Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion

School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Material, Newcastle
University, United Kingdom
Title :
Feasibility study of Anaerobic Digestion for the treatment of kitchen
and food waste in the United Kingdom and Malaysia.
Agustina Fithri Kasmaruddin
1
Abstract
The problem of food waste (FW) has become a global issue nowadays and Malaysia is on the
other hand, treating FW as part of MSW just because separation of FW management does
not exist. The country is trying its best to solve the fundamental problem of municipal solid
waste management by finding the most environmentally friendly solutions that are
acceptable to the public. The methodology used for this study is a literature reviews, variable
decision-making tools are used such as Decision Matrix, SUSOP and WRATE and also site
visits. Site visits were done to get a clear view of the AD process and the plant management
itself. Decision Matrix will compare four technologies that are suitable to implement in
Malaysia that are Anaerobic Digestion, Composting, Incineration and Landfilling. Results
shows that AD is suitable to implement due to the factor of sustainability, renewable energy,
considerate capital cost if build in small scale and the lifetime. AD will solve the problem of
kitchen and food waste in Malaysia by diverting the waste from landfill and gain benefit by
generating renewable energy.
2
Contents
. I t odu tio …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.1. What is Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Benefits of AD?...............................5
1.2. Why AD?......................................................................................................7
1.3. Disad a tages of AD……………………………………………………………………………….
2.0 Ba kg ou d…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.1 Current waste management in Mala sia……………………………..…………….…...13
2.2 Why AD in Malaysia?...................................................................................14
2.3 Waste management technolog i Mala sia……………………………………………17
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Literature review……………………………………………………………………………………..
3.2 Decision-making tools………………………………………………………………………………
3.2.1 Decision Matrix……………………………………………………………………………….21
3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment comparison…………………………………………………..21
3.2.3 SUSOP……………………………………………………………………………………………..21
3.2.4 Integrated Waste Management………………………………………………………22
3.2.5 WRATE…………………………………………………………………………………………….22
3.3 Use of decision-making tools……………………………………………………………..23
3.4 Site Visits……………………………………………………………………………………………23
4. ‘esults………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…25
4. “ite Visit………………………………………………………………………………………………..….
4.1.1 Site visit at Nestle, Fawdon, Newcastle (Industrial) ………………………..25
4.1.2 Site visit at Anaerobic Digestion Facility,
Lochhead Landfill Site, Dunfermline, “ otla d Co u it ………….
4.1.3 Site visit at Rainbarrow Farm AD Plant, Martinstown,
Dorchester, Dorset………………………………………………………………..……….
4.2 Decision Maki g Tools…………………………………………………………………………….
4.2.1 De isio Mat i ………………………………………………………………..…………..
4.2.2 “U“OP…………………………………………………………………………..………………29
4.3 Identify Risks and Opportunities………………………………………….………………...37
4.4 Conclusions from SUSOP…………………………………………………….……………......37
4.5 WRATE……………………………………………………………………………………………….….38
5.0 Dis ussio …………………………………………………………………………………..……….………….…..41
. A ae o i Digestio ………………………………………………………………………….……..41
5.2 Decision-making tools…………………………………………………………………….……....42
3
5.2.1 De isio Mat i ……………………………………………………………………………42
5.2.2 “U“OP………………………………………………………………………………………….42
5.2.3 W‘ATE…………………………………………………………………………………………43
5.3 Waste Te h ologies i Mala sia………………………………………………………………..43
5.3.1 A ae o i Digestio P opositio ………………………………………………….43
5.3.2 Co posti g………………………………………………………………………………….45
5.3.3 I i e atio ………………………………………………………………………………….46
5.3.4 Gasifi atio /P ol sis…………………………………………………………………..46
5.4 “uggestio s……………………………………………………………………………………………….47
5.5 Limitations of the stud …………………………………………………………………………….48
6.0 Conclusio s……………………………………………………………………………………………………………49
7.0 ‘efe e es ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix
Questionnaire
4
1.0 Introduction
The problem of food waste (FW) has become a global issue nowadays and even the
developed countries are much concerned to find its appropriate management solution along
with the municipal solid waste (MSW) (Hamid, Ahmad, Ibrahim, Norulaini, & Abdul, 2012).
As separate FW management does not exist, Malaysia is treating FW as part of MSW. The
country is trying to solve the fundamental problem of municipal solid waste management by
finding the most environmentally friendly solutions that are acceptable to the public.
Malaysia is considering in the search for solutions for FW matter as FW constitutes
approximately 60% of MSW(Mahmood, 2009). In 2014, studies by the government showed
the average Malaysian produced 0.8kg of solid waste a day. From Table 1, it shows that
those are living in rural areas produced 0.68kg waste per day. However in the urban area
with the highest population such as Kuala Lumpur, Kuantan, Seremban and Johor Bahru,
waste generated could go from 1.25 to 1.75kg of waste a day (Bandar, 2014). Those
numbers show quite high waste generation per person as one of the developing countries
such as India produces per capita waste generation ranges between 0.2 kg and 0.6 kg per day
in the cities. In United Kingdom (UK), average waste generated is 1.12kg per person,
according to a study done in 2013 (DEFRA, 2015).
Table 1: Waste generation in Malaysia
Source: (Bandar, 2014)
5
Solid Waste Corporation Malaysia (SWCorp) have reported that peninsular Malaysia
generated approximately 33 000 tonnes of MSW per day with 15 000 tonnes of the total
waste is food waste; and this amount is equal to 990 000 tonnes of food waste per month.
1.1 What is Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Benefits of AD?
The Environment Agency defines AD as a process that harnesses natural bacteria to treat
biodegradable materials such as agricultural manure and slurry, food waste and sewage
sludge. The AD process produces a methane-rich biogas that can be captured and used to
generate electricity and heat, and the digestate residue is beneficially applied to farmland as
fertiliser or as a soil conditioner(Approach, 2008). Use of AD is very much supported in
developing countries as a means of diverting biodegradable wastes from the landfill,
recovering value from them and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Anaerobic digestion can proceeds well at two ranges of temperature; mesophilic (30-40) and
thermophilic (50-60) with moisture content 85% or higher. A generalized scheme for
anaerobic digestion is that the feedstock is coarsely shredded and placed into a reactor that
has an active inoculum of microorganisms required for methane production. A conventional
reactor is mixed, fed once or more per day, heated to a te pe atu e of , and operated at
a hydraulic retention time of 20-30 days and loading rate of 1.7 kg Volatile Solids (organic
matter as ash-free dry weight) (Malakahmad, Ezlin, & Basri, 2000).
The decomposition process is carried out by micro-organisms in controlled conditions in the

absence of oxygen. It creates biogas and digestate that can be used as a fertiliser and soil
conditioner(Bywater, 2011). The AD is an efficient technique for the treatment of source
segregated biodegradable municipal wastes, e.g. biowastes and food waste (FW), as it
recovers energy in the form of biogas for use in combined heat and power (CHP) plants, in
vehicles and for grid injection. It also allows recycling of nutrients through the application of
digestion residues in crop production(Tampio et al., 2014). AD is also a microbial conversion
method that occurs in an aqueous environment, meaning that biomass sources containing
high water levels (even containing less than 40% dry matter) can be processed without any
pre-treatment (Appels et al., 2011). This technology is perfect for Malaysia as the food and
kitchen waste have a very high moisture content that makes other technologies incompetent
to manage.
6
Diagram 1: Schematic representation of the sustainable cycle of anaerobic digestion of
animal manure and organic waste (Holm-Nielsen, Al Seadi, & Oleskowicz-Popiel, 2009)
The feedstock for AD is a renewable source and, therefore, does not deplete finite fossil
fuels. When the feedstock to an AD plant is a waste, the resulting digestate and biogas are a
waste until put to their final use(Approach, 2008). A study from Bywater, 2011 shows that
digestate is splendid on crops and is valuable in recycling nutrients back to land. Where
appropriate, this digestate can also be separated into a fibre and a liquid fraction. Monnet,
2003 also agrees that the use of the digestate also participates to this reduction by
decreasing synthetic fuels use in fertiliser manufacturing, which is an energy intensive
process.
The composition of biogas produced is typically 60% methane and 40% carbon dioxide with
traces of hydrogen sulfide and water vapor(Malakahmad et al., 2000). Biogas produced from
anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste is an excellent energy source used as fuel in
combined heat and power units and methane from renewable feedstock would benefit the
society with clean fuel thus helps in reducing environmental impacts including global
warming and acid rain(Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009). Biogas can contribute to electricity grids
and cooking gas for the communities. Solid residues may be settled and dewatered by other
means and used as compost. The product gas can be used directly or processed to remove
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide (Monnet, 2003).
7
1.2 Why AD?
One of the potential food waste processing facility is anaerobic digestion, incineration or
composting (Hamid et al., 2012). Food waste has been known to have three times of
biomethane production than municipal solid waste. Food waste is highly biodegradable and
has a much higher volatile solids destruction rate (86-90%) than solid waste. So, even though
the additional material added to the digesters, the end residual will only increase by a small
amount.
Food waste, in particular, has a relatively high water content resulting in very dense waste
that is harder to handle(Zhang et al., 2007). The selection of bins or containers, trucks or
vehicles and waste management systems has significant implications on the need that they
must be able to cope with high-density wastes. Table 2 shows that Malaysian waste have a
high composition of the organic waste and moisture content. Another implication in
Malaysian waste management is the frequency of waste collection as the waste could effect
on odour, and higher moisture content due to rain as Malaysia has a dry and wet weather
throughout the year. The ou t s high hu idit a d te pe atu es a ele ate the
decomposition of organic waste, making daily collections a necessity due to health, vermin
and safety (and amenity) concerns(Hamid et al., 2012).
Table 2: Comparison of waste characteristics and composition (% by weight)
Composition U.S.A (1) U.K (2) Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta,
(% weight) Malaysia (3) Indonesia
Organic 22.6 19.0 45.5 60.0
Paper 37.6 29.0 30.0 2.0
Metals 8.3 9.0 5.10 2.0
Glass 6.6 8.0 3.9 2.0
Textiles 3.0 3.0 2.1 Na
Plastic/Leather/Rubber 12.3 7.0 11.10 2.0
Wood 6.6 2.0 Na Na
Dust/Ash/Other 3.1 21.0 4.3 33
Refuse density (kg/m³) 100 147 230 200
Per capita (kg/day) 1.97 0.95 0.76 0.60
Moisture content (%) 20 30 to 35 65 55 to 75
8
Source: (Malakahmad et al., 2000)
Food becomes waste in Malaysia mostly because of the type of food (using coconut milk)
and also the hot and damp weather that could not preserve the food longer. Wastage of
food become more severe in restaurants and hotels that provide buffet service to customers.
In part due to substantial government subsidy, the proliferation of cafes and food stalls
reflects the extremely low cost of food, meaning the majority can afford to eat out or take
away(Effie Papargyropoulou, 2010). Food waste in Malaysia are likely define as the leftover
food which means unfinished food after preparation such as chicken bones, fish bones and
gravies, and the unfinished food are not preserved, organic waste such as inedible peelings,
chicken skins and vegetables that spoilt due to expiry date. When addressing the issue of
food waste in Malaysia, it is therefore important to recognise that the food service sector is
rapidly overtaking the household as one of the biggest sources of food waste(Effie
Papargyropoulou, 2010). There is a general reluctance to engage even in the simplest waste
management tasks, such as carrying waste to a collection point, putting the waste bags in a
bin and closing the lid once it is full. Practices like these demonstrate a lack of aste
o e ship , a o g othe thi gs. (Effie Papargyropoulou, 2010). Currently, most of the waste
goes to landfill which took over nearly 50% of the land area in landfills.
Chart 1: Peninsular Malaysia Household Waste Composition (Bandar, 2014)
9
Meanwhile in the UK, the total amount of food and drink waste generated by households in
the UK during 2012 was 7.0 million tonnes(Quested, Ingle, & Parry, 2013). A study from
Ward, 1977 shows that most a third of people (32%) say they throw away a significant
amount of food left on the plate and almost a quarter (24%) say they often throw away large
quantities of food prepared but not served, or products opened but not finished. It is also
proven that food getting damaged because its exposed to the air in the fridge and freezer
and of the potentially edible food, it is found that the most frequently wasted is fruit and
vegetables (30% throw away significant amounts), bread and cakes (20%), raw meat and fish
(16%) and ready meals / convenience foods (also 16%). From a study conducted by Waste
and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), the study identified more than 30 reasons for
food waste in the home including:
a) Buying too much – pa ti ula l ei g te pted spe ial offe s e.g. u o e, get o e
f ee BOGOFs ;
b) Buying more perishable food – often as the result of trying to eat more healthily;
c) Poor storage management – not eating food in date order (choosing food on impulse,
ofte d i e spo ta eous a d top up shoppi g ;
d) Ad ho , athe tha ethodi al, sp i g lea i g of sto ed p odu ts;
e) High sensitivity to food hygiene – i sa the o t take a ha e ith food lose to
its est efo e date, e e if it looks fi e;
f) Preparing too much food in general;
g) Not liking the food prepared – 22% of families with children stated that not wanting a
meal was a cause of food waste; and
h) Lifestyle factors – not having the time to plan meals, or having fluid work and social
patterns – particularly right of young professionals.
The reasons stated in WRAP study shows the similar reason of food waste in Malaysia, but
the significant difference is the big portion of food waste in Malaysia comes from unfinished
cooked meals with gravy, rice and organic waste. The life of the already overstretched
landfills is extended if Malaysia could divert food waste from landfill.
10
1.3 Disadvantages of AD
AD achieve a higher methane production and more efficient sterilisation. The disadvantages
are more expensive technologies, greater energy input and a greater degree of operation
and monitoring (Monnet, 2003). AD is as an integrated system and has significant capital and
operational costs. It is likely to be cost effective for those who can use the other products of
AD, fertiliser. From (Monnet, 2003), the study shows that the location of the plant should be
chosen carefully so that distances travelled will be minimised between the production of the
feedstock, the storage tanks and the digester. A nuisance for the neighbourhood also has to
be taken into account. Other problems of AD is storage of feedstock that could lead to health
impacts due to odor and vermin. In hot weather countries like India and Malaysia, storage of
food and kitchen waste could not be longer than 48 hours as the heat generates odor and
rotten the waste very quickly.
11
2.0 Background
The aim of this project is to do a feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion in the United Kingdom and
other developing countries in the perspective of social, financial, productivity and
environmental. This study is done to give some ideas on the proposal of building the first
community Anaerobic Digestion Plant to overcome food waste problem in Malaysia.
The main objectives of the project is as follows:
i. To study the waste characteristics of Malaysian food and kitchen waste as feedstock
for biological treatment.
ii. To recommend the most suitable waste management technology using the decision-
making tools.
iii. To study the operation and the processes of Anaerobic Digestion and the compatibility
to Malaysian waste.
iv. To look for comparison (pros and cons) of both community and large scale of
Anaerobic Digestion in the UK from the perspective of social, financial, productivity
and environmental effects.
The waste problems faced by Malaysia can be better understood when considering the local
conditions and the impacts on waste management but most importantly in nature and
composition of waste(Hamid et al., 2012). Compared with developed countries, MSW in
Malaysia has a lower content of the paper, glass, plastic and metal and a higher percentage
of food waste. The daily waste collection has implications, not only in terms of the increased
workforce required but also in terms of the equipment and its maintenance. Consideration is
the revenue generating mechanism for waste management activities. Currently, the existing
mechanism is not sufficient to cover the associated costs. There is no landfill tax, and
collection charges are so low that collection authorities are in desperate need of subsidies
from the federal government.
12
Table 3: Comparison of Malaysian Urban and Rural Household Waste
(Bandar, 2014)
Table 3 shows the differences in waste composition between waste in the urban and rural
areas. From the table, it shows that urban areas have high proportions of food waste and
plastic but rural have high proportions of garden waste.
13
2.1 Current waste management in Malaysia
Privatisation of solid waste management officially started in Malaysia on 20 September 2011

and was formally announced by Malaysia's deputy prime minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
The privatisation of waste management will raise the quality of the service in the country
and would also enable the selected concessionaire companies to make large-scale
investments in the latest technology and equipment, as well as an exceptionally skilled
workforce(Treatment & Guide, 2010). Encouragingly, the new Solid Waste and Public
Cleansing Management Bill promises to support long-term investment by adopting 22-year
concessions for the waste collection companies, giving them long-term visibility(Effie
Papargyropoulou, 2010).
There will be three concessionaire companies managing the waste according to zones that
are Alam Flora Sdn Bhd, which will manage the central and east zones comprising the
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan, SWM
Environment Sdn Bhd which will manage the southern zone covering Johor, Melaka and
Negeri Sembilan and Environment Idaman Sdn Bhd which will manage the northern zones of
Kedah and Perlis.
Although Mala sia s aste a age e t is contracted out to private contractors, it is still
under the responsibility and monitoring of the Ministry of Housing, Local Government and
Urban Sustainability, Malaysia. The source of fund for the municipal solid waste
management operation is municipal tax collected from premises and households that varies
from RM3.00 to RM28.00 (GBP0.60 to GBP 5). Each of the bins per house are charge around
RM15 but currently each house has only one bins that place the waste according to types of
waste collected on that particular day. There will one compactor truck designated for each
hosuing area and the collection are 3 times per week which one day are designated for
garden and residual waste. This is the new collection frequency adopted in Malaysia since
2011 as Malaysia is trying to promote recycling and reduce the waste going to landfills. As
for now, the rate of recycling is 10.5%, still below expected level 22.5% (Bandar, 2014). Solid
waste management begins with waste stream entering from the Households, Industries, and
Commercial and Institutional entities and ending up at the Landfills/Dumpsites, which in
14
Malaysia is the primary mode of disposal. Food waste generated from the households daily is
about 9,685 MT. This quantity reduces to 8,563 MT and 8,492 MT as the waste moves from
the point of generation to point of disposal at the landfills. This reduction in the food waste
is attributed to the rapid degradation of the waste over time and the release of the inherent
moisture content as leachate (Bandar, 2014).
2.2 Why AD in Malaysia?
Malaysia has faced problems of limitations of the area for landfilling for quite some time, it
become much worst with increased levels of waste production, and lack of awareness of
environmental impact. These problems has led to consideration of alternative methods for
treatment of solid waste especially in kitchen and food waste as they contribute to 50% of
waste to landfills (Manaf, Samah, & Zukki, 2009). According to Malakahmad et al., 2000, the
government of Malaysia has announced its plan to incorporate energy efficiency and
e e a le e e g i additio to the ou t s e isti g fou fuel di e sifi atio poli . This
will ea that e e a le e e g ill pla a sig ifi a t ole i shapi g the atio s e e g
sources.
MSW management in Malaysia has a big potential to exploit biomass from its richness in the
organic waste as renewable energy. A typical composition of MSW in Malaysia comprises as
high as 70 to 80% of organic waste with high moisture content, which could be biodegraded
naturally (Malakahmad et al., 2000). Chart 2 shows the waste composition of wet weight
and food waste comprises the highest percentage.
Chart 2: Malaysian household waste composition as generated
15
The composition of waste (percentage of wet
weight) in Malaysia for 1975-2005
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
organic paper plastic glass metal textiles wood others
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

.
Source: (Bandar, 2014)
In 2013, a survey on waste composition shows the average moisture content of the
generated waste varied from 52 per cent to 54 per cent for the household waste in urban
areas while the average moisture content of the generated waste ranged from 42 per cent to
47 per cent for rural household waste. The moisture in the waste is apparently increasing as
the waste moves from the point of generation to the point of disposal. This can be attributed
to increase of food content with the reduction in recyclable material and the precipitation
(Bandar, 2014).
Table 4: Chemical composition of kitchen waste in Malaysia

Parameters Weight fraction (%) or ratio
Total solids 14.8
Total volatile solids 89.5
Ash 10.5
Total organic carbon 49.7
Kjeldahl nitrogen 1.3
C/N weight ratio 38.2
Fat 8.7
Protein 6.7
Cellulose 14.9
Hemi-cellulose 9.9
Lignin 8.5
16
Moisture content 84.5
Source: (Malakahmad et al., 2000)
From the results shown in table 4, total solids were found with the average of 14.8 %.
Bacteria use up carbon 25-35 times faster than they use nitrogen. Therefore, at this ratio of
C/N (25-35 /1) the digester is expected to operate at an optimal level for gas production. The
C/N ratio for kitchen waste was found 38.2/1. The substrate consists of complex organic
polymers, which are broken down by extracellular enzymes produced by hydrolytic bacteria
and dissolved in the water. The moisture content of kitchen waste was found to be 84.5%.
The high moisture content verified that kitchen waste was not ideal for incineration or
landfill(Malakahmad et al., 2000).
AD can be build according to sizes and biogas potential, depending on quantity and size
feedstock(Bywater, 2011). As AD is not a familiar waste management technology in
Malaysia, it will be best to build a small scale as a prototype rather than building a large
industrial AD. This can help determine the storage of feedstock, the length of storage, the
length of time needed for product produced by the AD and building up skilled worker.
From a study of Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: A UK
case study by Evangelisti, Lettieri, Borello, & Clift, 2014, the authors compared three
different alternatives for the treatment of MSW from households that are landfill with gas
recovery for electricity generation, incineration with energy recovery by combined heat and
power (CHP) and anaerobic digestion with CHP and organic fertilizer production. The results
obtained shows that anaerobic digestion with energy recovery and the use of digestate as a
substitute for inorganic fertiliser result in lower contribution to global warming and
photochemical ozone when compared with composting or incineration, although the net
contributions to nutrient enrichment and acidification potential are increased. However, the
value for nutrient enrichment presents a higher impact compared with the results of this
study, possibly due to the different parameters used in modelling the release of nitrogen to
soil, air and water when digestate is spread on agricultural soil (Evangelisti et al., 2014). It is
also quoted from the same study that anaerobic digestion with the biogas used as fuel for
CHP is shown to be the best treatment option in terms of total GHG emissions and
acidification when energy and organic fertiliser obtained from the waste substitute non-
renewable electricity, heat and inorganic fertiliser. The total impacts in terms of CO2 eq and
17
SO2 eq are both negative, meaning that they represent emission savings compared with the
avoided processes.
In Mccarty, 1964 report on Anaerobic Digestion, the anaerobic process is in many ways ideal
for waste treatment. It has several significant advantages over other available methods and
is almost certainly assured of increased usage in the future. Anaerobic treatment is presently
employed at most municipal treatment plants and handles the significant portion of waste
stabilization that occurs there. The report listed few of advantages in AD treatment that are
high degree of waste stabilization is possible, contains low production of waste biological
sludge, contains low nutrient requirements, no oxygen requirements and produces methane
which is a useful end product providing clean fuel for communities and industries.
In India, Western Paques have tested the anaerobic digestion process to produce methane
gas. The results of the pilot plant show that 150 t/day of MSW produce 14,000 m3 of biogas
with a methane content of 55–65%, which can generate 1.2 MW of power. The government
is looking forward to methanation technology as a secondary source of energy by utilizing
industrial, agricultural and municipal wastes. A great deal of experience with biomethanation
systems exists in Delhi, Bangalore, Lucknow, and many other cities (Sharholy, Ahmad,
Mahmood, & Trivedi, 2008).
China and India have now adopted a trend towards larger, more sophisticated farm- based
systems with better process control to generate electricity. With time, AD systems are
becoming more complex and not limited to agriculture or animal waste treatment. The
technology is now being applied for municipal waste treatment as well as industrial waste.
Taiwan flares most biogas from waste treatment and has cut down river pollution, caused by
direct discharge from the animal production industry, by directly using standard AD systems
that serve 5,000 farms (Verma, 2002). Both of the studies shows the significant success of AD
in China and India which are the countries that produce a high amount of food and kitchen
waste.
2.3 Waste management technology in Malaysia
In Table 5, it shows a few types of technologies applied in the Malaysia waste management
system in selected years and the percentage of waste.
18
Table 5: Method of disposal in Malaysia
Treatment Percentage of waste disposal
2002 2006 Target 2020
Recycling 5.0 5.5 22.0
Composting 0.0 1.0 8.0
Incineration 0.0 0.0 16.8
Inert Landfill 0.0 3.2 9.1
Sanitary landfill 5.0 30.9 44.1
Other disposal sites (landfill) 90.0 59.4 0.0
Source: (Sin, Chen, Long, Goh, & Hwang, n.d.)
For the past decades, Malaysia have done waste management according to the waste
hierarchy in complying with the National Waste Management Plan. Prevention of food waste
and recovery were taken into consideration but in the case of food waste, not many foods in
its original form can be reused due to edibility issue(Effie Papargyropoulou, 2010).
Malaysia spent more than RM700 million (£140 million) for waste management in Malaysia
and 50% of the waste managed includes food and kitchen waste (Tioman & Pangkor, 2001).
The total expenditure comes only from using conventional method, collect waste and
dispose at the landfill.
According to Muhammad Azahar Abas, 2014, the Malaysian government is now considering
the usage of incinerators. The cost of its operation is quite expensive which about MYR 600
daily and the price for each incinerator is about MYR 2.5 million which is capable of
incinerating 5 to 10 tons of solid waste per day. Malaysian federal government is very
commitment to apply incinerator as an alternative to solid waste disposal by purposing a
huge incinerator at Broga, suburbs of Kuala Lumpur. Incinerators program in Malaysia are
still in delay and unaccomplished as there are protest from civilians and environmental
activist although the project has been approved by the Department of Environment in
Malaysia. One of the prominent recycling methods of food waste and municipal solid waste
is by incineration and has been successfully applied in countries such as Japan. From (Hamid
et al., 2012), it has been reported that in Malaysia, however, the previous project to build a
mega-incinerator in Broga,Pahang has led to many serious objections from the residents in
that area and most environmentally-concerned non-government organization. The
government has finally decided to cancel the project). Recently, there have been articles in
19
the newspaper that the government is planning to build mini-incinerators all over Malaysia
such as in Melaka and Johor. These new projects are bound to receive continuous protests as
incineration ash by-product is highly toxic to the environment. Besides the hazardous ash by-
product of incineration that mostly come from plastic and waste, the setup and running costs
of such incinerator are also very expensive. The previously cancelled incinerator project costs
425 million US dollar (Hamid et al., 2012).
Composting is one of the most favourable options in solving food and kitchen waste.
However, a study from Mahmood, 2009 showed MSW composting requires considerable
p eso ti g of the i o i g aste a d s ee i g of the ﬁ ished p odu t to e o e
uncomfortable materials such as glass, metal and plastic activities that tend to be relatively
costly. The two fundamental processes used in large-scale composting are windrow-based
technologies and in-vessel technologies(Hamid et al., 2012). In windrow systems, waste is
brought to a central open air facility and formed into windrows that are 3 –5 feet high. The
windrows are turned periodically to maintain a stable temperature and rate of
decomposition, and water is added as needed to maintain appropriate moisture content.
After a desired level of decomposition is reached, the composted product is ready for
assembly and distribution to end users. A somewhat more sophisticated alternative to the
simple windrow system is the aerated windrow system. The problem in compost is Malaysia
saw it as an alternative to reduce waste but did not create a system to ensure they work and
contribute back to the communities(Mahmood, 2009). Campaigns and efforts have been
done to selected housing areas and flats, but the participation is very low. One of the reason
is composting take a lot of time and care to ensure the compost works. As most Malaysian
that took part cannot commit longer and expect faster results, the initiative did not last
longer. Weather and moisture also give significant impact in ensuring the success of
composting.
The government of Malaysia has been investing and searching for waste management
technologies to ease the problem of lack of land for landfills, waste management operation
and increasing of waste. For the type of waste Malaysian is having now, the most suitable
technology is AD as it can treat kitchen waste efficiently, either is large or small scale and can
be operated in one location. One of the objectives of Malaysian National Waste Plan Policy is
selection of technologies that are proven, affordable in terms of CAPEX and OPEX, and
environmentally friendly Natio al “olid Waste Ma age e t Poli , .d. . Malaysian
20
government funded more than RM200 million (GBP100 million) per year for solid waste
management, and the number is expected to rise every ear if suitable, and sustainable
technologies are not developed. After a few trials on other technologies such as incineration,
composting and landfills, AD will be the next technology to solve food waste and kitchen
waste problem in Malaysia.
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Literature review
For the purpose of this study, research and comparison of a few numbers of AD plants in the
UK and developing countries and the literature were done to look at the differences, the
processes, the designs, the products and finally to decide which AD system is the most
suitable and appropriate AD plant for Malaysia. In the first research phase, literature and
document analysis, field visits and interviews were arranged and done before going into the
use of decision assessment tools. Topics covered in literature research includes anaerobic
digestion (technologies and case studies related to AD plants in community and large sizes
and developing countries), Malaysian Solid Waste Management Corporation (SWCorp) and
Waste Reduction and Prevention UK (WRAP). Keywords used are anaerobic digestion, food
waste in Malaysia, kitchen waste in Malaysia, food waste in anaerobic digestion, the success
of anaerobic digestion in developing countries and waste management in Malaysia. All the
reviews were explained and tabled in introduction and background section, In the second
phase of research, an assessment tool is applied to the Malaysian waste streams and
characteristics. Specific assessment methods including Decision Matrix, LCA, SUSOP(Corder,
McLellan, Bangerter, van Beers, & Green, 2012), Integrated Sustainable Waste Management
21
(ISWM)(Kuroda, Keno, Nakatani, & Otsuka, 2013), WRATE (Waste, 2013) (LCA tools) were
done using document analysis, observations, stakeholder analysis, interviews with AD plant
operators in order to refine and adapt the tool and thereby ensure its practical usefulness.
3.2 Decision-making tools
There are a few decision-making tools chosen to help to determine the best waste
technologies for kitchen and food waste in Malaysia. Since the decision must be done
according to specific judgments and criteria, the tools will show the best and worst quality in
waste technologies to help to make a decision.
3.2.1 Decision Matrix
Decision Matrix Analysis is a useful technique to use for making a decision. It's particularly
powerful where you have some good alternatives to choose from, and many different
factors to take into account. This makes it an excellent technique to use in almost any
important decision where there isn't a clear and apparently preferred option(Mind Tools,
2014). The benefits are that you can mix subjective attributes with numerical attributes and
weigh them. Decision Matrix will compare four technologies that are suitable to be
implemented and already been initiated in Malaysia that are Anaerobic Digestion,
Composting, Incineration and Landfilling. Gasification and Pyrolisis were not on the list due
to gasification cannot treat waste in high moisture. The technology was then be compared
using factors such as design, sustainability, financial impact, recovery and by-products. These
were determined after discussion with a solid waste management company in Malaysia.
Data were collected during literature reviews and site visits.
3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment comparison
Life cycle assessment is one of the most developed and widely used environmental
evaluation tools for comparing alternative technologies when the location of the activity is
already defined (Clift, Doig, & Finnveden, 2000). The term life cycle indicates that every stage
of the lifecycle of the service, from resource extraction to estimate end-of-life treatment, is
taken into account(Arena, Mastellone, & Perugini, 2003). For this purpose, a few life cycle
assessment literature related to AD technologies are reviewed and data obtained on the
22
pros and cons of the selected literature in AD processes and techniques will be compared to
gain better understanding of AD operations and help to decide the best option for Malaysia.
3.2.3 SUSOP
SUSOP® (SUStainable Operations) is an approach to the integration of sustainable

development principles in the design and operation of industrial processes. Somewhat
analogous to HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Studies), SUSOP® is a systematic and rigorous
framework for identifying and evaluating sustainability opportunities and risks within the
organising architecture of a sustainability framework(Corder et al., 2012). SUSOP® have been
used for a concept of sustainable development in a mining operation. This paper will use
SUSOP as an approach for the integration of sustainable development of waste technology
specifically AD, that will led to significant insights for identifying and evaluating options that
e ha e a ope atio s o t i utio to sustai a ilit a d its lo g-term business case.
Decision-making process will need information as follows:

1. Identify Potential Positive and Negative Impacts (in all areas of the 5 Capitals model
2. Identify Risks
3. Identify Opportunities
Data on the 5 Capitals which are Natural Capital, Social Capital, Human Capital, Financial
Capital and Manufactured Capital of Anaerobic Digestion is obtained from the site visits,
interviews and also from the literature.
3.2.4 Integrated Waste Management
The integrated solid waste management (ISWM) involves a complex of measures and actions
for waste management planning and development with the ultimate aim of minimising the
environmental impact of waste and waste treatment, and contributing to the recycling and
recovery of municipal waste. There are several different approaches and definitions for the
ISWM; however, they all deal with the minimization of the environmental impact of waste
(Põldnurk, 2015). In this study, a particular focus on analyzing stakeholder characteristics and
23
interactions, with a network perspective was given for broader approach on the importance
and the needs of waste management technology in Malaysia.
3.2.5 WRATE
WRATE is a life-cycle assessment (LCA) software tool developed by the Environment Agency,
designed specifically for assessing waste management systems, technologies and
solutions(Waste, 2013). The tool can help estimate the environmental performance, with
particular focus on global warming potential and carbon emissions, of current, planned and
hypothetical waste management scenarios and eventually help choosing the right waste
management based on the criteria. The WRATE software was available in the School of
Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials, Newcastle University, thanks to an academic
license provided by the developer of WRATE. Data was obtained from a previous Malaysian
waste characteristic report, and the details were comprehensive of waste composition, the
number of persons, moisture content and the recycling rate.
3.3 Use of decision-making tools
Loh i, ‘odić, & Zurbrügg (2013) mentioned that an AD project is considered to be feasible if it
can be sustained locally and is suitable from technical, economic, social, environmental,
institutional and legislative perspectives. In this paper, the development of an assessment
tool that help in decision making are determined using these criteria:
a) Specifies key criteria for successful AD projects

b) Allows screening and comparison of AD systems and their respective suitability in a
given context
c) Quantifies feasibility of overall decision making.
The most important criteria for decision making in AD are the social impacts such as the
stakeholders needs, public perception etc, financial capital such as the money invested in
technology, benefits of AD such as the products produced, the amount of waste reduced etc,
and environmental impacts. These criteria will help in choosing the most appropriate
decision-making tools such as Decision Matrix, SUSOP and ISWM. In this study, all of the
24
decision-making mentioned above tools will be using the same factors and data. The tools
chosen for this particular purpose are Decision Matrix, SUSOP and WRATE. Decision Matrix
and SUSOP are selected because:
a) It is simple and easy to understand.
b) It covers all aspect of sustainability
c) It does not require a lot of data input that are hard to obtain.
WRATE in the other hand will help in proving that AD is the most suitable waste treatment
technology based on the data of Malaysian waste management and characteristics.
3.4 Site visits
Site visits provide an opportunity for practical onsite interaction with operation staff involved
with AD process. There were guided interviews with operational staff focused on individual
roles as they related to AD; on the past, present, and future expectations with regard to AD;
on AD policy issues; and on technology factors which guided technology implementation. To
get an unobstructed view and better understanding of the AD process and design, 9 AD
plants around Newcastle, Scotland and London were approached for site visits arrangement.
Operation managers through emails obtained from web sites and three (3) AD Plants agreed
to site visits which were:
1. Nestle, Fawdon, Newcastle (Industrial) – Food waste

2. Anaerobic Digestion Facility, Lochhead Landfill Site, Dunfermline, Scotland (Community)
– Kitchen and garden waste
3. Rainbarrow Farm AD Plant, Martinstown, Dorchester, Dorset (Industrial) – Organic
waste e.g., chocolates, barleys, straws, etc.
Time and dates were agreed and a list of interviews questionnaires (please see Appendix 1)
was sent to help gain mutual understanding of the purpose of the site visit. The AD plants
were selected from an official Biogas plant map on the official AD information portal that
shows operational AD plants in the UK (excluding those in the water industry). Plants are
filtered using the following categories:
1. Community: an anaerobic digester predominantly using food waste, collected from

multiple sources including food waste from commercial and industrial sources and
municipal source segregated waste.
25
2. Industrial: an anaerobic digester used to treat on-site waste, such as brewery effluent or
food processing residues from the food and drink sector(KADA Research, 2013).
4.0 Results
4.1 Site visits
The site visit was done to take a close look at how the AD plants work, the storage of
feedstock and the suitability to apply in Malaysia. From the site visit, more information were
obtained using the questionnaire prepared such as the size of AD plant, the size of feedstock
required, the storage, the operation, the number of employees, the products and their
amount such as renewable energy and digestate and also the cost. Most of the questions
answered except for the cost. The findings from the site visit explained as follows:
4.1.1 Site visit at Nestle, Fawdon, Newcastle (Industrial)
The site visit was done on the 18th of May 2015 with my supervisor, Dr. Sue Haile. The visit
as o du ted a d lead the Ope atio Ma age of the Nestle s AD Pla t hi self. The
anaerobic digestion plant at Nestle's Fawdon factory uses food waste to produce gas, which
generates electricity to supply the production line. The plant is operated by two operators,
26
which were the Operation Manager and the Operator. The technology is converting four
tonnes of solid waste and 200,000 litres of liquid waste into renewable energy and clean
water each day. This feedstock includes wash waters from the site and 1,200 tonnes of
residual by-products and ingredients per annum. Nestle achieved their target of zero waste
to landfill at their Fawdon factory because of the installation of the new anaerobic digester.
The biogas produced is fuelling a combined heat and power (CHP) engine, which produces
200kW of electricity, used in the confectionery production process. This is about 8% of the
fa to s po e e ui e e ts, utti g the a ual ele t i it ill a out £ , pe
annum. In addition to the financial benefits, the plant is helping Nestlé reduce its carbon
footprint and develop environmentally sustainable manufacturing at Fawdon. The carbon
footprint for anaerobic digestion is at least seven times smaller than for conventional aerobic
treatment plants. This system allows Nestle to convert a large amount of waste that would
otherwise enter sewage, used as feedstock or landfill systems and generate methane and
other greenhouse gas emissions that are very impressive. This could be a good idea to
convert waste from food processing companies and supermarkets in Malaysia.
4.1.2 Site visit at Anaerobic Digestion Facility, Lochhead Landfill Site, Dunfermline,
Scotland (Community)
The meeting with the Operation Manager (OM) of the AD Facility in Lochhead Landfill Site
was set on the 2nd of June 2015. The plant was operated by two operators, which were the
Operation Manager and the Operator. After a comprehensive briefing of AD process in the
plant, we had a tour around the plant from the starting area of the AD plant that is the waste
loading area. This AD plant used kitchen and garden waste as their feedstock, and about 6
tonnes of kitchen and garden waste was delivered to the plant from Dunfermline area every
day. The £15.5 million plant can process up to 43,000 tonnes of waste every year forecast to
save the council over £1 million per year and to reduce carbon emissions by as much as
11,000 tonnes per year.The plant produces PAS:100 compost and biogas to CHP, with the
export of both power and heat (to existing Direct Heating system). The plant has some
unique features in that the incoming co-mingled bio-waste needs little or no pre-treatment
prior to direct loading of the bio-waste into the fermenters using loading shovels. Over the
28-32 day digestion period, the bio-waste generates between 90 and 125 m3 of biogas per
27
tonne of input. This biogas exported to the existing energy compound at the adjacent landfill
where dedicated CHPs utilise the biogas that export c. 1.4MW electricity while contributing
c. 900kW of heat into the district heating system in Dunfermline. The facility set a reception
area for the 1,000 tonnes of waste and will be stored and oxidized along with the Compost
Waste capacity at least two days. No vermin problem was found. The e a e d
fe e tatio essels ith a e age da ete tio ti e pe at h a d ea h of the ha e
mesophilic ope ati g te p C . Afte the at h digestio phase the solid digestate is
unloaded and bio-dried using forced aeration wherein no mechanical de-watering is
required. Biogas recovery activities will perform in the fermenters and percolate liquor and
the sto age of iogas i iogas ags ill o u hi h a e lo ated a o e fe e te s. Ne t
is the aerated static pile (ASP) stage to stabilise and dry material prior to screening or
pasteu isatio of the aste . The eafte the digestate is pasteu ised i e ha i all heated
proprietary solid state pasteurisation tunnels prior to storage of the co post p odu t ahead
of e efi ial use i ag i ultu e. This p o ess is alled the A ae o i Digestio p o ess. The e
a e pasteu isatio ha es at h C p o ess as fi al step p io to dis ha ge i to
compost slab area. In this regard, the plant is a genuine dry system where very little wet
digestate is produced with the primary product being a stable marketable compost.The plant
will also likely be the first in the UK to generate a PAS 100 compost product from an
anaerobic digestion plant and passed it. (Dr. Andrew Walsh, 2014).
It is very interesting to see the process as the waste is fully utilized until the final product.
The idea of combining AD process with Aerobic Digestion process thus continuing to make
compost out of the by-product waste to be used by the locals to apply in Malaysia.
4.1.3 Site visit at Rainbarrow Farm AD Plant, Martinstown, Dorchester, Dorset
This plant is one of the community AD plants that use organic waste, e.g., chocolates,
barleys, straws, etc. as their feedstock and generates 120 KW of electricity every day.
Rainbarrow Farm uses around 41,000 tonnes of maize, grass silage and food waste each
year, sourced from local businesses including Dorset Cereals and the House of Dorchester
Chocolate Factory. The plant has a potential production of 23,000 tonnes of liquid, and 8,000
tonnes of solid digestate per year. The slurry is in the high grade of nitrogen and phosphate
as the waste comes from 100% organic waste. The digestate will then be sold to the farmers
locally. The electricity generated from the plant was used to operate the plant and were also
supplied to the electricity grid. The waste is digested in an anaerobic digester which
28
produces biogas with 96% methane content which is upgraded and converted into
biomethane and injected into the natural gas grid as a substitute natural gas by Southern
Gas Networks who own and operate the Southern Region gas distribution network(Example,
2012). The plant will provide renewable gas directly to the local community in Poundbury -
and could supply up to 56,000 new-build homes in the summer with renewable gas. The
plant is an example of collaboration with local farmers and producers of waste, and it will
provide a substantial amount of renewable electricity and gas to houses and businesses on
the development and further afield. The first Biogas from any large-scale AD plant in the UK
was cleaned and injected as Biomethane into the National Grid on 11th October 2012 JV
E e ge _ Ke Fa ts, .
The plant is preparing to grow maize and the operation manager mentioned that more
energy can be produced by growing maize in the AD plant per acre to be converted into bio-
diesel. As well as providing environmentally waste disposal and reducing the amount of
waste, the plant will save around 4,435 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. From this plant,
it shows that using 100% organic waste produced higher electricity and higher methane. The
organic waste also produced high in nutrients digestate and had great value due to the
nutrients.
4.2 Decision Making Tools
For this tools, factors are chosen to be considered for the technologies listed below in Table
6. Data were obtained from literature reviews (explained in introduction and background),
and site visits. Decision Matrix used are the one in Simple Calculative Method. The matrix
calculates the weighted score according to the preferred criteria on each option. Criteria and
scale was based on Table 7.
CRITERIA Results
Weights 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 3.5 2
29
T
conservation/recovery
Environmental Impact
Captured Renewable
WEIGHTED SCORE
Organic Fertilizer
a
Financial impact
Sustainability
RAW SCORE
Lifetime
b
Energy
Water
RANK
l
e
6 RAW WEIGHTED
OPTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SCORE SCORE RANK
:
Anaerobic Digestion 7 8 8 9 7 8 6 53 195.5 1
Composting 8 6 6 1 7 7 2 37 144 2
DIncineration 2 1 3 7 6 2 1 22 78 3
Landfilling 3 2 1 2 6 1 1 16 58.5 4
e
cision Matrix Template for selection of the most suitable Waste Technologies to
be implemented in Malaysia.
Chart 3: Ranking of the suitability of waste technology in Decision Matrix
Scale :
10: Best 5 : Average
9 : Very good 4 : Below Average
8 : Good 3 : Poor
7 : OK 2 : Very poor
6 : Above average 1 : Worst
30
Table 7: Determination of weight in Decision Matrix on the suitability of waste technology to be
applied in Malaysia
Anaerobic Digestion Composting Incineration Landfilling
Environmental  Reduces  Methane can be  Toxic ash  Methane gas
Impact Greenhouses Gas released into the created emitted to
emissions atmosphere(Jäcke (Greenpeace, atmosphere
(Initiative, 2013) l, Thummes, & 1999) (Mahmood,
 Produces Kämpfer, 2005).  Toxic gas 2009)
Renewable Energy  Increased emitted (FoE,  Leachate can
(KADA Research, Greenhouse Gas 2006) cause water
2013) Emissions (Lou & supply
 Produces Organic Nair, 2009) contamination.
Fertilizer (Tiwary,  Potential Odor (Arena et al.,
Williams, Pant, & (Cornell 2003)
Kishore, 2015) University,
 Produces Organic 2010)Problems
Compost (Dr. due to hot and
Andrew Walsh, damp weather in
2014)
 Potential odor
Malaysia
 Produces Organic
during storage Compost
(Hartmann & (Mahmood,
Ahring, 2009)
2005)(Leggett,  Produces
Graves, & Lanyon, ammonia
1995)
 Produces ammonia
emissions
(Advisor,
emissions during Themelis, Barlaz,
operation Engineering, &
(Mezzullo, Foundation,
McManus, & 2009)
Hammond, 2013)
Sustainability  Creates own  Energy is  Energy and  Zero
sustainable power, required to fossil fuels sustainability
e.g., biogas, CHP facilitate process required factor (Seely,
and electricity (Planet Natural, (DEFRA, 2015) 2009)
(Centre, 2009) 2015)  Fertilizer is lost
 Reduces Carbon (FoE, 2006)
Footprint-Carbon
Neutral (Bywater,
2011)
Captured  Captures almost  None- requires  Some energy  Very low
Renewable 100% of possible energy (Antizar- captured as a efficiency if
Energy energy (Initiative, Ladislao, Irvine, & fuel source(Tan collected(Lou &
31
2013) Lamont, 2010) et al., 2015). Nair, 2009).
 Utilize both Heat  Fossil fuels  Many landfills
and Power (Dr. used negates have no
Andrew Walsh, any collection in
2014) gain(Johnke, place(Sharholy
2003). et al., 2008).
Organic  99.99% pathogen  Not guaranteed  The majority  No fertilizer

Fertilizer free with to reach 99.99% of energy lost component(Ara
thermophilic pathogen in the fat, Jijakli, &
system (Holm- elimination(Erick process(Green Ahsan, 2013).
Nielsen et al., son, Marilyn; peace, 1999).
2009) Critzer, Faith and  Remaining
 Creates organic Doyle, 2004). fertilizer
liquid fertilizer.  Produces usable component
 Produces organic compost (Office, not utilized
compost. 2006) because the
need for
separation
methods is to
improve the
quality of
waste ashes
that are
expensive
(Lam, Ip,
Barford, &
McKay, 2010).
Water  100% liquid  Liquid lost to  Completely  No water
Conservation/ conservation evaporation lost in recovery
Recovery  Liquid re-used as  Possible water incineration  Possible water
organic liquid supply process. supply
fertilizer. contamination contamination
 Liquid re-used in from leachate. from leachate.
digestion process
 Reduces
Greenhouses Gas
emissions
Financial  More than £500-  Low cost for  High cost and  The high cost of
impact thousand spend construction but high land
for 75kW, 5000 needs maintenance. purchasing/rent
tonnes per annum maintenance. For a 2500 ing and
of food waste AD  20,000-50,000 metric operation.
plant (Scenarios, tonnes per tonnes/day  In Malaysia,
2002). annum, 1-2 plant,
32
hectare facility investment of RM854 million
cost: A windrow nearly 300 (approximately
composting million US £125 million)
operation would dollars (£190 per year at the
cost £500,000. million) are current
An in-vessel needed. generation of
compost plant 18,000
would be tonnes of solid
expected to cost wastes per day
between £3 (Mahmood,
million 2009)(Masirin,
and £6 million Ridzuan,
(Facility, Mustapha, &
Anaerobic, & Don, 2008)
Further, 2004)
Lifetime  25 years (United,  20 years (Advisor  15-20 years  20 years
2008) et al., 2009) (Idzorek,
1999)
From the table, it shows that AD have more advantages than the other waste treatment
using the factors listed. If Malaysia could start with a small community scale, the AD plant
could save a lot of waste treatment cost because only one location needed to treat the
waste, less waste will be dumped in landfill, less time required to treat the waste than
landfills and generates renewable energy. A small AD plant that will cost about £1 million,
requires enough feedstock locally available, this is likely to be in the order of a minimum of
5000 tonnes to produce enough energy to feed at least a 250 kW AD plant(United, 2008).
4.2.2 SUSOP
For this decision-making tools, positive and negative impacts of the five capitals were
identified and listed. The effects were taken from various related literature review from
diverse expertise.
33
Diagram 2: Five Capitals in SUSOP
SUSOP will help:
 To highlight the issues surrounding AD technologies

 To enable to identify the potential concerns of stakeholders.
 To assess the potential sustainability of each project using the five capitals model
4.2.2.1 Natural Capital

Issue Positive Impacts Negative Impacts
Emissions  Contributed the most towards

from the three environmental impact
34
plant categories during the operation
phase:
 Respiratory inorganics-
digestion storage
 Acidification-during
fertilizer production
 Fossil fuels depletion-
during displacement of
organic fertilizers
(Mezzullo et al., 2013)
CO2  Negative in CO2 emissions

Emissions contributed towards a
reduction in climate change
impact, giving the plant overall
negative output on climate
change(Evangelisti et al., 2014).
4.2.2.2 Social Capital
Traffic  Heavy vehicle traffic involving waste

disposal, construction vehicles and
drilling equipment, waste trucks,
etc(Lohri et al., 2013).
Meeting  Meeting the National Waste Policy

Government by reducing waste goes to landfills
and Local and support waste to energy
Policies pledge (Lohri et al., 2013).
 Using resources more efficiently
will bring direct benefits to
Malaysia (Malakahmad et al.,
2000).
Community  The biogas and digestate  More construction and gasification will
Concerns produced will be suitable for AD happen when the government sees the
vs. Wealth operation and possibly domestic success and invests more money.
use(Gebrezgabher, Meuwissen, Rewards go to all shareholders, directors
Prins, & Lansink, 2010). and investors, but the environmental
impacts are borne by the local
community(Whiting & Azapagic, 2014).
35
Public  Malaysian community has some negative
Concerns perception on waste technologies. It will
be wost when relates to feedstock
storage and producing digestate. Public
perception is a big problem(Effie
Papargyropoulou, 2010).
4.2.2.3 Human Capital

Employment  New job Opportunities  Employment costs
and training  Number of employees would be  Additional costs for technical
increased during the construction training.
project  Needs specialized workers.
 Would provide specialized training for (Malakahmad et al., 2000) (KADA
the project (all employees) Research, 2013)
 Would offer well-paid jobs, fair wages
and chances for career opportunities
(United, 2008) (Centre, 2009) (KADA
Research, 2013)
Health  Potential impact on human health

 Fewer emissions in a long term, lower of workers and local population
impact on climate change (Evangelisti et due to emissions produced during
al., 2014) the use phase that can cause smog
 Health insurance provided to the leading to respiratory effects such
employees (KADA Research, 2013) as asthma and bronchitis (could be
avoided if ammonia filters are put
in place)(Mezzullo et al., 2013).
 No health insurance provided to
the locals.
Knowledge  Could be an excellent case study  Need specialized work and

e a ple of a e te h olog ei g accurate knowledge about this
put into practice. new technology (KADA Research,
 Studies and researchers at universities 2013)
and schools in the region.
 Could promote the expertise of local
University in Anaerobic Digestion
operation.
36
Motivation  Exciting new industry  Some people may be against the
of  Cheaper and more sustainable kind of project because of the possible
workforce energy than landfills, gasification and risks in the environment (Monnet,
incineration for the population 2003)
(Evangelisti et al., 2014)
 First AD plant operated for food and
kitchen waste in the country
4.2.2.4 Financial Capital

Government  The process can cut costs owing  Construction and maintenance
Finance from digestate market, electricity hurdles high costs (Kuroda, Keno,
avoided, electricity sold and Nakatani, & Otsuka, 2013).
 separated solid digestate sales if
done in a compatible scale
(United, 2008).
 Solve problems of limitations of
the area for landfilling and can
overstretched lifetime of the
existing landfill(Kathirvale, Muhd
Yunus, Sopian, & Samsuddin,
2004).
 Reduced labour costs as AD
plants can be operated in a small
number of the operator (based
on site visits).
National  Potential benefits generated  A large sum of money may need to
Economy from biogas and digestate be subsidised towards the
produced and Malaysian plant(Tan et al., 2015).
government support policies
such as waste to energy will be
incorporated to assess
profitability.
 Security of energy supply in a low
carbon economy as small scale
AD could provide 250 kW of
energy (United, 2008).
 More expertise and jobs will be
created/
 Savings on fossil fuels, kerosene
and inorganic fertilisers.
4.2.2.5 Manufactured Capital
37
Building the  Insignificant towards three • The public viewpoint may be contrary
Site environmental impact categories: if building near residents as they are a
 Respiratory inorganics concern for pollution, planning
 Acidification permission may not be
 Fossil fuels depletion granted(Hamid et al., 2012).
 Solve problems on land location to
dump waste (landfills) as in The UK,
they occupy an only small
proportion of the land area that
been used to grow food. Indeed,
even this many AD plants will use
less land than is used for golf
courses or keeping horses used for
leisure(United, 2008).
AD operations • The current proposal is to start a • Larger site means that there is more
equipment is pilot project of small scale AD plant difficulty in gaining planning
large (3 tonnes per day) to avoid negative permission.
perception and to ensure significant
results. Thus, large conventional
operation equipment may not be
required. Small scale AD plant that
cost £1 million will need 5000
tonnes of waste to produce 250 kW
energy(United, 2008).
Upkeep of • Equipment can bring professional • If there is a lack of employable
equipment jobs to the area. specialist personnel in the Asia, then
requires • The opportunity to deliver it is more expensive to provide
specialist specialised courses for local training to ensure maintenance of
training of universities and colleges. manufactured assets.
staff.
4.3 Identify Risks and Opportunities

Risk Capital Affected Opportunities
Potential of Public  Human  Giving public talks to the communities

Opposition to the  Social to reassure concerns about
Project  Financial environmental effects of the process, or
 Manufacturing any other concerns risen from the
proposed project.
 Produce literature (leaflets etc.)
summarising all potential
questions/concerns the community may
38
have.
Emissions from the  Natural  Reduce the amount of emissions in the

Operation  Human process through the placement of
 ammonia filters(Mezzullo et al., 2013).

Social
 Financial Integration of AD technologies to offset
 Manufacturing the emissions also could result in
receipt of government financial
incentives to develop the AD
technology on a large scale.
Potential Lack of  Human  Make links to local universities through

Local Expertise for  Social research projects & placements.
Process Operation  Financial Develop local expertise for future
 Manufacturing engineers/scientists.
4.4 Conclusions from SUSOP
AD can be considered as the most suitable waste treatment process to be applied in

Malaysia. The construction and operation of AD plants create jobs and local expertise. From
the point of view of farmers and entrepreneurs AD can improve business viability and
stability by generating new revenue streams and giving a calculable source of income from
producing a power supply not dependent on the weather or subject to price
fluctuations(KADA Research, 2013). The Despite the emission impacts towards operators and
local residents, it can be prevented using ammonia filter and the technology is free from
carbon emissions and have adverse effects on climate change(Appels et al., 2011; Mezzullo
et al., 2013). The electricity produced from biogas becomes a tremendous social benefit to
communities as it can change the way communities interact(Initiative, 2013). The technology
will divert more waste from going to the landfills and can solve the problems of limitations of
the area for landfilling. Waste treatment cost can be saved(Evangelisti et al., 2014). However,
public perception must be seriously considered and work with the community must be
performed, and it will be good to collaborate closely with universities to help develop
greener technologies. Anaerobic digestion generates power exclusively from the biomass
portion of waste, so is renewable (FoE, 2006).
4.5 WRATE
39
WRATE is an LCA tool to predict the environmental impacts of different options for managing
household waste. It considers the direct impacts of emissions to air, water and soil, and also
the avoided impacts, for example as a result of recycling or electricity generation.
WRATE is well designed to be user and allow local authorities and their consultants to
i ol e stakeholde s i putti g together scenarios of waste management systems.
Diagram 3: The flow chart of typical waste management from household to landfill in
Malaysia
Waste Management in Malaysia

household to landfill
Bins
Commercial Landfill
vehicles
Waste composition
in Malaysia
Date 21/8/2015
Software Version 3.0.1.7 Academic Version
Database Version 3.0.1.7
Diagram 4: Multi-impact assessment of waste management in Malaysia
40
From Diagram 4, it is clearly shown the impacts on waste management in Malaysia and the
resources was not depleted 100%. This scenario is taking into account the typical waste
management in Malaysia as there is initiative to perform recycling from households but the
number is very low. WRATE helps to list out the impacts of a waste technology or treatment.
Diagram 2: Sankey Percentage view of waste management in Malaysia

household to landfill
Bins 100.00%
100.00% 100.00%
Commercial Landfill
vehicles
Waste composition
in Malaysia
Date 21/8/2015
WRATE allows users to identify the environmental aspects of kerbside collection to advanced
waste treatment facilities such as anaerobic digestion through to ultimate disposal. WRATE
was designed by waste managers for waste managers.
41
Diagram 5: Proposal of waste management in Malaysia with additional treatment in kitchen
and food waste.

household to landfill - copy
Landfill
Bins
Commercial Compost Use

vehicles
Waste composition
in Malaysia
Bins-1
Anaerobic Composting
Digestion
Bring bank
Paper
Glass
Plastics
Date 21/8/2015
Diagram 5 shows the proposed options for waste management with additional waste
treatment such as AD and composting. The first phase includes the waste hierarchy process,
recycling as currently, the average of recyclable materials weight per capita is estimated
about 0.08 kg/capita/day and the recycling rate for Peninsular Malaysia is estimated at 10
per cent.(Bandar, 2014). Recycling has been one of the initiates to divert waste from the
landfill for the past decade in Malaysia. Although as seen in the diagram, the red box around
the icons showed incomplete process, this is due to the restrictions of the data and
parameters set in the software are the data from UK waste and companies. Plus, waste
properties such as the net calorific value, the moisture content, and the ash content cannot
be modified by the user.
42
5.0 Discussion
7.1 Anaerobic Digestion
United 2008 e tio ed i thei ha d ook o Ho to de elop a community-lead anaerobic

digeste that AD has ee p o e to e o e p ofita le, se o d to i d e eg ith
benefits compared to other renewable technologies:
• It takes relatively less time to develop because less time is needed to assess
energy production, obtain planning and other permissions.
• It generates significant amounts of local employment both in its construction
and running – CoRE estimates that a 1000kW AD plant will create about seven
jobs and sustain about 19 directly
• It produces heat and electricity meaning that it is possible to have a significant
impact on a community's carbon emissions.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) can take place on any scale. Anaerobic digestion is not only feasible
in large-scale industrial installations, but can also be applied on a small scale. Measurements
of scale often refer to:
• Input of biomass, tonnes per annum (TPA) or per day
• Size of the tank, volume in cubic meters
• Energy produced, power in MW or kW
This observation specifically provides opportunities for anaerobic digestion in developing

countries and rural areas, where energy supply is limited or even not available at all. One
example is the use of simple biomass and waste digesters in rural areas in India that operate
on weed and agricultural residues to provide cooking gas for households (Appels et al., 2011)
Local communities can benefit from sustainable local heat and power supply from AD as well
as direct and indirect employment opportunities. It is claimed that it is more environmentally
beneficial to treat food waste by AD than via centralised composting or incineration. For
local and national government AD can make a valuable contribution to various policies and
legislative targets including the EU Renewable Energy Directive and it offers greater energy
security(KADA Research, 2013).
43
From literature review and research, the use of digesters reduces methane emissions (a
greenhouse gas) and decreases our dependency on fossil fuels (Lohri et al., 2013). Globally, it
is proven that digester reduces odour, biologically helps stabilizes organic wastes, it also
i p o es fe tilize s alue, helps edu es pathoge s a d p o ides etha e gas that a the
be utilized for various energy purposes(KADA Research, 2013).
5.2 Decision-making tools
From five types of decision tools, three were picked as all tools require more or fewer data.
Two of them, Decision Matrix and Susop were picked because they are much simpler, easy to
understand and require less detailed information. WRATE was picked because it is life cycle
assessment software that helps to determine the better and suitable waste technology
options for Malaysia. Although it requires detailed information, the use of the software will
prove no biased was taken into account.
For this type of decision-making tool, I have used the template from John Dalton, Newcastle
University and CoreStrategies, 2008. Both of them are easy to use, but I find it is hard to
determine the weight and scale when it is done individually. However, the decision matrix
clearly showed the results and the rankings based on the criteria and scale calculated in the
table. Arguments based on the weights were done based on literature review and site visits.
5.2.2 SUSOP
I find SUSOP very challenging due to more literature review must be done to comply the
positive and negative impacts in the five capitals. SUSOP helps to understand more about the
positive and negative impacts of AD operations and be alert on the opportunities and risk in
handling AD plant. It contributes to see if the decision made has taken account all the
capitals mentioned. Overall, the results obtained are very clear, and it shows things to be
considered if AD will be implemented.
44
5.2.3 WRATE
WRATE is designed to help waste managers and also helped the local council to choose the
best waste management options available. Although the software sounds so useful,
unfortunately, the parameters and data are set according to the UK waste composition and
companies. Thus making the result not accurate but still reliable to be used in terms of
environmental impact. Overall, the software could be better if it can auto-calculate the
number of bins required, the tonnes of waste to be entered, and also to help solving on how
to complete waste distribution and process flow rather than sending messages about the
failure to generate data due to above problems.
5.3 Waste Technologies in Malaysia
5.3.1 Anaerobic Digestion Proposition
There is only one AD in Malaysia, and it is located at Malaya University, Malaysia for
research(Undergraduates et al., 2013). The top management aims to reduce food waste
disposal in residential colleges and to provide a platform for the research and development
of the biological treatment of organic waste. However, the AD plant is small with a capacity
of 200-300kg of waste per day, still in research progress due to lack of expertise and only use
rice as feedstock. Food and kitchen waste has been a significant problem in Malaysia as it
consumes more than 40% of the landfills. Currently, all the waste are being dumped into the
landfills without any treatment. From the literature review done for this paper, it has been
proven that AD technology could work for kitchen and food waste management in Malaysia
as it has been successfully applied in developing countries such as India and China (Initiative,
2013).
Proposition for Malaysian government is to build a pilot project of a small scale AD plant to
minimize problems and maximize productivity. The size could be at least 1 hectare with
5,000 tonnes feedstock of food and kitchen waste per month with a budget of £500,000. As
Malaysia did not separate their food and kitchen waste from households, the pilot project
requires a few volunteered housing areas to separate waste and then the contractor will
then have to collect them without extra cost. The benefits of the pilot project will be as
follows:
45
a) Diversion of waste to landfills and that means fewer trips to send waste to landfills and
less tipping fee for the contractors to bear.
b) Help educate food and kitchen waste slowly to the communities. That means more
time to explain, more information delivered and the education can be done in person.
It will change the perception of the public.
c) Be one of the sustainable waste technology in Malaysia when a collection of biogas,
heat and electricity can be done.
d) Digestate to be used by the locals.
Although the project will be useful, there will be a few problems, more or less during the
practical of the process:
a) Waste storage will become an issue as the weather is hot and damp, it will create odor
pollution. Waste/feedstock must be kept in a closed store, for a limited time. Compost
can be mixed to reduce odour and also to speed up oxidation process(Centre, 2009).
b) Vermin problems comes after the odor as the waste consists of food and kitchen
waste. This might create a health issue if not manage properly. Collaboration with the
Health Department would be an advantage to solve this problem.
c) Public perception of technology since incineration faced the same issue (Samsudin &
Don, 2013). It will be the first problem to encounter with proper public awareness,
public talks and dialogue with the local residents on the impact and positive elements
on AD.
d) There will be problems of waste contaminations since food waste in Malaysia will be
thrown out in plastic bags etc.
e) Additional route to the AD plant and additional frequencies to collect the food and
kitchen waste. This must be planned accordingly and agreed by both the Malaysian
government and contractors.
f) The problem of determining the right location as the land space is very limited. The
location could be farther than the collection route for safety features.
g) Lack of expertise to handle the operation.
46
5.3.2 Composting
Composting can also be another option to consider for waste treatment in Malaysia.
Although the weather is hot, that can be an advantage to speed up the aerobic process.
Composting involves decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms that create a
humus-like material for use as a soil amendment. Advantages to composting include:
• improving soil structure and thus encouraging root development and making the soil
easier to cultivate;
• providing plant nutrients to the soil that enables the increased uptake of nutrients by
plants;
• aiding water absorption and retention by the soil;
• Binding of synthetic agricultural chemicals and thus minimizing contamination of
groundwater supplies; and
• substantial reduction, if not elimination, of pathogen microorganisms(Erickson,
Marilyn; Critzer, Faith and Doyle, 2004).
However, after more than ten years trying to promote composting in the household of
Malaysia, few success could be seen, and most of them only keeps going because of the
support of the local government. From observation, this is due to:
a) The perception compost needs critical attention as the participants are mostly busy
with chores and work.
b) Food waste gets rotten very quickly due to weather. Odour makes composting
uncomfortable.
c) Higher-income, older participants are more likely to be aware of the benefits of
composting while take-up of composting is most notably low among young low-
income families and students because fewer have gardens or an interest in
gardening(Erickson, Marilyn; Critzer, Faith and Doyle, 2004).
d) Only a few achieve success in composting due to steps required that consume time
and attention. In Malaysia, Bokashi Composting method are used, and it requires the
food waste to be kept cleaned before starting. This is due to Malaysian food waste
are mostly oily and with gravy.
e) There is few composting facility built in Malaysia but the problem faced by the
facilities are the compost gets in a vast volume, and there are no takers. Farmers
need to invest heavily in the first year of using compost to raise the quality of their
47
soil, many typically rely on credit from the fertilizer suppliers, so this needs to be
considered by compost suppliers(Harper, Pervez, Rouse, Drescher, & Zurbrügg,
2004).
f) Composting requires larger volume of feedstock. Some of the food waste received at
the composting facility were still mixed with non-food waste materials such as
straws, spoons and plastic bags. Smaller amounts of food waste were collected from
the selected hawker centres than expected(JPSPN, 2008). The proposition is to
combine the anaerobic digestion plant with aerobic digestion (composting) and to
have the first sustainability waste treatment plant in Malaysia.
5.3.3 Incineration
Incineration has been tried to be implemented in Malaysia but due to public perception,
most of the projects have to be stopped such as the one in Broga, Semenyih, Malaysia
(Samsudin & Don, 2013). Although incineration can speed up waste treatment process, the
investment in building the plant is very high, more than £190 million for 250 tonnes of
waste. There are also variable operating costs such as cost of chemicals for the flue gas
cleaning system, cost of electricity (if the plant is equipped with a steam turbine and a
turbine/generator set, there will be a net production of electricity), cost of water and
handling of waste water and cost of residue disposal. Waste incinerators generate either
electricity only, electricity and heat or heat only. Incinerators that generate heat have similar
efficiency to gas-fired plants – but only if the heat is actually used(FoE, 2006).
A large incinerator produces the equivalent of 300 wheelie bins of exhaust gases from its
chimneys every second. As this happens, chemical reactions lead to the formation of
hundreds of new compounds, some of which are extremely toxic. The number of substances
released from a waste incinerator may run into thousands. So far, scientists have identified a
few hundred materials as hazardous(Arena et al., 2003).
5.3.4 Gasification/Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis involves heating waste in an atmosphere that has no oxygen to the point that the
waste breaks down into its basic chemical parts. These simple parts can then be burnt in a
separate part of the process or collected for use in the chemical industry. Gasification is very
48
similar except that a small amount of oxygen is permitted into the reaction vessel. This
allows greater control over the process and the materials that can be produced by it(Facility
et al., 2004).
In this technology, energy recovery, proper destruction of the waste is also ensured. These
processes have an edge over incineration as they produce fuel gas/fuel oil, which replace
fossil fuels and compared to incineration, atmospheric pollution can be controlled at the
plant level(Unep, 2005). However, the capital and energy intensive process and net energy
recovery may suffer in case of wastes with excessive moisture and inert content. Thus
making the technology not suitable for kitchen and food waste in Malaysia as the waste have
a high level of moisture. The high viscosity of Pyrolysis oil is maybe problematic for its
transportation and burning. Concentration of toxic/hazardous matter in gasifier ash needs
care in handling and disposal(Facility et al., 2004; Renewable Energy Association, 2013;
Unep, 2005). In India, there are few gasifiers in operation, but they are mostly for burning of
biomass such as agro-residues, sawmill dust, and forest wastes. Gasification can also be used
for MSW treatment after drying, removing the inerts and shredding for size
reduction(Sharholy et al., 2008). There is no evidence on large scale gasification done with
MSW or food waste as feedstock.
5.4 Suggestions
5.4.1 Thorough education for waste separation among the local residents could be very
useful for implementing AD in Malaysia.
5.4.2 It will also benefit the government if the waste management could start from
reducing, reuse and recycle. For instance, in UK food waste are often be a problem
due to people th o a a the food a d egeta les afte e eedi g the date of est
efo e , eat a d sell . The 'best before' date relates to the quality of the
food and it's a gauge of how long an item will remain at its freshest and tastiest. It is
fine to eat foods after their 'best before' date, except for eggs, as long as they look,
smell, and taste OK (Ward, 2007).
5.4.3 The problem of food waste in Malaysia is the good gets bad very quickly due to the
use of coconut milk and not properly stored. If this could be in the campaign of Love
Food, Hate Waste in Malaysia, then food waste could be reduced.
49
5.4.4 The hotels and restaurants may need their waste treatment facility due to a large
amount of food waste produced every day. It could be a collaboration between food
and hotel chains to have their waste management treatment and subsidized by the
government or at least have less tax to be paid to the local government every year.
5.4.5 Initiation have been done in hawkers stalls, but much need to be done. One of the
problems is not getting enough feedstock for the AD machine to operate, and the
feedstock available are mixed with other waste (JPSPN, 2008).
5.5 Limitations of the study
Problems encountered during the proposal of site visits as only a few response on the site
visit proposal. AD plants that send their responses located miles away from Newcastle thus
require transport and lodging which means higher financial cost expedited for this study.
As waste to energy is very new to Malaysia, not much reference can be used for the study.
Thus, UK study helps to get a clearer view and to determine the cost and the lifetime of the
plant. Although composting has been done a few years in Malaysia, not much research and
studies were done to compliment the progress and the problems faced. The same goes with
other technology such as incineration and gasification.
Decision matrix would be best done by a group of stakeholders as it needs more input and
weight to put the scale in each of the criteria. The same goes for SUSOP as it involves a team
of expertise to make decisions according to the capitals. In the other hand, WRATE should
come in handy as it is an LCA tool that helps to decide on the best waste management
approach but the background data such as equipment, vehicles, moisture content, electricity
mix and background database cannot be changed as it was set using the UK waste data. This
has caused inaccurate data, and detailed results value cannot be displayed. Further
information about the result of LCA cannot be generated.
50
8.0 Conclusion
Malaysia initiative dispose municipal solid wastes with various available alternatives such as
incineration, gasification, composting and landfilling. A biological process such as anaerobic
digestion that is one of the key to renewable energy in an integrated solid waste
management system for a community in a developing country while preserving the natural
ecosystem at an acceptable cost. Food and kitchen waste are the resources that need to be
treated as it could provide the country with renewable energy rather than be wasted into
landfills or burnt to ashes and dust in incinerators. More than 40% of waste could be
diverted from the landfill thus giving a perfect solution for the problem. From this study, it
has been proven that kitchen and food waste in Malaysia have the characteristics suitable for
AD due to the high moisture content and high calorific value. With the start of building a
small scale AD appropriate for a community, more studies can be done to prepare for a
bigger scale and allocate enough feedstock. The renewable energy produced from anaerobic
digestion process can be seen as a good reason for many communities to start recycling our
valuable resources. The annual benefits for the average biogas household in Nepal are
savings of the use of firewood (2 tonnes), of agricultural residues (1 tonne), of dried dung
(250 kg), of kerosene (70 kg) and of chemical fertilizer (39 kg of nitrogen, 19 kg of
phosphorous and 39 kg of potassium(Van Nes, 2006). AD generates power exclusively from
the biomass portion of waste, so is renewable(FoE, 2006).
Another technology suitable to implement in Malaysia is composting. The financial impact is

not as significant as AD, but it requires more feedstock, more energy and more time to turn
into compost. The dry AD Plant in Dunfermline, Scotland can be a good example of a plant
consisting both AD and composting in one plant, making the waste from top to end
sustainably resourceful.
51
References
Advisor, H., Themelis, N. J., Barlaz, M., Engineering, E., & Foundation, F. (2009). Large scale aerobic
composting of source separated o ga i astes : A o pa ati e stud of e i o e tal
impacts , costs , and contextual effects ., 1–71.
Antizar-Ladislao, B., Irvine, G., & Lamont, E. R. (2010). Energy from waste: Reuse of compost heat as
a source of renewable energy. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2010.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2010/627930
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrve, J., Helsen, L., Lie e s, B., Wille s, K., … De il, ‘. . A ae o i
digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9), 4295–4301. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.121
Approach, E. A. (2008). Anaerobic digestion of agricultural manure and slurry. Prevention and
Control, (April).
Arafat, H. A., Jijakli, K., & Ahsan, A. (2013). Environmental performance and energy recovery
potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.071
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(1-3), 207–222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2003.08.019
Bandar, K. K. (2014). Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics & MAIN REPORT. Survey on
Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics and Main Report.
Bywater, a. (2011). A Review of Anaerobic Digestion Plants on UK Farms. Royal Agricultural Society of
England.
Centre, R. (2009). Feasibility Study for a Central Anaerobic Digestion Plant in Aberdeenshire.
Clift, R., Doig, a., & Finnveden, G. (2000). The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Integrated Solid
Waste Management. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78(4), 279–287.
http://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530790
Corder, G. D., McLellan, B. C., Bangerter, P. J., van Beers, D., & Green, S. R. (2012). Engineering-in
sustainability through the application of SUSOP ®. Chemical Engineering Research and Design,
90(1), 98–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2011.08.001
CoreStrategies. (2008). Decision Matrix.
Cornell University. (2010). Monitoring Compost Odors.
Dalton, J. (2014). De isio Maki g for Sustai a ility Today : You are De isio Makers.
52
DEFRA. (2015). Digest of Waste and Resource Statistics – 2015 Edition, (January).
Dr. Andrew Walsh. (2014). The first UK Dry Anaerobic Digestion Facility now in full operation,
4621721.
Effie Papargyropoulou, C. (2010). Love Of Food, (October), 30–32.
Erickson, Marilyn; Critzer, Faith and Doyle, M. (2004). Composting Criteria for Animal Manure.
Science.
Evangelisti, S., Lettieri, P., Borello, D., & Clift, R. (2014). Life cycle assessment of energy from waste
via anaerobic digestion: a UK case study. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 34(1), 226–37.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.09.013
Example, B. P. (2012). Rainbarrow Farm , Poundbury.
Facility, M. R., Anaerobic, C., & Further, L. (2004). Introduction to Waste Treatment Technologies
Household waste.
FoE, E. (2006). Dirty Truths.
Gebrezgabher, S. a., Meuwissen, M. P. M., Prins, B. a M., & Lansink, A. G. J. M. O. (2010). Economic
analysis of anaerobic digestion-A case of Green power biogas plant in the Netherlands. NJAS -
Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 57(2), 109–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2009.07.006
Greenpeace. (1999). Pollution and health impacts of waste incinerators. English.
Hamid, A. A., Ahmad, A., Ibrahim, M. H., Norulaini, N., & Abdul, N. (2012). Food Waste
Managemenmanagement options, 2(1), 36–39.
Harper, M., Pervez, A., Rouse, J., Drescher, S., & Zurbrügg, C. (2004). Sustainable Composting, 134.
Hartmann, H., & Ahring, B. K. (2005). Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste: Influence of co-digestion with manure. Water Research, 39(8), 1543–1552.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.02.001
Holm-Nielsen, J. B., Al Seadi, T., & Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. (2009). The future of anaerobic digestion and
biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology, 100(22), 5478–5484.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046
Idzorek, J. (1999). Municipal solid waste incineration. Municipal Waste Combustion. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG folder/Waste
Incineration.pdf\nhttp://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:23086616
Initiative, G. M. (2013). Successful Applications of Anaerobic Digestion From Across the World,
(September).
J V Energen _ Key Facts. (2012).
53
Jäckel, U., Thummes, K., & Kämpfer, P. (2005). Thermophilic methane production and oxidation in
compost. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 52(2), 175–184.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.11.003
Johnke, B. (2003). Emissions from waste incineration. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Ma age e t …, 455–468. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Emissions+From+Waste+inci
neration#4
JPSPN, K. (2008). Source Separation of Food Waste - Turning.
KADA Research. (2013). Anaerobic Digestion: A Market Profile, 61.
Kathirvale, S., Muhd Yunus, M. N., Sopian, K., & Samsuddin, A. H. (2004). Energy potential from
municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renewable Energy, 29(4), 559–567.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2003.09.003
Kuroda, K., Keno, Y., Nakatani, N., & Otsuka, K. (2013). An Integrated Feasibility Study of an
Anaerobic Digestion Plant using Marine Biomass and Food Waste Concept of CNP Recycle.
Isope, 9(3), 488–494.
Lam, C. H. K., Ip, A. W. M., Barford, J. P., & McKay, G. (2010). Use of incineration MSW ash: A review.
Sustainability, 2(7), 1943–1968. http://doi.org/10.3390/su2071943
Leggett, J., Graves, R. E., & Lanyon, L. E. (1995). Anaerobic Digestion: Biogas Production and Odor
Reduction from Manure. Cooperative Extension Service, 1–9.
Loh i, C. ‘., ‘odić, L., & )u ügg, C. . Feasi ilit assess e t tool fo u a a ae o i digestio
in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 126, 122–131.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.028
Lou, X. F., & Nair, J. (2009). The impact of landfilling and composting on greenhouse gas emissions - A
review. Bioresource Technology, 100(16), 3792–3798.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.006
Mahmood, Z. B. (2009). SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BY CONSIDERING COMPOSTING POTENTIAL IN

MALAYSIA TOWARD A GREEN COUNTRY Sanaz. Saheri, Masoud Aghajani Mir, Noor Ezlin Ahmad
Basri, Rawsan Ara Begum, Noor Zalina Binti Mahmood, 4(1), 48–55.
Malakahmad, A., Ezlin, N., & Basri, A. (2000). Overview on the Development of Anaerobic. Energy,
(1990).
Manaf, L. A., Samah, M. A. A., & Zukki, N. I. M. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in
Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 29(11), 2902–6.
Masirin, M. I. H. M., Ridzuan, M. B., Mustapha, S., & Don, R. A. @ M. (2008). An overview of landfill
a age e t a d te h ologies : a ala sia ase stud at ampar tenang 1, 157–165.
Mccarty, P. L. (1964). Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals. Public Works, 95(9), 107–112.
54
Mezzullo, W. G., McManus, M. C., & Hammond, G. P. (2013). Life cycle assessment of a small-scale
anaerobic digestion plant from cattle waste. Applied Energy, 102, 657–664.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.008
Mind Tools. (2014). How to Use the Tool. MindTools.com, 2–4.
Monnet, F. (2003). An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes. Carbon,

23(November), 48. Retrieved from
http://www.biogasmax.co.uk/media/introanaerobicdigestion__073323000_1011_24042007.pd
f
Muhammad Azahar Abas, S. T. W. (2014). Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia. Municipal
Solid Waste Management in Malaysia, 1957, 192–206.
National Solid Waste Management policy. (n.d.).
Office, G. B. N. A. (2006). Reducing the Reliance on Landfill in England: Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. The Stationery Office. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=RP98pv2v7pIC&pgis=1
Planet Natural. (2015). COMPOST BINS & SUPPLIES, 101(800), 1–9.
Põldnurk, J. (2015). Optimisation of the economic, environmental and administrative efficiency of

the municipal waste management model in rural areas. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
97, 55–65. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.003
Quested, T., Ingle, R., & Parry, A. (2013). Household Food and Drink Waste in the United Kingdom
2012.
Renewable Energy Association. (2013). Energy from Waste: A guide for decision-makers. Retrieved
from http://www.r-e-a.net/pdf/energy-from-waste-guide-for-decision-makers.pdf
“a sudi , M., & Do , M. M. . Mu i ipal “olid Waste Ma age e t i Mala sia : Cu e t

Practices , Challenges and Prospects. Jurnal Teknologi, 62(1), 95–101.
Scenarios, E. (2002). Economic Modelling of Anaerobic Digestion / Biogas Installations in a Range of

Rural Scenarios in Cornwall. Business.
“eel , A. . La dfill ta : i t odu tio & ea l histo .
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., & Trivedi, R. C. (2008). Municipal solid waste management in
Indian cities - A review. Waste Management, 28(2), 459–467.
Sin, T. J., Chen, G. K., Long, K. S., Goh, I., & Hwang, H. (n.d.). Current practice of waste management
syste i Mala sia : To a ds sustai a le aste a age e t Cu e t P a ti es fo Mala sia.
Tampio, E., Ervasti, S., Paavola, T., Heaven, S., Banks, C., & Rintala, J. (2014). Anaerobic digestion of
autoclaved and untreated food waste. Waste Management, 34(2), 370–377.
55
Tan, S. T., Ho, W. S., Hashim, H., Lee, C. T., Taib, M. R., & Ho, C. S. (2015). Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste
(MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Conversion and Management.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.010
Tioman, P., & Pangkor, P. (2001). Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal di Malaysia.
Tiwary, a., Williams, I. D., Pant, D. C., & Kishore, V. V. N. (2015). Emerging perspectives on
environmental burden minimisation initiatives from anaerobic digestion technologies for
community scale biomass valorisation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 883–
901. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.052
Treatment, B., & Guide, B. (2010). Waste Management Privatised in Malaysia.
Undergraduates, H., Centre, M., Um, D., Um, A., Enter, S., Umnews, “., … “upe iso , P. . UM
AIM“ FO‘ )E‘O WA“TE CAMPU“ TH‘OUGH FOOD WA“TE ANAE‘OBIC DIGE“TION P‘OJECT ,
(April 2008), 2008–2010.
Unep. (2005). Solid Waste Management, 3(2005), 1–72. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999677
United, L. (2008). Energy Farms - Anaerobic Digestion, 3016.
Verma, S. (2002). Biodegradable Organics in Municipal. New York, (May). Retrieved from
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Verma_thesis.pdf
Ward, R. (2007). Understanding food. Nursing Mirror and Midwives Journal, 144(4), 57–58.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3182(69)80104-4
Waste, T. (2013). WRATE for life-cycle assessment of waste management solutions.
Whiting, A., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and
heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy, 70, 181–193.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.103
Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., & Gamble, P. (2007).
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology,
98(4), 929–935. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.039
56
Appendix
Questionaire during site visit.
Name of the plant :

Date :
Topic Questions Notes

Plant Size of the plant
Storage size
Capacity of the plant per

day
Feedstock Types of feedstock
How much collected per

day
How much are treated per
day
Methods on collection
feedstock
Methods of storage of
feedstock
Production What are produced from
the AD
How much gas are
produced per day
What did they do with the
product of AD
Operation and How many people are

maintenance operating the plant
57
How many division are
there in the operation
plant?
How does the training
conducted
Cost How much is the capital

cost
How much is the operation

cost
1. Staff
2. Maintenance
3.
Total amount spend in
building the AD
Problems
58

Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Material, Newcastle

University, United Kingdom

Agustina Fithri Kasmaruddin

Source: (Bandar, 2014)

1.1 What is Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Benefits of AD?

The decomposition process is carried out by micro-organisms in controlled conditions in the

Chart 1: Peninsular Malaysia Household Waste Composition (Bandar, 2014)

Privatisation of solid waste management officially started in Malaysia on 20 September 2011

2.2 Why AD in Malaysia?

Chart 2: Malaysian household waste composition as generated

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Table 4: Chemical composition of kitchen waste in Malaysia

2.3 Waste management technology in Malaysia

3.1 Literature review

3.2 Decision-making tools

3.2.1 Decision Matrix

3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment comparison

SUSOP® (SUStainable Operations) is an approach to the integration of sustainable

Decision-making process will need information as follows:

3.2.4 Integrated Waste Management

3.3 Use of decision-making tools

a) Specifies key criteria for successful AD projects

3.4 Site visits

1. Nestle, Fawdon, Newcastle (Industrial) – Food waste

1. Community: an anaerobic digester predominantly using food waste, collected from

4.1 Site visits

4.1.1 Site visit at Nestle, Fawdon, Newcastle (Industrial)

4.1.3 Site visit at Rainbarrow Farm AD Plant, Martinstown, Dorchester, Dorset

4.2 Decision Making Tools

4.2.1 Decision Matrix

Chart 3: Ranking of the suitability of waste technology in Decision Matrix

Organic  99.99% pathogen  Not guaranteed  The majority  No fertilizer

SUSOP will help:

 To highlight the issues surrounding AD technologies

4.2.2.1 Natural Capital

Emissions  Contributed the most towards

CO2  Negative in CO2 emissions

4.2.2.2 Social Capital

Issue Positive Impacts Negative Impacts

Traffic  Heavy vehicle traffic involving waste

Meeting  Meeting the National Waste Policy

4.2.2.3 Human Capital

Health  Potential impact on human health

Knowledge  Could be an excellent case study  Need specialized work and

4.2.2.4 Financial Capital

4.2.2.5 Manufactured Capital

4.3 Identify Risks and Opportunities

Potential of Public  Human  Giving public talks to the communities

Emissions from the  Natural  Reduce the amount of emissions in the

Potential Lack of  Human  Make links to local universities through

4.4 Conclusions from SUSOP

AD can be considered as the most suitable waste treatment process to be applied in

Waste Management in Malaysia

Diagram 4: Multi-impact assessment of waste management in Malaysia

Diagram 2: Sankey Percentage view of waste management in Malaysia

Waste Management in Malaysia

Waste Management in Malaysia

Commercial Compost Use

7.1 Anaerobic Digestion

United 2008 e tio ed i thei ha d ook o Ho to de elop a community-lead anaerobic

This observation specifically provides opportunities for anaerobic digestion in developing

5.2 Decision-making tools

5.2.1 Decision Matrix