Table 6, the results were nor-
malised and expressed in terms of Equivalent Inhabitants (E.I.). In
particular, a production of 8.680 teq.CO2/inhabitant/yr was assumed
for an E.I. (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, also in this case, analogously to ‘‘Mineral
and Quarried Matters”, the impact levels are both positive and neg-
ative, but with decreasing values with the percentage of separate
collection. Therefore, the best environmentally sound scenario is
immediately identified in number 10 which corresponds to the
scenario with the highest percentage of separate collection: 80%.
The following phases avoided impacts in terms of GHGs (Table
9): glass recycling, plastics and metals recycling, dry residue selec-
tion, RDF production and incineration. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue
Collection Recycling” and ‘‘Plastics and Metals Collection Recy-
cling” were the phases with the greatest avoided impact: DRCR
for the first scenario and Pl&MCR for the other eleven scenarios
(Table 7). In fact, recovering plastics and metals for recycling
avoids the production of GHGs (EPA, 2006). On the other hand,
the following were the phases with produced impacts (Table 9):
collection logistics and landfilling, paper recycling and composting.
In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistics” (scenarios 1–7),
‘‘Putrescibles Collection Disposal” (scenarios 8–10), and ‘‘Dry Resi-
due Collection Disposal” (scenarios 11 and 12) were the manage-
ment phases with the greatest produced impact (Table 8). In fact,
it is well known that the combustion of fossil fuels associated with
transporting and methane emissions from landfills produce GHGs
(EPA, 2006). For the first seven scenarios, the disposal of dry resi-
due was more relevant than the disposal of putrescibles because
of the decreasing quantity of dry residue as well as the increasing
quantity of putrescibles collected. While in scenario 11, the
adopted dry residue sorting plant was schematized as ‘‘Facility
Dirty MRF” with 85% of discards in landfill. Finally, in scenario
12, dry residue is directly landfilled.
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, scenario
10 (80%) prevailed over numbers 11 and 12 because the sum of
negative contributions of RDF production ( 3351 E.I.) and RDF
incineration ( 310 E.I.) compensated for the positive terms of
dry residue landfilling (+1155 E.I). Globally, an equivalent contri-
bution of 2506 inhabitants was avoided in scenario 10, while in
scenario 11 (80%S), the saving of non-renewable resources due to
dry residue sorting ( 2705 E.I.) was outclassed by the positive im-
pact of the landfill disposal (+8053 E.I.). Globally, an equivalent
contribution of 4202 inhabitants was produced in scenario 11. Fi-
nally, the direct dry residue landfill disposal in scenario 12 pro-
duced an impact corresponding to GHG emissions of 10,257
equivalent inhabitants. Therefore, in terms of GHGs, for high per-
centages of separate collection the absence of an incinerator plant
is not environmentally sound. Viotti et al. (2005) obtained similar
results. As a matter of fact, they pointed out the treatment of or-
ganic matter and landfill disposal as the phase which affected
the greenhouse gas emissions the most. Similarly, Arena et al.
(2003) argued that the solution with RDF incineration is better
than a total landfill disposal, reasoning in terms of climate changes.
Also Emery et al. (2007) emphasized the role of the total incinera-
tion of waste as a phase capable of producing a positive effect in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
3.8. Acidification
‘‘Acidification” is the process whereby air pollution, mainly
ammonia, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, are converted into
acidic substances. Some of the principal effects of air acidification
include Lake Acidification and forest decline. In Table 6, the results
were normalised and expressed in terms of an Equivalent Inhabi-
tant (E.I.). In particular, an E.I. corresponds to 0.00186 teq.H+/inhab-
itant/yr (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Acidification” which
means an avoided production of acidification gases. Moreover,
the highest percentage of separate collection corresponded to the
highest avoided impacts; with scenario 10 being the most environ-
mentally sound scenario in terms of acidification.
As shown in Table 9, the following phases avoided impacts in
terms of ‘‘Acidification”: all recycling contributions, dry residue
selection, RDF production and incineration. In particular, ‘‘Plastics
and Metals Collection Recycling” was the phase with the greatest
avoided impact for each MSW management scenario developed
(Table 7). Moreover, the highest percentage corresponded to the
highest avoided impact. In fact, recycling plastics and metals saves
emissions of acid gases at the manufacturing stage due to de-
creased energy demand due to using secondary materials in man-
ufacturing (Craighill and Powell, 1996). On the other hand, the
following phases had positive impacts (Table 9): collection logis-
tics and landfilling, and composting. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue
Collection Logistics” (scenarios 1–3) and ‘‘Putrescibles Collection
Composting” (scenarios 4–12) were the phases with the greatest
produced impact for each MSW management scenario developed
(Table 8). In fact, for the first three scenarios the great amount of
dry residue collected (65–55%) requires many trucks for the trans-
port with the consequent emissions of acid gases. While for the
other scenarios with decreasing quantity of dry residue, the com-
posting produces greater impacts regarding acidification potential
due to a high emission of gaseous ammonia (Mendes et al., 2003).
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, scenario
10 (80%) prevailed over numbers 11 and 12 because of the sum of
negative contributions of RDF production ( 4901 E.I.) and RDF
incineration ( 1774 E.I.) which overcompensated for the low posi-
tive terms of dry residue landfilling (+60 E.I). Globally, an equiva-
lent contribution of 6615 inhabitants was avoided in scenario 10.
While also in scenario 11 (80%S), the avoided impact due to the
dry residue sorting ( 5974 E.I.) outclassed the limited positive im-
pact of the landfill disposal (+385 E.I.). Globally, an equivalent con-
tribution of 5589 inhabitants was produced in scenario 11. Finally,
the direct dry residue landfill disposal in scenario 12 produced an
impact corresponding to 469 equivalent inhabitants. Since there
was a difference of only 9.1% between the avoided impacts of sce-
narios 10 and 11, the presence or the absence of an incinerator
plant is not as relevant for high percentages of separate collection
in terms of acidification. Emery et al. (2007) and Ozeler et al.
(2006) obtained quite similar results.
3.9. Eutrophication
‘‘Eutrophication” is the enrichment of mineral salts and nutri-
ents in marine or lake waters from natural processes and man-
made activities such as farming (Emery et al., 2007). This includes
abatement in a wastewater treatment plant. In Table 6, the results
were normalised and expressed in terms of an equivalent number
of inhabitants (E.I.) based on their contribution of phosphorus
emitted to the environment per person per year. In particular, a
production of 13.05 kgeq. PO4/inhabitant/yr was assumed for an
E.I. (Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006).
As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios
considered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Eutrophication”.
Therefore, for each scenario there is avoided water pollution.
Moreover, the highest percentage corresponded to the highest
avoided impact. For this effect category, the most environmentally
sound scenario was number 11 (80%S).
The following phases avoided impacts in terms of ‘‘Eutrophica-
tion” (Table 9): all recycling contributions, dry residue selection,
RDF production and incineration. In particular, ‘‘Paper Collection
Recycling” was the phase with the greatest avoided impact for each
impact category and MSW management scenario developed (Table
7). Moreover, the highest percentage corresponded to the highest
reduction of eutrophication effects. In fact, since the life cycle for
the production of recycled paper is shorter than the corresponding
life cycle for the production of new paper, producing recycled paper
generates lower water pollution (Byström and Lönnstedt, 1997;
EPA, 2007). On the other hand, the following phases had positive
impacts (Table 9): collection logistics and landfilling, and compost-
ing. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistics” was the man-
agement phase with the greatest produced impact for scenarios
1–8, because for the corresponding level of separate collection,
the transport of dry residue produces a valuable eutrophication ef-
fect (Table 8). While, ‘‘Putrescibles Collection Disposal” was the
management phase with the greatest produced impact for scenar-
ios 9 and 10 and, finally, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Disposal” was
the management phase with the greatest produced impact for sce-
narios 11 and 12. In fact, the disposal of putrescibles and dry resi-
due determines the production of landfill leachate which is
strongly correlated to eutrophication effects.
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, scenario
11 (80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 because the avoided
impact due to the dry residue sorting ( 96 E.I.) outclassed the po-
sitive impact of the landfill disposal (+49 E.I.). Globally, an equiva-
lent contribution of 47 inhabitants was produced in scenario 11. In
comparison, also in scenario 10 (80%), the sum of contributions of
RDF production ( 11 E.I.) and RDF incineration ( 19 E.I.) out-
classed the positive terms of dry residue landfilling (+8 E.I). Glob-
1913
ally, an equivalent contribution of 21 inhabitants was avoided in
scenario 10. Finally, the direct dry residue landfill disposal in sce-
nario 12 produced an impact corresponding to 55 equivalent
inhabitants. Therefore, it can be stated that in terms of ‘‘Eutrophi-
cation”, according to the results obtained by Salhofer et al. (2005)
and Emery et al. (2007), a management system based on recovery
and recycling but without incineration would be preferable for
high percentages of separate collection.
3.10. Hazardous waste
‘‘Hazardous waste” concerns the hazardous solid waste produced
in the scenarios and measured in tonnes (Pricewaterhouse Coopers,
2006). As shown in Table 6, all the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered gave negative results in terms of ‘‘Hazardous Waste”. There-
fore, for each scenario there is an avoided production of hazardous
waste. Moreover, the highest percentage corresponded to the high-
est avoided production. Also for this effect category, the most envi-
ronmentally sound scenario was number 11 (80%S).
As shown in Table 9, the following phases avoided impacts:
glass recycling, plastics and metals recycling, dry residue selection
and RDF production. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Recy-
cling” and ‘‘Plastics and Metals Collection Recycling” were the
phases with the greatest avoided impact: DRCR for scenarios 1–4,
while Pl&MCR for scenarios 5–12 (Table 7). In fact, recycling plas-
tics and metals avoids the production of hazardous waste in man-
ufacturing new goods (EPA, 2007), but for the first four scenarios
(65–50% of dry residue), the mechanical and biological treatment
segregates major quantity of hazardous waste. On the other hand,
the following phases had positive impacts in terms of ‘‘Hazardous
Waste” (Table 9): collection logistics and landfilling, paper recy-
cling, composting and RDF incineration. In particular, ‘‘Dry Residue
Collection RDF Incineration” (scenarios 1–8), ‘‘Paper Collection
Recycling” (scenarios 9–12) were the management phases with
the greatest produced impact (Table 8). In fact, recycling paper pro-
duces hazardous waste (Byström and Lönnstedt, 1997), but for the
first eight scenarios (65–30% of dry residue), the RDF incineration
produces a major quantity of hazardous waste.
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, scenario
11 (80%S) prevailed over numbers 10 and 12 because the avoided
impact due to the dry residue sorting ( 563 t) outclassed the low
positive impact of the landfill disposal (+0.04 t). Globally, the pro-
duction of 563 t of hazardous waste was avoided in scenario 11.
While also in scenario 10 (80%), the avoided impact due to the
dry residue sorting ( 612 t) prevailed on the sum of the positive
impacts of the RDF incineration (+447 t) and landfilling
(+0.0062). Globally, the production of 165 t of hazardous waste
was avoided in scenario 10. Finally, the direct dry residue landfill
disposal in scenario 12 determined the production of 0.04 t of haz-
ardous waste. In the light of the above considerations, it can be sta-
ted that also in terms of ‘‘Hazardous Waste”, a management
system based on recovery and recycling but without incineration
would be preferable for high percentages of separate collection.
3.11. Non Hazardous waste
‘‘Non Hazardous waste” concerns the solid waste produced in
the scenario and measured in tonnes (Pricewaterhouse Coopers,
2006). As shown in Table 6, in this case, differently from the other
impact categories considered, the impact levels are all positive
(production of non hazardous solid waste) and with increasing val-
ues with the percentage of separate collection: the highest per-
centage corresponded to the highest production of solid waste.
Therefore, the best environmentally sound scenario is immediately
identified in number 1 which corresponds to the scenario with the
lowest percentage of separate collection: 35%.
1914 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
The following phases avoided impacts in terms of ‘‘Non Haz-
ardous Waste” (Table 9): glass recycling, composting, dry residue
selection and RDF production. In particular, ‘‘Putrescibles Collec-
tion Composting” was the phase with the greatest avoided impact
for each MSW management scenario developed (Table 7). In fact,
the recovery of putrescibles for composting avoids that the great-
est MSW component collected is directly landfilled. On the other
hand, the following were the phases with positive impacts (Table
9): collection logistics and landfilling, paper recycling, plastics
and metals recycling, and RDF incineration. In particular, ‘‘Dry
Residue Collection Disposal” was the management phase with
the greatest produced impact for scenarios 1, 2, 11 and 12, while
‘‘Putrescibles Collection Disposal” was the phase with the greatest
produced impact for scenarios 3–10 (Table 8). In fact, for the first
ten scenarios, on the basis of the percentage production of dis-
cards corresponding to the adopted MBT (15%, Table 4) and com-
posting plant (48%, Table 3) as well as the separate collection
percentages (Fig. 1), the MBT (RDF production) prevailed on the
composting plant in terms of discards production for scenarios
1 and 2. On the contrary for scenarios 3–10, the composting plant
prevailed on the MBT. While in scenario 11, the adopted dry res-
idue sorting plant was schematized as ‘‘Facility Dirty MRF” with
85% of discards in landfill. Finally, in scenario 12, dry residue is
directly landfilled.
As shown in Table 10, in environmentally sound terms, sce-
nario 10 (80%) prevailed over number 11 and 12 because the
sum of non-hazardous waste produced by RDF incineration
(+190 t) and dry residue disposal (+3607 t) was partly compen-
sated by the avoided impact in the production of RDF ( 397 t).
Globally, 3400 t of non-hazardous waste were produced in sce-
nario 10. While in scenario 11 (80%S), the low avoided production
of non-hazardous waste of 147 t was dominated by the high
waste production for the dry residue landfilling (+18,424 t). Glob-
ally, 19,893 t of non-hazardous waste were produced in scenario
11. Finally, the direct dry residue landfill disposal in scenario 12
produced 21,046 t of non-hazardous waste (not compensated by
any other phase). Therefore, in terms of ‘‘Non Hazardous Waste”,
the absence of an incinerator plant is not environmentally sound
for high percentages of separate collection.
4. Conclusions
The following particular outcomes based on the results ob-
tained can be stated:
 Scenario number 11 (80% separate collection, no RDF incinera-
tion, dry residue sorting) was the most environmentally sound
option for the following six impact categories: renewable energy
use, total energy use, water, suspended solids and oxydable
matters index, eutrophication, and hazardous waste;
 Scenario number 10 (80% separate collection, RDF production
and incineration) was the most environmentally sound option
for the following three impact categories: non-renewable
energy use, greenhouse gases, and acidification;
 Scenario number 1 (35% separate collection, RDF production and
incineration) was the most environmentally sound option for
the following two impact categories: mineral and quarried mat-
ters, and non-hazardous waste;
 For the following eight impact categories (of the eleven consid-
ered), all the MSW management scenarios considered produced
negative impacts, and the highest percentage of separate collec-
tion corresponded to the highest avoided impact: Renewable
Energy Use, Non-Renewable Energy Use, Total Energy Use,
Water, Suspended Solids and Oxydable Matters Index, Acidifi-
cation, Eutrophication, and Hazardous Waste;
 For ‘‘Mineral and Quarried Matters” the MSW management sce-
narios considered produced positive and negatives impacts, and
the highest percentage of separate collection corresponded to
the highest produced impact;
 For ‘‘Greenhouse Gases”, the MSW management scenarios con-
sidered produced positive and negative impacts, and the highest
percentage of separate collection corresponded to the highest
avoided impact;
 For ‘‘Non Hazardous Waste” all the MSW management scenarios
considered produced positive impacts, and the highest percent-
age of separate collection corresponded to the highest produced
impact;
 For the following six impact categories (of the eleven consid-
ered), for high percentages of separate collection (80%), a man-
agement system based on recovery and recycling but without
incineration would be preferable: Renewable Energy Use, Total
Energy Use, Water, Suspended Solids and Oxydable Matters
Index, Eutrophication and Hazardous Waste;
 ‘‘Paper Collection Recycling” was the system component with
the greatest avoided impact for 45.5% of the cases considered;
 ‘‘Dry Residue Collection Logistic” was the system component
with the greatest produced for 54.5% of the cases considered.
The following outcomes on the LCA WISARD software tool can
be stated:
 WISARD tool gives a good indication of the environmental ben-
efits of different waste management systems, as well as being
very useful when comparing different alternatives;
 WISARD database is limited to the types of recovery facilities
available, as well as the recycling processes available under each
recovery category;
 WISARD is quite rigid, while a more general and flexible soft-
ware tool with a broader database would be preferable.
Finally, the following general outcomes on LCA can be stated:
 LCA is a powerful tool when comparing the environmental
impacts produced by several MSW management system under
study;
 One of the principal advantages of an LCA procedure is the pos-
sibility to take into account the peculiarity of the geographic
area being studied, as well as the specific characteristics of the
treatment and disposal plants;
 Lack of required data can induce and arbitrarily force the assign-
ing of values for some parameters, thus having a great influence
on the process.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the three anonymous referees for
their precious suggestions as well as dr. Sacha A. Berardo for his
revision.
References
Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L., Perugini, F., 2003. The environmental performance of
alternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study.
Chemical Engineering Journal 96, 207–222.
Azapagic, A., 1999. Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection,
design and optimisation. Chemical Engineering Journal 73, 1–21.
Byström, S., Lönnstedt, L., 1997. Paper recycling: environmental and economic
impact. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 109–127.
Craighill, A.L., Powell, J.C., 1996. Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case study. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 17, 75–96.
Curran, M.A., 1996. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New-York,
USA.
 G. De Feo, C. Malvano / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1901–1915
De Feo, G., Panza, D., Belgiorno, V., 2005. Public opinion and residents concerns,
perception and attitudes toward MSW treatment and disposal plants. In:
Proceedings of Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium, CISA. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Emery, A., Davies, A., Griffiths, A., Williams, K., 2007. Environmental and
economic modelling: a case study of municipal solid waste
management scenarios in wales. Resource, Conservation and Recycling
49, 244–263.
EPA, 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases. A Life-Cycle
Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, third ed. United States Environmental
protection Agency, USA (September 2006).
EPA, 2007. Methodology for Estimating Municipal Solid Waste Recycling Benefits.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, USA.
Eriksson, O., Carlsson Reich, M., Frostell, B., Bjorklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist,
J.O., Granath, J., Baky, A., Thyselius, L., 2005. Municipal solid waste
management from a systems perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 13,
241–252.
European Union, 2006. Directive 2006/12/EC of the European parliament and of the
council of 5 April 2006 on waste. Official Journal of the European Union
27.4.2006, L114/9–L114/21.
Heilmann, A., Winkler, J., 2005. Influence of the source separation efficiency
of recyclable materials on the environmental performance of municipal
waste management systems. In: Proceedings of Sardinia 2005, Tenth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, CISA. Cagliari,
Sardinia, Italy.
Koneckny, K., Pennington, D.W., 2007. Life cycle thinking in waste management:
summary of European commission’s Malta 2005 workshop and pilot studies.
Waste Management 27, S92–S97.
Mendes, M.R., Aramaki, T., Hanaki, K., 2003. Assessment of the environmental
impact of management measures for the biodegradable fraction of municipal
solid waste in Sao Paulo City. Waste Management 23, 403–409.
1915
Mendes, M.R., Aramaki, T., Hanaki, K., 2004. Comparison of environmental impact of
incineration and landfilling in Sao Paulo City as determined by LCA. Resource,
Conservation and Recycling 41, 47–63.
Morselli, L., Bartoli, M., Bertacchini, M., Brighetti, A., Luzi, J., Passarini, F., Masoni, P.,
2005. Tools for evaluation of impact associated with MSW incineration: LCA
and integrated environmental monitoring system. Waste Management 25, 191–
196.
Ozeler, D., Yetis, U., Demirer, G.N., 2006. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid
waste management methods: Ankara case study. Environment International 32,
405–411.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 2006. WISARD Reference Guide, version 3.7.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
Rahardyan, B., Matsuto, T., Kakuta, Y., Tanaka, N., 2004. Residents’s concerns and
attitudes towards solid waste management facilities. Waste Management 24,
437–451.
Salhofer, S., Binner, E., Wassermann, G., 2005. Strategic environmental assessment
in waste management planning, an Austrian case study. In: Proceedings of
Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium, CISA. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 1996. Life Cycle
Assessment and Conceptually Related Programmes. SETAC-Europe Working
Group, CRP report, Brussels, Belgium.
Viotti, P., Marella, G., Leccese, M., Verde, K., 2005. Analysis of the environmental
performance of the integrated MSW management in the district of Frosinone
(Lazio) by means of LCA-Based software. In: Proceedings of Sardinia 2005, Tenth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, CISA. Cagliari,
Sardinia, Italy.
Wassermann, G., Binner, E., Mostbauer, P., Salhofer, S., 2005. Environmental
relevance of landfills depending on different waste management strategies.
In: Proceedings of Sardinia 2005, Tenth International Waste Management and
Landfill Symposium, CISA. Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy.