Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Optimal process design for integrated municipal waste management

with energy recovery in Argentina
Betzabet Morero a, b, *, Agustín F. Montagna a, c, Enrique A. Campanella a, b,
Diego C. Cafaro a, c
a
INTEC (UNL-CONICET), Güemes 3450, 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina
b
Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Hídricas, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Ruta Nacional Nº 168 Km 472.4, 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina
c
Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santiago del Estero 2829, 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina

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

Article history: This work presents a comprehensive mathematical model for the optimal selection of municipal waste
Received 7 June 2018 treatment alternatives, accounting for co-digestion of sludge and municipal solid waste. The super-
Received in revised form structure of alternatives includes anaerobic digestion under mesophilic or thermophilic conditions,
22 July 2019
composting, recycling, and final disposal in a landfill. Anaerobic digesters can be fed with different
Accepted 16 August 2019
Available online 16 August 2019
mixing ratios of sewage sludge (SS) and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OF). A mixed-
integer mathematical programming formulation is proposed to find the optimal process design. It
comprises nonlinear equations to estimate digestion yields according to substrate mixing ratios. Results
Keywords:
Co-digestion
for cities of different sizes show that the joint treatment can increase profitability, especially in small
Waste-to-Energy populations. In all cases, co-digestion of the full stream of SS and OF leads to an integrated waste-to-
Optimization energy process that maximizes the economic value and reduces environmental impacts of waste by
Superstructure producing electricity, heat and fertilizer.
Process design © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction to be economically viable [5]. Besides that, incineration is strictly

The volume of municipal waste continues to increase because of
population growth, economic development and urban spread [1].
Municipal solid waste and sewage are the main waste generated in
urban centers, and treatment in many countries is strictly required
by local laws [2,3]. The most commonly applied technologies to
treat urban waste are anaerobic digestion (AD), composting, recy-
cling, final disposal in landfills and incineration [1]. Because of their
relatively low investment cost, landfills continue to be one of the
most common methods despite their significantly high potential to
pollute the environment [1]. AD is a mature technology that has
been widely investigated because it allows the use of biogas as
renewable energy and digestate as fertilizer. In turn, composting
produce a marketable final product that without detectable levels
of pathogens can also be commercialized as fertilizer [4]. Finally,
incineration is a widely used method but it is difficult to implement
in low populated areas because it requires a large amount of waste
* Corresponding author. INTEC (UNL-CONICET), Güemes 3450, 3000, Santa Fe,
Argentina.
E-mail address: bmorero@intec.unl.edu.ar (B. Morero).
prohibited in many cities [6].
To date, several studies have evaluated the economic results and
environmental impacts of different waste-to-energy processes in
diverse locations around the world [5,7e10]. Some of these works
conclude that the AD is the best option from both the environ-
mental and economic points of view [5,10]. However, local condi-
tions significantly affect the results, thus requiring a
comprehensive study for every particular case.
A recent study developed in Argentina shows that the co-
digestion of sewage sludge (SS) and the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (OF) has great potential to reduce the envi-
ronmental impacts and increase the economic value of the sub-
strates [11] through the production of biomethane, electricity and
fertilizer. Similarly, several studies show the environmental bene-
fits yielded by the co-digestion of waste [12e15] using the life-cycle
assessment (LCA). In fact, co-digestion is a promising alternative to
treat most of the waste generated in a city. Nevertheless, it is critical
to address the integrated design of sustainable processes so as to
convert waste into energy and valuable products in the most effi-
cient way, accounting for local regulations [16].
There are many mathematical models in the literature for

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.085
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636
simulating AD process dynamics [17]. Some works have focused on
determining the optimal feedstock mixing ratio that maximizes
methane production rates [18]. Recent results suggest that co-
digestion can increase the productivity from the sole substrates
[19], thus offering an opportunity to take advantage of an inte-
grated treatment of urban waste. But these studies just focus on the
optimization of the methane yield, and do not account for eco-
nomic and environmental impacts of the overall process. Also,
operational conditions of ADs are usually omitted. Other works use
linear programming to estimate kinetic parameters and yield co-
efficients for ADs [20], but they do not use this information for
optimizing the process design.
On the other hand, some works address the selection of waste
treatment alternatives including the optimal design of the anaer-
obic digestion process [21,22]. However, none of them accounts for
co-digestion. To overcome this fact, we propose a novel mathe-
matical formulation to find the optimal integrated process design. It
comprises binary variables accounting for the selection of treat-
ment alternatives, and nonlinear equations to estimate anaerobic
digestion yields according to substrate mixing ratios. The model is
able to choose the most convenient AD co-feeding ratio. Solutions
are assessed by means of an economic objective function including
both capital and operating expenditures. The analysis is developed
for cities of different sizes to evaluate the effects of the economies
of scale. Finally, an LCA is performed to compare the optimized
alternatives from an environmental point of view.
2. Problem definition
Different processing alternatives can be considered in order to
convert waste into marketable products. The superstructure shown
in Fig. 1 includes anaerobic digestion (AD) under mesophilic (35
C)
or thermophilic (55
C) conditions, composting, recycling, and final
disposal in a landfill.
The daily generation of municipal solid waste (QMSW) and
sewage sludge (QSS) is usually proportional to the size of the city.
The composition of MSW is categorized as organic (Qof), recyclable
material (QR), and others, non-recyclable (QOT). The Qof can be sent
Fig. 1. Superstructure of municipal waste treatment alternatives.
2627
to three processing alternatives: anaerobic digesters (QDof), com-
posting plant (QCof) or simply to landfill (QLof) as often seen in
practice. The recyclable fraction (QR) can be treated in a separation
plant, and non-recyclable materials (QOT) are assumed to be directly
sent to landfill.
Furthermore, sewage sludge (QSS) can be used as a feedstock in
AD (QDss), composted (QCSS) if allowed by local regulations [2,3] or
disposed of in landfill sites (QLSS). The SS sent to compost and/or
landfill is previously dewatered by centrifugation, to increase the
dry matter content from QSS to QCSS and/or QLSS, respectively.
The methane produced after AD (QM) can be converted into heat
and power in a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The heat
(CHPt) can be used to maintain the AD temperature, whereas the
electricity (CHPe) can be sold to the market. We assume that the
digestate from ADs can be used as biofertilizer after proper treat-
ment. The organic fertilizer produced from the digestate (QCdb) or
from compost (QCOMP) can also be commercialized. The liquid
fraction of the digestate obtained by centrifugation (QWG) will not
meet the environmental standards for direct discharge to receiving
streams. Therefore, the wastewater is recycled to the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). However, different techniques for
nutrient recovery are developing rapidly. These technologies will
be evaluated in detailed in future work.
3. Mathematical formulation
3.1. Mass balances
To model the AD superstructure, a set of single anaerobic di-
gesters (b 2 B) is initially proposed for each possible combination
of temperature conditions (d2{d1: mesophilic; d2: thermophilic})
and mixing ratios (m2{m1: 0e100, m2: 100e0, m3: 80e20, m4:
60e40, m5: 40e60, m6: 20e80}, given in %OF  %SS). The optimi-
zation model will decide on the convenience of installing one or
more digesters, and determine their optimal size. As denoted by Eq.
(1), the daily production of organic waste (Qof) can be sent to one or
more specific anaerobic digesters (QDofd,m,b), to the composting
plant (QCof), or to landfill (QLof). In turn, the sewage sludge flow
2628 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636

(QSS) can be used as feedstock in any individual AD (QDssd,m,b),  

composted (QCSS), or disposed of in landfill (QLSS).
X
Qof ¼ QDofd;m;b þ QCof þ QLof
d;m;b
X
QSS ¼ QDssd;m;b þ QLss þ QCss þ QWss
d;m;b
For continuous AD processes the dry matter content (dmD) of the
feedstocks is typically set at 7e10% [23]. As the OF substrate usually
presents a higher dry matter content, it is necessary to dilute in-
flows with water (QWd,m,b). However, since our model accounts for
co-digestion of OF and SS, the amount of water to add will depend
on the mixing ratio, as imposed by Eq. (4). In fact, the dry matter
content of every possible mix m is given by the parameter dmm.
QDd;m;b ¼ QDofd;m;b þ QDssd;m;b þ QWd;m;b c d; m; b
 
QDd;m;b , dmD ¼ QDofd;m;b þ QDssd;m;b ,dmm c d; m; b
The digestate produced in each AD (QGd,m,b) is also centrifuged
and sent to compost processing (QGcd,m,b) or to drying beds
(QGdbd,m,b), depending on the hydraulic retention time (HRT). The
associate material balance is represented by Eq. (5). We assume the
same dry matter content for the digestate as for the AD inflows.
QGd;m;b ¼ QGdbd;m;b þ QGcd;m;b þ QWG c d; m; b
Landfill provides a safe option for disposing of waste that cannot
be recycled, composted or used to produce energy. In many cities,
however, the OF also goes to landfill. We also consider this possi-
bility in our model (Eq. 6).
QL ¼ QLof þ QLss þ QOT
Composting is another process that converts organic waste into
a useable product. The waste volume is reduced, many harmful
organisms are destroyed, and a marketable fertilizer is finally ob-
tained. Organic materials that can be sent to composting are OF, SS
and the digestate from ADs with insufficient retention time (Eq. 7).
X quickly, in approximately 10 days. Thus, the minimum retention
QC ¼ QCof þ QCss þ QGcd;m;b
d;m;b
Finally, the input flow to drying beds (QGdb) includes the
centrifuged digestate with enough hydraulic retention time to
ensure that harmful organisms have been destroyed. This condition
is addressed in a further section.
X HRTd,m,b typically varies between 5 and 40 days [23]. We model
QGdb ¼ QGdbd;m;b
d;m;b
In the following sections we present the main groups of equa-
tions to model the integrated waste treatment design problem.
QM d;m;b ¼ Yd;m;b ,vsm , QDofd;m;b þ QDssd;m;b c d; m; b (9)
(1)
HRTd;m;b ,km;d ,ymm;d
Yd;m;b ¼ c d; m; b (10)
HRTd;m;b ,km;d þ 1
(2)
Parameter ymm,d is the ultimate methane yield achievable per unit
of volatile solids in mix m, with the AD running under condition d;
km,d is the reaction constant and vsm is the volatile solids concen-
tration in mix m. Note that Eqs. (9) and (10) yield a nonlinear
formulation where HRT and QD are the decision variables being
involved. Bilinear terms make the optimization model highly
nonconvex [25]. In turn, Eqs. (11) and (12) ensure that if an AD is
selected to process mix m, the corresponding feeding ratio is ful-
filled, by knowing the mass fractions of OF and SS in every mixing
option m (xofm and xssm).
(3)
 
QDofd;m;b ¼ xofm QDofd;m;b þ QDssd;m;b c d; m; b (11)
(4)
 
QDssd;m;b ¼ xssm QDofd;m;b þ QDssd;m;b c d; m; b (12)
To calculate the digestate produced in every AD, the methane
yield (QMd,m,b) is subtracted from the total inflow QDd,m,b, as in Eq.
(13).
 
(5) QM d;m;b
QGd;m;b ¼ QDd;m;b  ,rbiogas c d; m; b (13)
xM
Parameter rbiogas (typically, 1.2 kg m3) is the biogas density in
normal conditions and xM is the volumetric fraction of methane in
the biogas (usually, 60%) [26]. The digestate produced in every AD is
centrifuged and sent to compost processing or to drying beds and
(6) sold as organic fertilizer. The final processing depends on the level
of degradation of the biological contaminants. These contaminants
can be degraded during the process to an extent, which depends on
the process temperature and the retention time into the digester.
According to Schnürer and Jarvis [23], under mesophilic conditions
the retention time should be at least 15 days, while a thermophilic
digestion can manage degradation of biological contaminants more
(7)
time for biological degradation of contaminants brtd will depend on
the regime. If the retention time is shorter than 15 or 10 days for
mesophilic or thermophilic conditions, respectively, the digestate
produced in the AD should be sent to compost processing
(QGcd,m,b). If it is equal or longer, the digestate can be directly sent to
drying beds (QGdbd,m,b). In practice, the hydraulic retention time
(8) these aspects through Eqs. (14) to (20).
wd;m;b , minHRT  HRTd;m;b  wd;m;b ,maxHRT c d; m; b (14)
QGdbd;m;b  M,xlsd;m;b c d; m; b (15)

3.2. Anaerobic digestion QGcd;m;b  M,xlid;m;b c d; m; b (16)

The binary variable wd,m,b is used to determine whether or not

HRTd;m;b ¼ HRTid;m;b þ HRTsd;m;b c d; m; b (17)
the digester b should be installed, running under temperature
range d and co-fed with waste ratio m (wd,m,b ¼ 1). The energy
content of the biogas is directly related to its methane (CH4) con- HRTid;m;b  xlid;m;b ,brtd c d; m; b (18)
tent, which depends on both the biomass used as substrate and the
retention time. The methane yield for every individual AD (QM,d,m,b) xlsd;m;b , brtd  HRTsd;m;b  xlsd;m;b ,maxHRT c d; m; b (19)
is approximated from a CSTR (continuous stirred tank reactor)
system, based on a first-order kinetic model [24].
 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636
xlid;m;b þ xlsd;m;b ¼ wd;m;b c d; m; b
Binaries xlid,m,b and xlsd,m,b are decision variables determining if
the retention time for biological degradation of contaminants is
accomplished (xlsd,m,b ¼ 1) or not (xlid,m,b ¼ 1). Finally, the volume of
every single digester (Vd,m,b) depends on the total inflow QDd,m,b
and the hydraulic retention time HRTd,m,b, as suggested by Linke
(2006) [24], here expressed by Eq. (21),
QDd;m;b ,HRTd;m;b
Vd;m;b ¼ c d; m; b
rf
Parameter rf is the substrate density (typically, 1.02 ton/m3 [27]).
A maximum volume of 4000 m3 is assumed for every single AD
[26]. Note that Eq. (21) also comprises a bilinear term.
Vd;m;b  4000,wd;m;b c d; m; b
3.2.1. Power generation
The CH4 produced is converted into electricity and heat in a
combined heat and power plant (CHP), with typical electric and
thermal yields of he ¼ 33% and ht ¼ 55%, respectively [28]. The
electricity (CHPe) is sold to the grid, and the heat (CHPt) is used in
the ADs. The higher heating value of methane (εCH4) is set at 11 kWh
m3 [29].
CHPed;m;b ¼ QM d;m;b ,εCH4 ,he c d; m; b
CHPtd;m;b ¼ QMd;m;b ,εCH4 ,ht c d; m; b
3.2.2. Economic analysis
The investment cost in a single AD (CDd,m,b) is a function of the
volume of the digester (Vd,m,b) and the CHP capacity [29]. It com-
prises the storage tank, digestate centrifuge, evaporation and air
scrubber units, civil works, permits, and grid connection. It is
assumed to be linearly dependent on the volume of the digester,
but follows an economy-of-scale concave cost function [30] with
the CHP capacity, as detailed in the Supplementary Material, here
simplified by Eq. (25).
 
CDd;m;b ¼ f Vd;m;b ; CHPed;m;b c d; m; b
Annual operating costs (ODd,m,b) are calculated from the feed-
stock acquisition and heating costs [22]. The cost of handling the
feedstock depends on the size of the digester (Vd,m,b), the temper-
ature regime and the retention time. The external energy require-
ment to heat a single AD is calculated from its volume (Vd,m,b) by
discounting the thermal energy generation (CHPtd,m,b), as denoted
by Eq. (26).
 
ODd;m;b ¼ f Vd;m;b ; HRTd;m;b ; CHPtd;m;b c d; m; b
Annual revenues (IDd,m,b) come from selling the electricity
generated (CHPed,m,b) and Certified Emission Reductions (CER). The
CERs are calculated as the reduction of CH4 emissions, which
depend on the methane yield (QM,d,m,b). Detailed economic func-
tions are presented in the Supplementary Material, here captured
by Eq. (27).
 
IDd;m;b ¼ f CHPed;m;b ; QM d;m;b c d; m; b
2629
3.3. Drying bed
(20)
Drying of the digestate aims at stabilizing the product and
increasing the nutrient concentration. If enough surface is available
drying beds are the preferred option because they produce a drier
sludge than mechanical devices. The total area required by a drying
bed (Adb) is calculated as a function of the input flow (QGdb). The
dried digestate (QCdb) can be finally marketed as organic fertilizer,
if sufficiently high dry matter content (dmdb) is achieved (usually
equal or greater than 47%, as suggested by the EPA [31]), as repre-
(21) sented by Eq. (28).
dmc
QCdb ¼ ,QGdb (28)
dmdb
(22)
3.3.1. Economic analysis
Capital costs for drying beds (Cdb) include the purchase of land,
excavation and site work, installation of drain pipe and valves,
construction of steel reinforced concrete dividing walls, and pur-
chase of one or more front-end loaders. As suggested by the EPA
[31] Cdb depends on the total area required (Adb) and the cost of the
land (cLAND). The EPA also suggests that annual operating costs
(Odb), including labor, diesel fuel consumption and maintenance
costs, depend on the Adb, usually linearly [31]. Finally the revenue
(Idb) from organic fertilizer is obtained from a linear function of
QCdb [31]. Detailed equations on the operation and economics of
(23) drying beds can be found in the Supplementary Material, here
simplified by Eqs. (29) to (31).
(24)
Cdb ¼ f ðAdb; cLAND Þ (29)
Odb ¼ f ðAdbÞ (30)
Idb ¼ f ðQCdbÞ (31)
3.4. Compost
The compost daily produced (QCOMP) comes from the organic
wastes finally sent to composting (QCOF, QCSS, QGcd,m,b). In windrow
composting, dewatered sludge is mixed with a bulking agent. Then it
is spread on paved but uncovered areas in windrows with an
(25)
approximately trapezoidal cross sectional area. The most economical
and commonly used bulking agent in the windrow is previously
composted waste. The total composting area (Ac) depends on the
composting period and the area covered by the windrows.
3.4.1. Economic analysis
Capital costs related to composting (CC) include purchase of land,
paving of composting area, purchase of windrow turning machine
and construction of unloading and mixing devices. Annual operating
(26) costs (OC) comprise operational and maintenance workforce, sup-
plies, fuel for composting and ancillary machinery. Both terms lin-
early depend on the total flow of organic waste sent to composting
[31]. The annual income (IC) derives from compost selling (QCOMP).
For more details, we refer the reader to the Supplementary Material.
 
CC ¼ f QCof þ QCss þ QGcd;m;b (32)
 
(27) OC ¼ f QCof þ QCss þ QGcd;m;b (33)
2630 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636
IC ¼ f ð QCOMP Þ (34)
3.5. Centrifugation
Centrifuge dewatering is a process whereby centrifugal force is
applied to promote the separation of solids from the liquid in the
sludge. Centrifuges are the mechanical devices most commonly
used for dewatering municipal wastewater sludge. The process is
energy-intensive, but has the advantage of requiring little space.
After centrifugation the dry matter content (dmc) of the SS not sent
to ADs increases approximately from 7% to 25% [31]. Similarly, the
digestate leaving the ADs needs to be dewatered before further
processing (composting or drying). In this case the dry matter
content typically increases from 8% to 25%.
The capital cost of a centrifuge (Ccf) includes the purchase and
installation of the equipment, building construction (to house the
units), ancillary machinery, pipes and electrical instrumentation.
Annual operating expenditures (Ocf in USD/year) include labor,
electrical energy and materials. Costs are assumed to be functions
of the total flow sent to dewatering [31], as denoted by Eqs. (35) and
(36). More details on these functions are given in the
Supplementary Material.
Ccf ¼ f ðQLss; QCss; QWss; QGÞ (35)
Ocf ¼ f ðQLss; QCss; QWss; QGÞ (36)
3.6. Landfill site
Capital investment in landfill sites (CL) includes the direct costs
derived from the construction of cells, leachate treatment facilities
and common infrastructure (land acquisition, offices, services,
roads, etc.). Operating expenditures (OL) are due to utilities,
transportation and workforce. CL and OL are calculated as functions
of the total input flow to landfills (QL) [32], as captured by Eqs. (37)
and (38). No incomes are assumed in this case.
CL ¼ f ðQLÞ (37)
OL ¼ f ðQLÞ (38)
3.7. Separation plant
Investment costs (Cs) and operating expenditures (Os) for the
separation plant depend on the total flow of recyclable materials
(QR) being processed. We also account for the incomes (IS) from
selling recyclable materials. The selling prices usually vary with the
type of material being recovered. Reference selling prices are re-
ported by the Argentine Environmental Protection Ministry [33].
Detailed equations related to the separation plant can be found in
the Supplementary Material, here simplified by Eqs. (39) to (41).
Cs ¼ f ðQR Þ (39)
Os ¼ f ðQR Þ (40)
Is ¼ f ðQR Þ (41)
3.8. Objective function
The net present value (NPV) of the project is selected as the
model objective function, as shown in Eq. (42). The set T comprises
the annual periods of the planning horizon and the parameter r
represents the annual discount rate.
X Xh
maxNPV ¼  CDd;m;b  Cdb  CC  Ccf  CL þ Idb þ IC þ Is
d;m;b t
X i 1
 Odb OC  Ocf  OL Os þ IDd;m;b  ODd;m;b ,
d;m;b ð1 þ rÞt1
(42)
4. Life cycle assesment (LCA) methodology
For several scenarios presented in the following sections, an LCA
is conducted according to ISO 14040e44 [34] in four phases: (1) the
goal and scope definition phase, (2) the inventory analysis phase,
(3) the impact assessment phase, and (4) the interpretation phase.
The objectives and scope of the LCA seeks to determine the envi-
ronmental impacts associated with the optimized results of the
waste management system. The functional unit chosen is 1 (one)
ton of waste treated. The boundaries of the system account for
materials and energy used in the treatment facilities (waste gath-
ering and transportation are not included). Inventory data are
collected from different sources, simulations and procedures. For
illustration, we describe the inventory data for one of the case
studies in Section 5 (a city with 250,000 inhabitants) in the
Supplementary Material. Data regarding the production of mineral
fertilizers, electricity and fuel consumption, emissions from
anaerobic digesters and CHP, and sanitary landfill infrastructure are
obtained from the Ecoinvent Database Version 3 [35].
The LCA is performed using the SimaPro 8 software [36]. The
ReCiPe midpoint methodology [37] is used with nine impact cate-
gories: global warming potential (GWP), terrestrial acidification
(TA), freshwater eutrophication (FE), human toxicity (HT), photo-
chemical oxidant formation (POF), particulate matter formation
(PMF), urban land occupation (ULO), water depletion (WD) and
cumulative energy demand (CED).
The landfill under consideration includes a base seal, a leachate
collection system, and the treatment of leachate in the municipal
wastewater treatment plant. Long-term filtration from landfill to
groundwater (after base lining failure) and short-term emissions to
air via landfill gas are also addressed. The AD infrastructure in-
cludes the storage of waste, the anaerobic digestion and the storage
after digestion. The storage of the substrate and the digested sludge
are also addressed by the LCA. Due to the absence of reliable ref-
erences and pertinent data, H2S emissions during substrate storage
are neglected. Composting includes the energy demand for oper-
ating a compost plant and process emissions, assuming a final
compost with a water content of 50% (weight base) [31].
An energy analysis is also carried out based on the cumulative
energy demand (CED) to assess the energy use throughout the
process lifecycle. This includes direct uses as well as indirect con-
sumption [38]. The analysis accounts for the non-renewable fossil
 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636
and nuclear energy sources, and the renewable hydropower energy
source. We select these categories because Argentine electricity
mix is largely composed of fossil fuels (61%), followed by hydro-
power (35.5%) and nuclear energy (3.5%) [39].
5. Case studies
5.1. Illustrative examples
Both the optimization model and the LCA are illustratively
applied to cities of different sizes, to evaluate the economies of
scale of the waste treatment alternatives. The daily generation of
municipal solid waste (QMSW) and sewage sludge (QSS) are assumed
to be proportional to the size of the city. On average, the generation
of MSW per capita in Argentina is about 1 kg per day, and the
composition of the MSW is categorized as 50% organic (Qof), 38%
recyclable (QR), and 12% others, non-recyclable (QOT) [33].
In turn, the average sewage sludge production varies signifi-
cantly depending on the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
being used. In our model, the average sewage sludge production
from WWTP per inhabitant per day is set at 60 g (dry matter),
considering a conventional activated sludge process [40]. Table 1
shows all the sizes of cities accounted for in this work and the
corresponding average production of waste, proportional to the
number of inhabitants.
The substrate characterization (dry matter content and volatile
solids) and the mesophilic kinetic constants of the co-substrate
mixing ratios are obtained from Nielfa et al. [19], as presented in
Table 2. The thermophilic constants are estimated from Kim et al.
[41], and are also shown in Table 2. We assume a dry matter content
of 8% in the AD total inflow, with a pH value of 6.8 [19].
The mixed-integer nonlinear formulation proposed in Section 3
is applied to every example, coded in GAMS 24.6.1 and solved on an
Intel X5650e2.66 GHz processor with 24 GB RAM. We use BARON
15.9 solver, which is able to guarantee the global optimality of the
solutions found. Three different scenarios are evaluated for the five
population sizes:
- Scenario 1.1: Separate treatment. We assume a single plant to
treat MSW and another plant to process SS.
- Scenario 1.2: Integrated treatment. We impose the mixing ratio
that maximizes methane production in the AD (80% OF - 20% SS)
for typical retention times [19].
- Scenario 1.3: Optimal design. We run the full optimization model
allowing for all the possible mixing ratios.
5.2. Real-world case studies
The model has been also applied to aid the redesign of waste
treatment facilities in two Argentine cities. The first case study
resumes the analysis of a small city with 35,000 inhabitants eval-
uated in a previous work [11], showing the benefits from co-
digestion. In the second case study, we address a medium-size
Table 1
Daily production of the main waste generated in urban centers according to the
number of inhabitants.
Nº inhabitants QMSW (ton d¡1) Qof (ton d¡1) QSS (ton d¡1)
50,000 50 25 43
150,000 150 75 129
250,000 250 125 215
500,000 500 250 430
1,000,000 1000 500 860
2631
city (with about 91,600 inhabitants) in the west of the Santa Fe
province, which currently has an advanced system for waste
management [42].
For the small city, we apply our model to compare three
different scenarios:
- Scenario 2.1: Base case. We validate the model by assuming the
current situation where the sewage sludge is sent to anaerobic
digestion and the organic fraction of MSW is directly sent to
landfill, without separation of recyclable waste.
- Scenario 2.2: Joint treatment. We run the model under the
conditions assumed in the original work [11], i.e., the joint
treatment of the organic waste (OFMSW þ sewage sludge) by
co-digestion, under mesophilic regime.
- Scenario 2.3: Optimal design. We run the full optimization
model with the aim of visualizing how the optimal design would
look like for this particular case.
In the second real-world case study, we compare two different
scenarios:
- Scenario 3.1: Base case. We are aimed at resembling the current
operation of the waste treatment system where only 15% of the
organic fraction from MSW is sent to compost and the
remaining is sent to landfill together with non-recyclable waste.
The sewage sludge is sent to anaerobic digestion in a separate
facility, and the digestate is dewatered in a drying bed.
- Scenario 3.2: Optimal design. We run the full optimization
model to assess the potentials of an integrated waste treatment
process.
6. Results and discussion
6.1. Economic analysis
6.1.1. Results from illustrative examples
Table 3 summarizes landfill disposal, composting and digestion
rates in tons per day for every scenario of the illustrative examples.
QL/QC rates show how much waste goes to landfill and composting,
respectively. QD is the feed rate of digesters and QGdb represents
the amount of digestate sent to drying beds, in ton/day. The volume
(VAD, in m3), the corresponding retention time (HRT, in days), and
the number of ADs are also reported in Table 3. It is common to see
more than one digester with the same volume and retention time
in the solutions found. Finally, the NPV for every case is also given in
Table 3, in 106 USD.
As expected, results show that the maximum NPV is found un-
der the unrestricted Scenario 1.3. In the optimal solution several
ADs are built to jointly process all the waste produced, selecting a
mixing ratio equal to the original proportion in which SS and OF are
daily produced (40% OF - 60% SS). The joint treatment of waste
flows increases the profit between 9% (for large cities) and 54% (for
small cities) compared to the separate treatment (see NPV1.3/NPV1.1
in Table 3). It is also observed that feeding the ADs with the original
mixing ratio outperforms the most productive mix (80% OF e 20%
SS) by 11% to 62% (see NPV1.3/NPV1.2 in Table 3). This is so because
the excess of SS that is not sent to ADs needs to be composted
(larger QC in Table 3), yielding lower benefits from energy gener-
ation. Another important result is that ADs are operated under
thermophilic conditions, in all scenarios. The thermophilic regime
is more efficient than the mesophilic in terms of the digester vol-
ume, retention time and CH4 production, and the extra energy
needed to heat the AD is taken from the CHP, without extra heating
costs.
It is interesting to note that there is almost no economy of scale
2632 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636

Table 2
Characterization and digestion kinetic constants of the co-substrates under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions [19,41].

Substrates Mixing ratios %OF-%SS dmm vsm Thermophilic Mesophilic

mi (% weight) g/kg g/kg ki,t (d1) ymi,t (ml/gSV) ki,m (d1) ymi,m (ml/gSV)

SS m1 0/100 69.8 56.9 0.50 212.32 0.36 164.49

OF m2 100/0 467.9 393.5 0.21 249.09 0.19 201.46
Co-digestion 1 m3 80/20 388.3 326.2 0.27 272.78 0.22 220.62
Co-digestion 2 m4 60/40 308.6 258.9 0.28 270.76 0.23 217.52
Co-digestion 3 m5 40/60 229.0 191.5 0.33 264.29 0.27 212.32
Co-digestion 4 m6 20/80 149.4 124.2 0.50 212.32 0.36 164.49

Table 3
Optimal waste treatment designs for different scenarios and population sizes.

Quantities Sizes of cities (in thousands of people)

50 150 250 500 1000

Scenario 1.1 e MSW

QL/QC 6/0 18/0 30/0 60/0 120/0
QD/QGdb 146/44 439/133 731/223 1456/444 2922/891
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 2540/17.7/1 3730/18.1/1 4000/17.7/1 4000/11.3/2 4000/11.2/4 4000/11.1/8
NPV1.1-MSW 6.69 24.91 43.81 90.43 181.53

Scenario 1.1 e SS
QL/QC 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
QD/QGdb 43/13 129/39 215/66 430/131 860/262
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 422/10.0/1 1290/10.2/1 2170/10.3/1 255/11.2/1 4000/10.0/1 464/10.2/1 4000/10.3/2
NPV1.1-SS ¡0.72 2.57 5.92 13.72 30.11

Scenario 1.2 Fixed mixing ratio (80% OF -20% SS)

QL/QC 6/10 18/31 30/51 60/103 120/210.5
QD/QGdb 152/46 455/138 758/231 1517/461 3001/913
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 2550/17.1/1 4000/17.1/1 3670/17.2/1 4000/10.7/2 4000/10.7/4 4000/10.1/7 2260/10.9/1
NPV1.2 5.69 26.60 48.19 101.90 207.16

Scenario 1.3 -Full model

QL/QC 6/0 18/0 30/0 60/0 120/0
QD/QGdb 195/59 584/177 973/295 1947/591 3893/1181
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 2970/15.5/1 4000/13.9/2 4000/12.5/3 4000/10.4/5 4000/10.5/10
NPV1.3 9.24 32.65 56.39 116.23 230.56

NPV1.3/NPV1.2 1.62 1.22 1.17 1.14 1.11

NPV1.3/NPV1.1 1.54 1.18 1.13 1.12 1.09

when the population exceeds 250,000 inhabitants (see the evolu- Table 4
tion of NPV1.3 with the population sizes). However, when the city is Resource usage (CPUs) and number of equations and variables for Scenario 1.3
smaller, it plays a critical role. In fact, the NPV could be significantly Sizes of cities (in thousands of people)
increased if the waste from several small cities was treated in a
50 150 250 500 1000
common facility (despite larger transportation costs should be also
CPU time (seconds) 3.4 4.5 11.5 60.5 3600a
taken into account). Furthermore, the model can be used to select
Single Equations 815 2327 3083 5351 7619
treatment alternatives with sub-optimal NPVs, but requiring lower Single Variables 624 1728 2280 3936 5592
investment costs to adapt to the budget of the cities. For a city with Discrete Variables 50 122 158 266 364
150,000 inhabitants, for instance, the model can be forced to build a a
Optimality gap: 0.60%.
single AD. In that case, the solution suggests to send the remaining
organic waste to compost, adding a composting plant instead of a
drying bed. Given that one of the digesters is not built, total in- processing time. However, for larger cities (1,000,000 inhabitants)
vestment costs are reduced by 6% (- 390,000 USD). To process a under Scenarios 1.2 and 1.3, the optimal solution is not guaranteed
larger amount of waste, the single digester is operated with a low after 3600 seconds due to the growth of the model size derived
retention time (less than 10 days), and the digestate also needs to from a larger number of elements in the set of ADs. In these cases,
be sent to compost. Overall, incomes from energy and fertilizers are the optimality gap after 3600 seconds is 1.67% and 0.60% for Sce-
significantly reduced (190,000 and 160,000 USD/year, respec- narios 1.2 and 1.3, respectively.
tively), operating costs increase (þ340,000 USD/year) and the NPV
deteriorates by 20.6%, from 32.65 to 27.12,106 USD. Note that under
6.1.2. Economic analysis from real-world case studies
Scenario 1.3 variables VAD and HRT are identical for every single
Results from real-world case studies are summarized in Table 5.
digester, meaning that regardless of the size of the city, the optimal
Under Scenario 2.1 the NPV is negative, meaning that in the current
solution tends to equally distribute substrate flows between ADs.
situation the overall waste management process in the small city is
The CPU time and the number of variables and equations for
not profitable. The economic results predicted by our model have
Scenario 1.3 (full model) are reported in Table 4. In terms of the
been confirmed by previous studies [43]. Through Scenario 2.2 we
computational burden, almost all of the problem instances are
are able to validate our results with those reported by Ref. [11]
solved to global optimality (106 gap) in less than 100 seconds of
regarding the optimal size, retention time and economic returns
 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636 2633

Table 5 6.2. Environmental analysis

Optimal waste treatment designs for different scenarios of real-world case studies.

Quantities Small city (35,000 inhabitants) Fig. 2 shows the results of the LCA for each of the scenarios
Scenario 2.1 Scenario 2.2 Scenario 2.3
presented in Table 3, considering the treatment of 1 (one) ton of
organic waste (SS þ OF) as the functional unit. For the sake of
QL/QC 34/0 4.2/0 4.2/0
shortness, we only show the results obtained for one of the cities
QD/QGdb 24/7.4 124/37 124/37
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 360/15 1820/15/1 1870/15.1/1 (250.000 inhabitants) because no appreciable differences are
NPV ¡7.12 4.47 5.03 observed with other sizes. For comparison, the pure landfill waste
Medium-size city (91,600 inhabitants) treatment option is also analyzed. Fig. 2 demonstrates that Scenario
1.3 (40% OF - 60% SS) is also the most environmentally friendly
Scenario 3.1 Scenario 3.2
option. Additionally, the impacts of the landfill alternative are
QL/QC 47/35 12/0 considerably higher in all the categories except for WD. This is
QD/QGdb 86/26 389/118
related to the amount of freshwater (QWd,m,b) consumed to obtain
VAD/HRT/Number of ADs 1290/15.3/1 4000/10.5/1
NPV 2.82 21.13 8% of dry matter content in the ADs under Scenarios 1.1 and 1.2. The
highest impact on the WD category is yielded by the separate
treatment option (Scenario 1.1) because it does not take advantage
of the SS to dilute the OF when mixing.
from the digester. Scenario 2.2 proves that the NPV could be
The extensive use of land to install landfill sites certainly con-
significantly increased if all the organic waste were treated by co-
tributes to the ULO category. The analysis of this category also
digestion instead of sending MSW to landfill. Finally, the solution
shows that the separate treatment (Scenario 1.1) presents a more
obtained by running the full optimization model (Scenario 2.3)
extensive land occupation than the joint treatment (Scenarios 1.2
predicts a 13% increase in the net present value when compared to
and 1.3). Finally, the CED analysis quantifies energy savings when
Scenario 2.2 due to the change in the operating conditions of the
the AD alternatives are compared towards landfilling. The CED
digester, from mesophilic to termophilic regime. An interesting
analysis also reveals, as shown in Fig. 2, that Scenario 1.3 has the
finding is that although the retention time could be lowered under
largest energy savings (1305 MJ eq per ton of organic waste treated)
thermophilic conditions (to a minimum of 10 days), the extra
because all of the residues are used to generate energy. Besides
benefit obtained from the increase in CH4 production outweighs
that, cogeneration has higher CH4 yields than the separate treat-
the investment and operation costs of a larger digester.
ment. Therefore, Scenario 1.3 presents lower emissions in cate-
Similarly, the comparison between Scenarios 3.1 and 3.2 has
gories GWP, TA, FE, POF and PMF yielded by the generation of
aided city authorities to predict the benefits from the joint treat-
renewable energy (avoiding emissions from fossil fuels).
ment of MSW and SS in a common, larger facility. The integrated
From a general standpoint, the results from our model are in line
treatment of all organic wastes can multiply the current economic
with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [44] adopted
results by a factor of 7.5 (þ18.3 106 USD), which largely outweighs
by all United Nations Member States in 2015, which promotes 17
the investments required to process all wastes in a common site.
sustainable development goals as an urgent call for action. In
Another interesting finding of the optimization model is that it
accordance with these goals, many insights from this contribution
would not be justified to build a second digester. Due to economies
may help decision-makers to promote the development of afford-
of scale, it is suggested to build a single digester with the maximum
able and renewable energy, combat climate change, and make cities
volume (4000 m3) and reduce the retention time to almost 10 days,
more inclusive, safer and more resilient.
instead of producing more CH4 by adding a second digester with a
smaller size.

Fig. 2. Comparison of the impacts of the different scenarios for the treatment of 1 (one) ton of organic waste. Abbreviations: GWP, Global Warming Potential; TA, Terrestrial
Acidification; FE, Freshwater Eutrophication; HT, Human Toxicity; POF, Photochemical Oxidant Formation; PMF, Particulate Matter Formation; ULO, Urban Land Occupation; WD,
Water Depletion; CED, Cumulative Energy Demand.
2634 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636

7. Conclusions Parameters
brtd minimum retention time for biological degradation of
We have developed a Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming contaminants
(MINLP) formulation to find the optimal process design for inte- cLAND cost of the land
grated urban waste treatment. Results permit to quantify advan- dmc dry matter content after centrifugation
tages of anaerobic digestion when compared to landfilling and dmD dry matter content for the AD inflows
composting. In addition, the economic analysis both from illustra- dmdb dry matter content after drying bed
tive and real-world cases suggests that digesters should operate at dmm dry matter content of every mixing ratio m
thermophilic conditions, being fed with a mixture of municipal km,d first order reaction rate constant at temperature regime
solid waste and sewage sludge in the same proportion in which d, processing the mix m
they are daily produced (40% OF - 60% SS) to maximize profits. r annual discount rate
Regardless of the size of the city, the joint treatment outperforms vsm volatile solids concentration in mix m
separate processing, increasing profits up to 54%, especially for xM volumetric fraction of methane in the biogas
small populations. Interestingly, the optimization of the process xofm mass fractions of in mix m
design suggests different mixing ratios than those known to xssm mass fractions of SS in mix m
maximize methane production and digestion efficiency. Finally, the ymm,d ultimate methane yield per unit of volatile solids in mix
environmental analysis demonstrates that the original mixing ratio m, running the AD under temperature regime d
(40% OF - 60% SS) also yields the lowest environmental impacts in εCH4 higher heating value of methane
all of the LCA categories. To the best of our knowledge, we have rbiogas biogas density in normal conditions
presented the first optimization tool capable of accurately assessing rf substrate density
the economies of scale of municipal waste treatment facilities ac-
counting for the co-digestion of urban solid and sewage sludge
organic waste.
Continuous Variables
Ac total composting area
Acknowledgements
Adb area required by the drying bed
CC capital cost of composting
The authors acknowledge the financial support received from
Ccf: capital cost of centrifuge
the Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Consejo Nacional de Inves-
Cdb capital cost of drying bed

cnicas (CONICET) and Fundacio
tigaciones Científicas y Te
n YPF
CDd,m,b: capital cost of AD b, running under temperature regime
(FYPF).
d, processing the mix m
CHPed,m,b: electricity generated by AD b, running under
Appendix A. Supplementary Material temperature regime d, processing the mix m
CHPtd,m,b: heat generated by AD b, running under temperature
Supplementary material for this article can be found online at regime d, processing the mix m
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.085. CL capital cost of landfill sites
Cs capital cost of the separation plant
HRTd,m,b hydraulic retention time in the AD b, running under
Nomenclature temperature regime d, processing the mix m
IC income from selling compost as organic fertilizer
Idb income from selling dried digestate as organic fertilizer
IDd,m,b income from selling the electricity and the CERs
Abbreviations
generated by AD b, running under temperature regime
AD anaerobic digestion/digester
d, processing the mix m
CED cumulative energy demand
IS income from selling recyclable materials
CER certified emission reductions
NPV net present value
CHP combined heat and power
OC operating costs of composting
FE freshwater eutrophication
Ocf operating costs of centrifuging
GWP global warming potential
Odb operating costs of the drying bed
HT human toxicity
ODd,m,b operating costs of AD b, running under temperature
LCA life-cycle assessment
regime d, processing the mix m
MSW municipal solid waste
OL operating costs of landfill sites
OF organic fraction of municipal solid waste
Os operating costs of the separation plant
PMF particulate matter formation
QCdb mass flow-rate of dried digestate
POF photochemical oxidant formation
QCof mass flow-rate of sent to the composting plant
SS sewage sludge
QCOMP mass flow-rate of compost
TA terrestrial acidification
QCSS mass flow-rate of SS sent to the composting plant
ULO urban land occupation
QDd,m,b total inflow sent to AD b, running under temperature
WD water depletion
regime d, processing the mix m
QDofd,m,b mass flow-rate of sent to AD b, running under
Sets temperature regime d, processing the mix m
b2B anaerobic digesters QDssd,m,b mass flow-rate of SS sent to AD b, running under
d2D temperature regime of AD temperature regime d, processing the mix m
m2D waste mixing ratios QGd,m,b mass flow-rate of digestate produced in AD b, running
t2T annual periods of the time horizon under temperature regime d, processing the mix m
 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636
QGcd,m,b mass flow-rate of centrifuged digestate produced in AD
b, running under temperature regime d, processing the
mix m, sent to the composting plant
QGdbd,m,b mass flow-rate of centrifuged digestate produced in AD
b, running under temperature regime d, processing the
mix m, sent to drying bed
QLof mass flow-rate of sent to landfill
QLSS mass flow-rate of SS sent to landfill
QMd,m,b volumetric flow-rate of methane yielded by AD b,
running under temperature regime d, processing the
mix m
QMSW mass flow-rate of municipal solid waste
Qof mass flow-rate of from municipal solid waste
QOT mass flow-rate of non-recyclable waste
QR mass flow-rate of recyclable materials
QSS mass flow-rate of SS
QWd,m,b mass flow-rate of fresh water sent to AD b, running
under temperature regime d, processing the mix m
QWG water fraction of the digestate after centrifugation
Vd,m,b volume of every single AD b, running under
temperature regime d, processing the mix m
Binary Variables
wd,m,b binary variable determining if the digester b should be
installed, running under temperature regime d,
processing the mix m
xlsd,m,b/xlid,m,b decision variables determining if the minimum
retention time is or is not accomplished in the
digester b, running under regime d, processing the
mix m
References
[1] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers, No. 15, World
Bank, 2012.
[2] European Communities, Handbook on the Implementation of EC Environ-
mental Legislation, Regional Environmental Center, Umweltbundesamt
GmbH, 2008.
[3] P.T. Espinoza, E.M. Arce, D. Daza, M. Soulier Faure and H. Terraza, Regional
Evaluation on Urban Solid Waste Management in Latin America and the
Caribbean : 2010 Report. AIDIS -001/2011.
[4] U.S. EPA, Biosolids technology fact sheet. Use of composting for biosolids
management, accessed 15.09.18, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/
P10053DF.PDF?Dockey¼P10053DF.PDF September 2002, EPA/832-F-02-024.
[5] J.M. Ferna
ndez-Gonza
lez, A.L. Grindlay, F. Serrano-Bernardo, M.I. Rodríguez-
Rojas, M. Zamorano, Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy
systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small mu-
nicipalities, Waste Manag. 67 (2017) 360e374.
[6] Law 1854/2005. Gestio
n Integral de Residuos So
lidos Urbanos. Legislatura de
la Ciudad Auto
noma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
[7] S.T. Tan, W.S. Ho, H. Hashim, C.T. Lee, M.R. Taib, C.H. Ho, Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for munic-
ipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia, Energy Convers. Manag. 102
(2015) 111e120.
[8] D. Panepinto, G.A. Blengini, G. Genon, Economic and environmental compar-
ison between two scenarios of waste management: MBT vs thermal treat-
ment, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 97 (2015) 16e23.
[9] M. Cuberos Balda, T. Furubayashi, T. Nakata, Integration of WTE technologies
into the electrical system for low-carbon growth in Venezuela, Renew. Energy
86 (2016) 1247e1255.
[10] R. Cremiato, M.L. Mastellone, C. Tagliaferri, L. Zaccariello, P. Lettieri, Envi-
ronmental impact of municipal solid waste management using Life Cycle
Assessment: the effect of anaerobic digestion, materials recovery and sec-
ondary fuels production, Renew. Energy 124 (2018) 180e188.
[11] B. Morero, R. Vicentin, E.A. Campanella, Assessment of biogas production in
Argentina from co-digestion of sludge and municipal solid waste, Waste
Manag. 61 (2017) 195e205.
[12] M. Poeschl, S. Ward, P. Owende, Environmental impacts of biogas deployment
- Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization path-
ways, J. Clean. Prod. 24 (2012) 184e201.
[13] J.W. De Vries, T.M.W.J. Vinken, L. Hamelin, I.J.M. De Boer, Comparing envi-
ronmental consequences of anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of pig manure
to produce bio-energy - a life cycle perspective, Bioresour. Technol. 125
(2012) 239e248.
2635
[14] I. Rodriguez-Verde, L. Regueiro, M. Carballa, A. Hospido, J.M. Lema, Assessing
anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with agroindustrial wastes: the link
between environmental impacts and operational parameters, Sci. Total En-
viron. 497e498 (2014) 475e483.
[15] L. Lijo
, S. Gonza
lez-García, J. Bacenetti, M. Negri, M. Fiala, G. Feijoo,
M.T. Moreira, Environmental assessment of farm-scaled anaerobic co-
digestion for bioenergy production, Waste Manag. 41 (2015) 50e59.
[16] W. Luo, J. Wang, X. Liu, H. Li, H. Pan, Q. Gu, X. Yu, A facile and efficient pre-
treatment of corncob for bioproduction of butanol, Bioresour. Technol. 140
(2013) 86e89.
[17] J. Lauwers, L. Appels, I.P. Thompson, J. Degre ve, J.F. Van Impe, R. Dewil,
Mathematical modelling of anaerobic digestion of biomass and waste: power
and limitations, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 39 (2013) 383e402.
[18] J. Alvarez, L. Otero, J.M. Lema, A methodology for optimising feed composition
for anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes, Bioresour. Technol. 101
(2010) 1153e1158.
[19] A. Nielfa, R. Cano, M. Fdz-Polanco, Theoretical methane production generated
by the co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological
sludge, Biotechnol. Rep. 5 (2015) 14e21.
[20] C. Aceves-Lara, E. Aguilar-Garnica, V. Alcaraz-Gonzalez, O. Gonzalez-Reynoso,
J. Steyer, J. Dominguez-Beltran, V. Gonza


lez-Alvarez, Kinetic parameters
estimation in an anaerobic digestion process using successive quadratic
programming, Water Sci. Technol. 52 (2005) 419e426.
[21] R. Drobez, Z. Novak Pintaric, B. Pahor, Z. Kravanja, MINLP synthesis of pro-
cesses for the production of biogas from organic and animal waste, Chem.
Biochem. Eng. 23 (2009) 445e459.
[22] J.D. Nixon, Designing and optimising anaerobic digestion systems: a multi-
objective non-linear goal programming approach, Energy 114 (2016)
814e822.
[23] A. Schnürer, A. Jarvis, Microbiological Handbook for Biogas Plants, Swedish
Waste Management U2009:03, Swedish Gas Centre Report, 2009.
[24] B. Linke, Kinetic study of thermophilic anaerobic digestion of solid wastes
from potato processing, Biomass Bioenergy 30 (2006) 892e896.
[25] G.P. McCormick, Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex
programs e Part Ie Convex underestimating problems, Math. Program. 10
(1976) 147e175.
[26] A. Wellinger, J. Murphy, D. Baxter, Biogas handbook: science, production and
application, in: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, Woodhead Publishing,
2013.
[27] T. Forster-Carneiro, M. Perez, L.I. Romero, Influence of total solid and inoc-
ulum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste,
Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 6994e7002.
[28] R. Cano, A. Nielfa, M. Fdz-Polanco, Thermal hydrolysis integration in the
anaerobic digestion process of different solid wastes: energy and economic
feasibility study, Bioresour. Technol. 168 (2014) 14e22.
[29] G. Willeghems, J. Buysse, Changing old habits: the case of feeding patterns in
anaerobic digesters, Renew. Energy 92 (2016) 212e222.
[30] D.C. Cafaro, I.E. Grossmann, Alternate approximation of concave cost functions
for process design and supply chain optimization problems, Comput. Chem.
Eng. 60 (2014) 376e380.
[31] U.S. EPA, Handbook: Estimating Sludge Management Costs, 1984 accessed
17.09.18, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30004B0L.PDF?
Dockey¼30004B0L.PDF, EPA/625/6-85/010.
[32] SAyDS (Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable), Estrategia Nacional
para la gestio
n Integral de Residuos So
lidos Urbanos, Ministerio de Salud y
Ambiente, Argentina, 2005.
[33] ONGIRSU, Observatorio Nacional para la Gestio
n Integral de Residuos So
lidos
Urbanos, Datos estadísticos sobre generacio
n de residuos en municipios, 2016
accessed 17.09.18, http://observatoriorsu.ambiente.gob.ar/estadisticas.htm.
[34] ISO 14040, Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e Principles
and Framework, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva,
Switzerland, 2006.
[35] B.P. Weidema, Ch Bauer, R. Hischier, Ch Mutel, T. Nemecek, J. Reinhard,
C.O. Vadenbo, G. Wernet, The Ecoinvent Database: Overview and Methodol-
ogy, Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database, 2013. Version 3,
www.ecoinvent.org. accessed 17.09.18.
[36] Pre
Consultants, Pre
Consultants SimaPro 8.0.5.13 Software, Amersfoort, The
Netherlands, 2015.
[37] M. Goedkoop, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver, J. Struijs, R. Van
Zelm,, ReCiPe 2008, A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises
Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level.
Report I: Characterisation, First ed., 2009.
[38] R. Hischier, B. Weidema, H.-J. Althaus, C. Bauer, G. Doka, R. Dones,
R. Frischknecht, S. Hellweg, S. Humbert, N. Jungbluth, T. Ko €llner, Y. Loerincik,
M. Margni, T. Nemecek, Ecoinvent Report No. 3, v2.2, in: Implementation of
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf, 2010.
[39] SEN (Secretaría de Energía República Argentina), Informe estadístico del
sector ele
ctrico, 2015 accessed 17.09.18, http://datos.minem.gob.ar/dataset/
informe-estadistico.
[40] A. Kelessidis, A.S. Stasinakis, Comparative study of the methods used for
treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries, Waste
Manag. 32 (2012) 1186e1195.
[41] H.-W. Kim, S.-K. Han, H.-S. Shin, The optimisation of food waste addition as a
cosubstrate in anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge, Waste Manag. Res. 21
2636 B. Morero et al. / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2626e2636

(2003) 515e526.
todo de mecanismo

[42] Municipalidad de Rafaela, Programa rafaela þ sustentable, accessed 28.05.19,
http://rafaela-sustentable.com.ar/sitio/educacion-y-comunicacion-ambiental.
html.
[43] M.J. Ugalde, Recuperacio
n de metano generado en la planta depuradora de
líquidos cloacales de la ciudad de Casilda utilizando el me
de desarrollo limpio. Tesis de Maestría, Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios, 2013.
[44] Transforming our World, The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
2015. A/RES/70/1, United Nations.